I'm against preparing saving throw spells

[Aaedimus]

So, I've noticed a few things in the last few years. Saving throw spells usually suck lol
It's not because of the spell effect at all, but it's because of the fact that DMs tend to fllub their rolls in crucial moments.

If you're a DM, and you've got some story stuff going on, and a person is going to mess up your plans with a spell you didn't think about, I've found that for many DMs the concept of just faking a roll success is just too tempting. For example, I played a campaign as a divination wizard which even when using my portent not one important save was ever failed. I think this takes the fun out of the game, because you feel as if you just wasted your turn and your time planning and hoping, and it makes you feel useless next to the damage dealing sharpshooter. Similarly, most BBG's either have so many legendary resitstances or the DM gives them saving throws that are so high that the spells even when used fairly have a fairly low chance of success.

I was always a fan of Treatmonk, and agree allot about the power of a control wizard vs a damage wizard, however I think many of his choices are based on fair DMs in clutch situations.

My fix for this is to avoid preparing saving throw spells alltogether with the exception of mass crowd control spells which generally tend to be treated differently by the DM. Use spells that have effects that might be less potent, but will DEFINITELY happen, or ones that can't be flubbed. Haste, Aid, fog cloud, detect thoughts, silence, counterspell, rope trick, spike growth, fly, casseous form, walls, conjuration spells, teleports, illusions that don't provide saving throws all are more reliable. and therefor are much more useful, as when you're in a bind you want to know that your turn isn't going to be stolen from you.

Of course, I'm exagerating a bit and do use save spells sometimes, but in general I've found that avoiding them makes for funner play as well as a more effective spell slinger.

Opinions?

[Pex]

My solution is play with a DM who doesn't hate his players and wanting to win D&D.

[DarkKnightJin]

My solution is play with a DM who doesn't hate his players and wanting to win D&D.

Seconded. This isn't a problem with spells that use Saving Throws. This is a problem with a DM that wants to 'win' against the party.
I ran a BBEG that had the infamous Darkness + Devil's Sight combo. The party hit him less often, and they couldn't deal enough damage in 1 go to make the DC more than 10. I rolled Concentration checks for him every time, but I just never rolled low enough to drop concentration.
They still killed him dead, it just took longer.

I'm also vehemently against adversarial DMing. I hope that my players will tell me if I'm straying in that direction by accident, so I can adjust my course.
DnD is supposed to be fun for everybody at the table. As DM, you can throw everything at the party to kill them if you want. The fun is in making things challenging, but not un-fun.

[FrancisBean]

My solution is play with a DM who doesn't hate his players and wanting to win D&D.

That isn't always the reason -- certainly it never is at my tables. It's more likely to come up on grounds of narrative. The OP even mentioned this explicitly:


If you're a DM, and you've got some story stuff going on, and a person is going to mess up your plans with a spell you didn't think about, I've found that for many DMs the concept of just faking a roll success is just too tempting.

I've had it come up as a DM, where that unbelievable, spectacular 1-in-a-million shot took down the guy I'd planned as a recurring villain. Mind you, I've normally gone along with it. When I'm a DM, that's part of my job: my plot needs to adjust to the party actions, not the other way around. But it's definitely frustrating to see weeks of careful plot design go down the drain over a few clattering dice. On the rare occasion when it's campaign-destroying, I make it explicit and say so. It's only happened once, and the player took it in good grace, particularly after I acknowledged her genius-grade creativity and promised some later rewards for letting it go. :smallwink: But that's a case of my failure as a DM, and a good group of players who can go along with helping me to fix it. Ain't none of us perfect.

Not all DMs do that. This is why I won't play an Assassin Rogue anymore... I've had too many of these exact experiences, where a DM can't let a major villain get defeated in the first round no matter how carefully we plan and scheme to set it up.

[Corran]

So, I've noticed a few things in the last few years. Saving throw spells usually suck lol
It's not because of the spell effect at all, but it's because of the fact that DMs tend to fllub their rolls in crucial moments.

HP, AC and saving throws suck as well. Who needs defenses on their character when I've got plot armor?
Also, rogues are broken when you cheat at dice, so we banned them.

If you are looking for validation, you wont get it from me. If you are a player and that's a disguised cry for help, my advice is to do away with the DM's screen. The game is more beautiful when it is not (obviously) rigged.

Edit:

This is why I won't play an Assassin Rogue anymore... I've had too many of these exact experiences, where a DM can't let a major villain get defeated in the first round no matter how carefully we plan and scheme to set it up.
This is extremely accurate. I always thought of assassinate to be much much more of a plot tool than just a combat feature.

[Ironheart]

Just as much as confronting the villain should be a risk of some sort for the party, the villain should remember that the party is dangerous and confrontations are risky. Any villain who approaches a wizard with Hold Person and three very aggressive slashers with the thought that he has nothing to risk when approaching the party should be RPed as very, VERY surprised.

[Tawmis]

If you're a DM, and you've got some story stuff going on, and a person is going to mess up your plans with a spell you didn't think about, I've found that for many DMs the concept of just faking a roll success is just too tempting.


That's interesting. I do roll behind my DM screen, but if the creature does succeed, I usually take the D20 as it is - and set it in front o the screen so my players know I am not fudging the numbers in my favor. I, for example, had a custom Undead Black Dragon (won't go into the long story), but it wasn't at full power because it had just been resurrected in its current state of undead (intentionally so because the party were all level 5 - granted 7 players...) But it had 3 attacks, that had a good chance to hit, and did some damage (which was good for the challenge - because of having 7 players, two of which were up front tanks - a fighter and barbarian - and plus a ranger - a wizard - a bard - a cleric and a rogue).

This thing had 260 hit points. So I was planning for a good, long fight that should be a good challenge. First few rounds, things are going great - the party is freaked out, but they're doing damage (the dragon fear failed on everyone but the rogue), and the dragon's doing damage to them.

The cleric had tried some kind of divination attack against undead, and the Dragon saved each time - and I showed the rolls (which were like 16, 16, and 19).

Then the Wizard casts Slow on the Dragon. If I fail, those three attacks are reduced to one. Still a challenge, but certainly tampers the danger level. I rolled. Failed. Rolled a 3. No amount of bonuses were going to pass. So now this dragon went from 3 attacks to 1 every round. Each round - four rounds of this - I tried to save, and could not roll higher than a 9. As a result, they were able to take down the dragon.

An interesting opposition to your problem is, as a DM I always try to read my players. The bard in the group (they're all BRAND new to D&D - we've done like 10 sessions now) is often feeling overshadowed (she can't match the damage of the fighter, barbarian, ranger, or rogue; her songs don't heal as much as the cleric; and none of her spells hit as hard as the wizard) - so as such I focus on things in town for her to do (High CHR, so she's the shining star). But I've fudged in FAVOR of the bard's spells sometimes (saying I failed a save when she casts), because to me, my job as a DM is to weave an adventure for them to shape; but I also need to make sure everyone is having fun at my table - even if it's at the cost of my monsters or "plans" - because if they're not having fun, I am failing.

[Cybren]

That isn't always the reason -- certainly it never is at my tables. It's more likely to come up on grounds of narrative. The OP even mentioned this explicitly:



I've had it come up as a DM, where that unbelievable, spectacular 1-in-a-million shot took down the guy I'd planned as a recurring villain. Mind you, I've normally gone along with it. When I'm a DM, that's part of my job: my plot needs to adjust to the party actions, not the other way around. But it's definitely frustrating to see weeks of careful plot design go down the drain over a few clattering dice. On the rare occasion when it's campaign-destroying, I make it explicit and say so. It's only happened once, and the player took it in good grace, particularly after I acknowledged her genius-grade creativity and promised some later rewards for letting it go. :smallwink: But that's a case of my failure as a DM, and a good group of players who can go along with helping me to fix it. Ain't none of us perfect.

Not all DMs do that. This is why I won't play an Assassin Rogue anymore... I've had too many of these exact experiences, where a DM can't let a major villain get defeated in the first round no matter how carefully we plan and scheme to set it up.

Alternatively you give it to the players and don’t hold it against them when they use their abilities in perfectly rules-legal ways to defeat their enemies. The failure you had as a DM was intending a particular narrative arc rather than allowing your players to determine one via their actions.

[MoiMagnus]

My Opinion from my DMed campaign:

I don't like "save or die/stun". They are reasonably interesting for infiltration, but they tend to make fight boring (whatever is the side using them).

Solo battles just don't work for those kind of reasons. (Which is sad, because I like them from a narrative point of view). So I ended up shifting my playstyle so that when I want a difficult encounter, it isn't difficult because of a single creature.

(Like adding 2 wizards with counterspell ready to protect their master, or having just multiple strong creatures)

This does probably make single-target saving-throw spell rarely worth their slot, though.

[Corran]

I don't like "save or die/stun". They are reasonably interesting for infiltration, but they tend to make fight boring (whatever is the side using them).

Save or suck spells are essentially high risk high-ish reward. Good when you are on the losing side of a fight and you need all the luck you can extort if you are to stand a chance of winning it. That means, that usually these spells are extremely potent in the hands of the enemies that the PC's are facing. Now, TPK's are a lot of things (:smallfurious:), but they are certainly not boring...

[MoiMagnus]

Save or suck spells are essentially high risk high-ish reward. Good when you are on the losing side of a fight and you need all the luck you can extort if you are to stand a chance of winning it. That means, that usually these spells are extremely potent in the hands of the enemies that the PC's are facing. Now, TPK's are a lot of things (:smallfurious:), but they are certainly not boring...

My players tend to have enough tools to avoid TPK's (and one of them was limit paranoiac, so I'm not sure I could have killed him during the campaign except with a enemy specifically designed to do so, or insane bad luck). So save or "suck for a long time" on a player is essentially saying to them "well, now, you're a spectators for the remaining of the fight", which does not exactly increase interest in the fight. Since long fight and fight the PCs have difficulty to win are quite correlated, it makes things worse.

I've tried to build feeling of urgency and "we can lose if things got wrong" by using plot devices like "this group of enemy is making a complex ritual during the fight, you feel the energy growing, you don't know what it does, you don't know how many time you have to put and end to it, but most likely half a minute" instead of a magic-user with save-or-suck spells. Those fight were the most interesting ones of the campaign.

Save of "suck for one turn" are fine though, they can even increase the dramatic tension as the PCs/NPCs plans fall apart.

[Mitsu]

DMs like that are lazy and immature. Just don't play with them. I also always ask new DMs to not roll behind their screen for couple of sessions, so that we all see that everyone play fair and square (sure, later anyone can cheat but at least it builds some trust).

I have simple solutions for my "bad guys" that I don't want to lose to one lucky spell (or unlucky save). I simply give them magic item that makes them immune to paralyze/charm etc. or give them a caster as henchman that casts spell like that on him in first turn. Of course party will aquire that item after this guy is killed, but that is ok, D&D is about looting magic items too.

I met few DMs who were frustrated when their Ancient X Dragon who was suppose to give us epic fight - died after 3 turns, so they kept increasing their HP. I stopped playing with him, because in my book that was cheating because he couldn't handle the fact that fight didn't turn out as he wanted. Well, it happens all the time when you DM and you have to accept that.

I can't count how many times as DM my encounter that was supposed to be light turned out deadly due to some bad dice rolls and players decisions and encounters that were supposed to be hard and epic ended in 2 turns when players came out with super plan or just Nova enemy to oblivion.

It's reality of being DM.

[Crucius]

I have simple solutions for my "bad guys" that I don't want to lose to one lucky spell (or unlucky save). I simply give them magic item that makes them immune to paralyze/charm etc. or give them a caster as henchman that casts spell like that on him in first turn. Of course party will aquire that item after this guy is killed, but that is ok, D&D is about looting magic items too.

Is that really any different from fudging a roll? Looking at the player's character sheets and giving the boss immunities to whatever they can dish out in terms of CC? Sure this way you can hide behind the design of the monster/magic item but the outcome is the same.

[Mitsu]

Is that really any different from fudging a roll? Looking at the player's character sheets and giving the boss immunities to whatever they can dish out in terms of CC? Sure this way you can hide behind the design of the monster/magic item but the outcome is the same.

It's different because it's planned ahead. Also players may get some plot tips before encounter about enemy, that may give them clue that he has protection like that. It's also different as it's serve the narrative, not "on a go I will cheat roll cause I didn't think of that" and it also rewards players with such item for example.

Also such tactic is reserved for enemies that needs such protection to move plot forward.

Legendary enemies already have Legendary resistances so system already gives DM a way of cheating encounter with them by auto-success, however it has it's purpose.

I am not against countering some of players tactics, but do it ahead while also giving them something in return (magic item) instead of in a heat of moment because you are frustrated.

That's how I see it.

[Sigreid]

That isn't always the reason -- certainly it never is at my tables. It's more likely to come up on grounds of narrative. The OP even mentioned this explicitly:

.

I personally despise a DM rigging the game for his narrative. Makes it feel like what the party does doesn't really matter. Takes the game out of the game for me.

[darknite]

DM bias aside, magic in 5e is definitely weaker sauce than in older additions. With the exception of a small number of spells, damage output is sub-par and save-every-turn means a good spell fizzles in under half its' duration in most cases (assuming the caster can maintain concentration...). Buff spells or spells without saves are the way to go in 5e, IMHO.

[Mitsu]

DM bias aside, magic in 5e is definitely weaker sauce than in older additions. With the exception of a small number of spells, damage output is sub-par and save-every-turn means a good spell fizzles in under half its' duration in most cases (assuming the caster can maintain concentration...). Buff spells or spells without saves are the way to go in 5e, IMHO.

I on the other hand like it. Magic has it's own bonuses- it's ranged, it's AOE, it can CC hard multiple enemies and has tons of utility. It's good it doesn't also have same damage potential like in previous edition and gone are "Save or Die" necromancy spells that were unfun for both sides at table.

I like that now Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians or Rogues can dish out huge amounts of damage as opposed to utility-packed casters.

Though there are still some stupid combos for magic like Force Cage into Sickening Radiance, Reverse Gravity into Prismatic Wall, Wish-Sim cheese or Fireball power on level 5-10.

But I feel like never magic has been more balanced vs mundane then in 5e.

[Kintar]

I completely agree with op. I always roll in the open for everything I DM. I put my dice tray out there and just give it a toss. Saving throws, attacks damage, all of it. I gave my players notice before we started that my game could be deadly because by doing this, I could not flub anything, even for their benefit. They love it.

[zinycor]

The problem is that you have a horrible GM no mechanics will help you there

[darknite]

I on the other hand like it. ..

FWIW, I didn't say I didn't like 5e magic, just that it's weaker than previous editions and more conducive to support functions over firepower.

[stoutstien]

The problem is that you have a horrible GM no mechanics will help you there
I don't know if horrible is fair. Lack of experience is more likely. The DMs I've seen that alter roll results are usually doing so with good intentions.
I'm not defending the act of changing rolls. It's a bad practice that usually ends badly for all envoled but for newer DMs it looks like an easy way to nudge encounter difficulty up or down or as some have mentioned, save the BBEG to live to fight another day.
I've brought this up a few times and this is another case in which the total lack of support for newer DM is apparent. The DMG should cover ways for DMs to increase challenge and urgency without reverting to suddenly scribbling that the boss has immunity to stun or whatever.
It's easy to say that the DM is doing it wrong but a lot harder to suggest valid alternative options

[Tawmis]

DM bias aside, magic in 5e is definitely weaker sauce than in older additions. With the exception of a small number of spells, damage output is sub-par and save-every-turn means a good spell fizzles in under half its' duration in most cases (assuming the caster can maintain concentration...). Buff spells or spells without saves are the way to go in 5e, IMHO.

But then it works the other way too...
So I get, you cast your big spell at the big bad guy... He fails the first time. Second round, he saves. Damn.
But imagine if big bad guy cast the same spell back at the party and there was no "save per round" type thing... that could mean a character is potentially blinded for 10 rounds of combat (or whatever, just as an example) and pretty much... out of the fight.

So while it gives monsters a chance to save, it also gives the players a chance to save, and keep them in the game.

[darknite]

But then it works the other way too...
So I get, you cast your big spell at the big bad guy... He fails the first time. Second round, he saves. Damn.
But imagine if big bad guy cast the same spell back at the party and there was no "save per round" type thing... that could mean a character is potentially blinded for 10 rounds of combat (or whatever, just as an example) and pretty much... out of the fight.

So while it gives monsters a chance to save, it also gives the players a chance to save, and keep them in the game.

But as a player I have no problem with that. Perhaps the wizard has to cast dispel magic? Or perhaps, yes, the PC is blind for the whole minute. Yep, that sucks. Welcome to D&D.

[Pex]

But as a player I have no problem with that. Perhaps the wizard has to cast dispel magic? Or perhaps, yes, the PC is blind for the whole minute. Yep, that sucks. Welcome to D&D.

Or worse paralyzed, so the player sits there not playing for the real world hour it takes to play the combat. That is the reason save or suck spells allow for saving throws every round. It gives the chance of getting back into the game. The save happens at the end of the victim's turn. That's also for the player's benefit because even if the monster makes its save it still lost a turn which is a big deal.

[Warlush]

I had a DM like that for years. We had a cleric who could never land sacred flame against zombies. It was so aggravating that I don't play with him anymore. And when I DM, I dont use a screen. My players see all my rolls. I just think at the end of the day it's a game of chance. Not way for sad wanna-be novelists fan boys to feel like writers.

[Rynjin]

Or worse paralyzed, so the player sits there not playing for the real world hour it takes to play the combat. That is the reason save or suck spells allow for saving throws every round. It gives the chance of getting back into the game. The save happens at the end of the victim's turn. That's also for the player's benefit because even if the monster makes its save it still lost a turn which is a big deal.

And Hold X spells have given a save every round for like 3 editions now, so that's not really a factor.

[darknite]

Or worse paralyzed, so the player sits there not playing for the real world hour it takes to play the combat. That is the reason save or suck spells allow for saving throws every round. It gives the chance of getting back into the game. The save happens at the end of the victim's turn. That's also for the player's benefit because even if the monster makes its save it still lost a turn which is a big deal.

Been there, done that, got the Resurrection. Yeah, it's a PITA but it was part of the game and you got to stick around and kibbutz or help the DM or handle soundtrack DJing. These days no one wants 'their experience' to be interrupted by harsh game conditions. That it waters down the impact of those conditions and therefore the game, is of secondary concern. It doesn't need to be, because D&D should be a dangerous place where your characters (sometimes) die and then you can just roll up a new character.

[JNAProductions]

Been there, done that, got the Resurrection. Yeah, it's a PITA but it was part of the game and you got to stick around and kibbutz or help the DM or handle soundtrack DJing. These days no one wants 'their experience' to be interrupted by harsh game conditions. That it waters down the impact of those conditions and therefore the game, is of secondary concern. It doesn't need to be, because D&D should be a dangerous place where your characters (sometimes) die and then you can just roll up a new character.

The issue isn't death-it's NOT INTERACTING WITH THE GAME FOR AN ENTIRE ENCOUNTER.

I lose a character? Damn, and we don't have the capability of rezzing? Okay, I'll roll a new person up. But I'm back in the game as soon as the DM can slot me in, which should be soon, and in the meantime, I can play some of the NPCs or something.

I get Paralyzed and there's no save? Well, I sit there, twiddle my thumbs, and hope they kill the caster soon.

To the OP:

I'll agree with those that say it's bad DMing. Doesn't mean your DM is bad-inexperienced is a strong possibility. Ask them, straight up, if they fudge their rolls, and if they say yes, ask them to not to. See if you can work out a compromise.

If you can't, it might be better to find a new table. But I hope it works out.

[Dr. Cliché]

To those saying that DM's fudging rolls is wrong, what about Legendary Resistance?

It seems nothing short of DM-Fiat built into the actual rules.

[darknite]

The issue isn't death-it's NOT INTERACTING WITH THE GAME FOR AN ENTIRE ENCOUNTER.

I lose a character? Damn, and we don't have the capability of rezzing? Okay, I'll roll a new person up. But I'm back in the game as soon as the DM can slot me in, which should be soon, and in the meantime, I can play some of the NPCs or something.

I get Paralyzed and there's no save? Well, I sit there, twiddle my thumbs, and hope they kill the caster soon.

...

There was a save. The character failed it. Perhaps the wizard or cleric casts Dispel Magic to free you up. Or perhaps the archer disrupts the caster's concentration.

And somehow, if your PC dies, you will get a new character in play before the encounter ends? The same encounter where you're paralyzed? Yeah, you may need to sit and do something other than play for a while, every once in a while. Sort of like sitting on the bench when you hit an easy out pop-fly instead of a homerun in Little League. It's part of the game.

I understand why the current system is attractive but I also criticize it for it's lack of consequence and de-clawing of magic. I took this as the sort of the thread for this sort of criticism.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To those saying that DM's fudging rolls is wrong, what about Legendary Resistance?

It seems nothing short of DM-Fiat built into the actual rules.

That's the entire difference. Because players often have greater action economy than monsters they need help keeping up. At early levels it's not such a problem so monsters don't usually have them but at later levels where players have spells and other similar features that can decimated a monsters it helps to have something built in to keep them able to compete just a bit longer.

You can also be certain that eventually Legendary Resistance will run out, it can be made into a goal of wearing the monster down. A DM who makes a habit of fudging rolls to preserve their expectations of a grandiose battle might resort to that too often. Of course, you could just end up a DM who gives every NPC one or two uses of it from now on, skewing the game balance further in their favor.

CR calculation, although inaccurate, does actually give us some insight on how powerful the developers think a use of Legendary Resistance is.

Each per-day use of this trait increases the monster’s effective hit points based on the expected challenge rating: 1–4, 10 hp; 5–10, 20 hp; 11 or higher, 30 hp.

All that aside, my personal preference is that most dice are rolled open. Unless the players absolutely shouldn't see them (such as an NPC stealth check) I'd rather not leave the opportunity for shenanigans, for my benefit or otherwise.

[Dr. Cliché]

That's the entire difference. Because players often have greater action economy than monsters they need help keeping up.

Irrelevant. The end result is that the monsters get to pass saves they would otherwise have failed.




You can also be certain that eventually Legendary Resistance will run out

Yes, but depending on party composition that can result in the caster not only doing bugger-all for 3 turns but also wasting some of his best spells with no gain.

My point is, whether through legitimate or illegitimate fiat on the DM's part, the effect for the player remains the same.



A DM who makes a habit of fudging rolls to preserve their expectations of a grandiose battle might resort to that too often.

But once again, Legendary Resistance can do the same thing. You can easily have the monster die at the hands of fighters and such before the caster is able to get off even a single spell that's actually allowed to work.

If you oppose a GM fudging rolls then you should also oppose a mechanic that allows them to do the exact same thing just with the veneer of legitimacy.

[stoutstien]

To those saying that DM's fudging rolls is wrong, what about Legendary Resistance?

It seems nothing short of DM-Fiat built into the actual rules.

Agreed. LR are a pain for casters once they become relevant.
Personally I think big baddies just need more turns per round to even out with the party's action economy vs giving them a few auto pass saves to prevent being shut down.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, but depending on party composition that can result in the caster not only doing bugger-all for 3 turns but also wasting some of his best spells with no gain.

My point is, whether through legitimate or illegitimate fiat on the DM's part, the effect for the player remains the same.

Heavily disagree. A DM who fudges the roll and simply declares a success has caused the player to fail. A DM who says "The monster failed but will use Legendary Resistance" has given the player a success in that they've expended a valuable non recoverable resource of the monsters. You've made progress towards killing the monster in the second scenario, in the first all you've done is waste a spell.


If you oppose a GM fudging rolls then you should also oppose a mechanic that allows them to do the exact same thing just with the veneer of legitimacy.
Fudging rolls extends beyond saving throws. You can dislike Legendary Resistance but it's not going to result in a monsters missed attack roll suddenly finding itself become a critical when the monster is getting battered to death.


Agreed. LR are a pain for casters once they become relevant.
Personally I think big baddies just need more turns per round to even out with the party's action economy vs giving them a few auto pass saves to prevent being shut down.
That's when they get Multi Attack, Legendary Actions and eventually Lair Actions. The players will still overcome the challenge more often than not.

[Sigreid]

Irrelevant. The end result is that the monsters get to pass saves they would otherwise have failed.




Yes, but depending on party composition that can result in the caster not only doing bugger-all for 3 turns but also wasting some of his best spells with no gain.

My point is, whether through legitimate or illegitimate fiat on the DM's part, the effect for the player remains the same.




But once again, Legendary Resistance can do the same thing. You can easily have the monster die at the hands of fighters and such before the caster is able to get off even a single spell that's actually allowed to work.

If you oppose a GM fudging rolls then you should also oppose a mechanic that allows them to do the exact same thing just with the veneer of legitimacy.

There's a huge difference. With legendary resistance the player knows it will run out. It becomes a game of trying to get the big bad to wast his LR on lesser abilities. That's very different than just waiting for the DM to get bored with telling you you failed, decide it's narratively time for it to work, or want to give you the win.

[Mitsu]

Irrelevant. The end result is that the monsters get to pass saves they would otherwise have failed.

It's not irrelevant. LR is a build mechanic for very specific, epic enemies in game. They are there to add more of "omph" to them, so that players can at least feel their presence before Feeblemind them, Paralyze-Nova them or Banish them and don't give a dam.

Hence why I understand why LR exist. However:

1. It's limited
2. It's known by both players and DM so when Dragon Succeeds yet another save there is not "wtf.. HOW?!".
3. It's limited to number of enemies that should pose a certain threat to players.

Cheating on rolls otherwise is just insecure DM that tries to "win" game and is not better than infamous "munchkin" who rolls when DM does not see and say "ha! 20! Nice!". It's the same ****.

It's like Player has Ring of Evansion and auto success on DEX save- is that a cheat? No, it's limited game mechanic that both DM and player are aware of.

But rolling sudden 20 when DM does not see roll and saying "yay, nat 20 on Dex save" is cheating, same as DM rolling 1 behind screen and saying "ha, I got 20".

Both are cheating.

[stoutstien]

As a DM I never tell the players when a NPC uses LR. Why would I? They know they have 3(I actually fluctuate between 1-3) uses and they shouldn't suddenly know that they have burned all of them so they can start tossing the big guns. Would you tell your players how much Heath the NPC has left? Or how many spells the lich has left?

The whole theory of multiple turns in the same round isn't about damage output. it's about giving the NPC more opportunities to make saves so they don't get shut down for entire round. Yes some of the attacks and such would have to be rebalanced to keep to total damage the same per round but that isn't hard.

It makes the the fights more fluid and interesting.

[NaughtyTiger]

Irrelevant. The end result is that the monsters get to pass saves they would otherwise have failed.


not much different from divination wizard (weaker cuz its defense only)... no DM would call that cheating


My point is, whether through legitimate or illegitimate fiat on the DM's part, the effect for the player remains the same.

The DM legitimately plays a creature with high AC... How is it different from a player rolling a 17 vs a 4, when she needs to roll a 19 toHit? the effect for the player remains the same.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As a DM I never tell the players when a NPC uses LR. Why would I? They know they have 3(I actually fluctuate between 1-3) uses and they shouldn't suddenly know that they have burned all of them so they can start tossing the big guns. Would you tell your players how much Heath the NPC has left? Or how many spells the lich has left?
Telling them what the monster is doing doesn't give them direct insight on how many Legendary Resistances the monster has, similarly, a Lich casting high level spells doesn't directly tell them how many spells he can cast.

What it does is tell the player that they can't do it forever, you're wearing them down, keep it up. It's positive feedback which is inherently a good thing.

You do make a good point though, you're not required to tell the players and in the event that a DM chooses not to then that might be a sour feeling. That's easy to overcome in that there's also no reason not to tell the players what the monster is doing. I'm a strong advocate for giving the player as much information as I reasonably can. The more I withhold, the less fair they might find it. This is especially valuable in groups where you don't know all of the players all that well, it gives them a reason to believe that you're trying to have a good time with them instead of lord over them as the mighty DM.

[stoutstien]

Telling them what the monster is doing doesn't give them direct insight on how many Legendary Resistances the monster has, similarly, a Lich casting high level spells doesn't directly tell them how many spells he can cast.

What it does is tell the player that they can't do it forever, you're wearing them down, keep it up. It's positive feedback which is inherently a good thing.

You do make a good point though, you're not required to tell the players and in the event that a DM chooses not to then that might be a sour feeling. That's easy to overcome in that there's also no reason not to tell the players what the monster is doing. I'm a strong advocate for giving the player as much information as I reasonably can. The more I withhold, the less fair they might find it. This is especially valuable in groups where you don't know all of the players all that well, it gives them a reason to believe that you're trying to have a good time with them instead of lord over them as the mighty DM.

I agree in giving the players as much information as possible but LR is hard one. It's just a clunky mechanic that is hard to use well. Alas, starting to detail once I have time to formulate a complete thought I'll start a new thread.

[Pex]

The PCs are right there fighting the thing. It's in character to know the monster defended against their attack. If it's legendary it should look legendary, but that delves into house rule flavor text territory. However, that's no different than a DM describing what a critical hit looks like or even a miss on an attack roll. The DM's description helps paint a picture. When a creature uses its legendary save it means the creature originally failed the save, so a legendary description is appropriate to describe how the monster avoids the effect the PC was certain he landed as a solid attack. The monster made its save, but it still helps the player feel the fun in that it was his action that made the monster lose its confidence for a split second because it needed to make an effort to defend itself.

Players learn monster statistics fast. If they miss when roll AC 17 but hit on AC 18 they know the monster's AC, and they are entitled to know that. They are right there fighting the thing. They see how it defends itself and/or what protects it. It's not blasphemy for players to know things about the monsters they face.

[Telok]

On the 'fail a save and sit out the battle' issue, it helps to remember that the editions those spells were made in both expected and encouraged people to have henchmen and hirelings. So having your PC be stunned for six rounds made less difference as you still had a hench or two and any hired hands to run. If you don't play the game as it's made to be played then it's not surprising that some parts may stop working.

Now, if you change the way the game is supposed to play but not the spells then the spells can become a problem. Likewise if you don't clearly communicate how the game is supposed to play then people will play the way they are used to playing other games/editions and that will cause disappointment and confusion.

[Lunali]

Make spell cards. Tell the DM you're casting the spell in your hand and the target needs to make an X save, only reveal the spell after the save to "prevent the NPCs from using knowledge they don't have" when deciding to use their LRs. Use Toll the Dead a lot.

[NaughtyTiger]

Make spell cards. Tell the DM you're casting the spell in your hand and the target needs to make an X save, only reveal the spell after the save to "prevent the NPCs from using knowledge they don't have" when deciding to use their LRs. Use Toll the Dead a lot.


by the time you are making the saving throw, you should already know what the spell it.

adversarial against the DM is one way to run a table...

[Tanarii]

Make spell cards. Tell the DM you're casting the spell in your hand and the target needs to make an X save, only reveal the spell after the save to "prevent the NPCs from using knowledge they don't have" when deciding to use their LRs. Use Toll the Dead a lot.
Which also incidentally solves the counterspell problem.


by the time you are making the saving throw, you should already know what the spell it.Only if the spell has perceivable effects. Even on a failed save the target may never learn what the effects of the spell were until they come up mechanically, and even then they may never put two and two together and realize it was the spell that caused them.

Of course, long before that point the DM/player can have that knowledge, if they can use double-think enough to account for them having it and the in-game character not having it. That's practically a required skill to play RPGs. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it easier when we can, and this is a simple way to do that.

[Lunali]

by the time you are making the saving throw, you should already know what the spell it.

adversarial against the DM is one way to run a table...

If the monster is willing to use their reaction to identify the spell as it's being cast, I'll gladly show them the card. I have yet to encounter a DM that tells me what all saves are for before I roll them, usually it's only obvious things like AoE damage spells that get called ahead of time. It's only fair to have the enemies have the same disadvantage.

[stoutstien]

To add to the spell card system, use coins you can palm to represent spell level also. Makes counter spell fair for all envoled.

[FrancisBean]

Alternatively you give it to the players and don’t hold it against them when they use their abilities in perfectly rules-legal ways to defeat their enemies. The failure you had as a DM was intending a particular narrative arc rather than allowing your players to determine one via their actions.

Alternatively, you could just talk to the players at your table like an adult when you screw something up. And, when they say "yeah, we're OK with fixing it this way," you do that thing. Nowadays I'm more careful with my plot designs so this doesn't happen, but we were all beginners once. I think it's much better when you admit your mistake to your table and figure out how best to move forward.

I think 90% of D&D horror stories could be solved by that simple rule: talk to your table, particularly when you made a mistake, whether player or DM.

[zinycor]

Which also incidentally solves the counterspell problem.

Only if the spell has perceivable effects. Even on a failed save the target may never learn what the effects of the spell were until they come up mechanically, and even then they may never put two and two together and realize it was the spell that caused them.

Of course, long before that point the DM/player can have that knowledge, if they can use double-think enough to account for them having it and the in-game character not having it. That's practically a required skill to play RPGs. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it easier when we can, and this is a simple way to do that.

What do you mean by that? I can't think of any spell, that requires a saving throw, without perceivable effects.

[mephnick]

Trashed an entire character due to this. Threw down like 8 stunning strikes over 2 turns against a caster that had a very important spell effect on concentration (basically what was keeping the fight even). This enemy I knew had a Con save of -1. He passed all his saves and all the damage concentration checks. 16 saves. 8 at less than 50% odds. 8 at like 30% odds.

I don't know what the odds of that happening are, but I know that DM gets competitive, and after that session I trashed the character and made a Barbarian so that I could control the outcome of my rolls. The rest of the campaign felt much better and then I never played with that DM again.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What do you mean by that? I can't think of any spell, that requires a saving throw, without perceivable effects.

Just one example would be Charm Person. If Cast using Subtle Spell there are no perceivable effects and the charmed creature only becomes aware of the fact they've been charmed after the duration ends. There's no reason that the target would know a spell was cast on them if they were to fail their saving throw, except when the duration ends of course. In the event that they succeed the most they know is that something was trying to charm them.

This card flipping idea has me thinking of "Guess Who" and it's kind of funny.

One downside I can think of is in cases that the DM needs to be made aware of extra pieces of information. Charm Person is another fitting example, if you tell your DM that you're casting this spell card (Charm Person) and his NPC needs to make a wisdom save, the DM might be forced to let slip information to the player they hadn't intended, such as the target being a disguised (Half)Elf when they end up rolling a second save after you reveal the spell or asking "is this spell a charm effect?".

Fringe cases like this are probably uncommon but it's worth considering, I like the idea but it needs a bit more work.

[Reynaert]

... 16 saves. 8 at less than 50% odds. 8 at like 30% odds.

I don't know what the odds of that happening are, ...

About one in four million. Even if it's 16 times 50/50, that's about one in a hundred thousand.

[Waazraath]

I'm surprised at the flack fudging rolls gets. It's always been a part of the game, and I don't know if its explicitly in the rules somewhere in this edition, but in older editions, 'the DM can't cheat' was explicitly mentioned. The DM should facilitate fun.

Of course, if your DM sucks and wants to 'win', this is terrible DM'ing.

But if everybody is playing the game as it is supposed to, and wants to have fun, there is no problem with the occasional fudge imo. As long at is done to increase the fun.

As for save or suck spells: they are tremendously downtuned in power since 3.x, so I'd hardly think they should be a reason to fudge a roll. Its more about good encounter design: always have the BBEG have some minions, then 1 role should never depend the outcome.

[zinycor]

I'm surprised at the flack fudging rolls gets. It's always been a part of the game, and I don't know if its explicitly in the rules somewhere in this edition, but in older editions, 'the DM can't cheat' was explicitly mentioned. The DM should facilitate fun.

Of course, if your DM sucks and wants to 'win', this is terrible DM'ing.

But if everybody is playing the game as it is supposed to, and wants to have fun, there is no problem with the occasional fudge imo. As long at is done to increase the fun.

As for save or suck spells: they are tremendously downtuned in power since 3.x, so I'd hardly think they should be a reason to fudge a roll. Its more about good encounter design: always have the BBEG have some minions, then 1 role should never depend the outcome.

Are you ok with players fudging their rolls?

[Waazraath]

Are you ok with players fudging their rolls?

No. You really don't see the difference between player and DM here?

[zinycor]

No. You really don't see the difference between player and DM here?

Absolutely not, the players and the GM by playing a game have agreed to play by the rules that the game defines. Even more, by the existence of the screen, the players have placed trust in the GM that he will use the information that only he knows (the roll on the die) and will share it openly.

If the GM judges his rolls, he, unlike the others, isn't playing by the rules of the game, therefore he is cheating.

Now, if the table agrees that the GM doesn't need to roll, and rolling the dice is only incidental for him, everything is ok. BUT it needs to be clear for everyone at the table that the GM has those special rights, otherwise, is just cheating.

[Waazraath]

Absolutely not, the players and the GM by playing a game have agreed to play by the rules that the game defines. Even more, by the existence of the screen, the players have placed trust in the GM that he will use the information that only he knows (the roll on the die) and will share it openly.

If the GM judges his rolls, he, unlike the others, isn't playing by the rules of the game, therefore he is cheating.

Now, if the table agrees that the GM doesn't need to roll, and rolling the dice is only incidental for him, everything is ok. BUT it needs to be clear for everyone at the table that the GM has those special rights, otherwise, is just cheating.

You seem to interpret the game rather diffently then I am. It's the DM's job to be an arbriter, a narrator, and facilitator that makes sure everybody has fun. The occasional fudged dice roll, when neccesary, has always been part of that.

I'm the first to admit that I haven't read the 5e DMG from cover to cover, but in earlier editions, it was (again) mentioned explicitly that the DM can't cheat.

The DM simply has another role than the other players, and goes by different rules. And no, this is for me exactly one of those things that you DON'T want to make agreements on before the game; players really shouldn't know about this, and shouldn't wonder about this, and should trust the DM to use this power, if at all, wisely. And if a DM, once in every few sessions, reads the table well, and concludes that another outcome would be more fun for everybody, he or she should do so. No 'cheating' involved whatsoever, just doing the job.

This has btw nothing to do with "if the table agrees that the GM doesn't need to roll", don't understand where that's coming from.

[zinycor]

You seem to interpret the game rather diffently then I am. It's the DM's job to be an arbriter, a narrator, and facilitator that makes sure everybody has fun. The occasional fudged dice roll, when neccesary, has always been part of that.

I'm the first to admit that I haven't read the 5e DMG from cover to cover, but in earlier editions, it was (again) mentioned explicitly that the DM can't cheat.

The DM simply has another role than the other players, and goes by different rules. And no, this is for me exactly one of those things that you DON'T want to make agreements on before the game; players really shouldn't know about this, and shouldn't wonder about this, and should trust the DM to use this power, if at all, wisely. And if a DM, once in every few sessions, reads the table well, and concludes that another outcome would be more fun for everybody, he or she should do so. No 'cheating' involved whatsoever, just doing the job.



In my honest opinion, the GM doesn't get to decide on what is fun. Fun is a product of the game, which is relative to every person at the table.

As such, the table agrees to play by certain rules, cause they hope to enjoy their time doing so by their own personal reasons, which may or may not involve fun, and that fun is only their own to decide.

When the GM fudges rolls In the name of "fun" he is saying; "I don't think this result, that by the rules of the game that we have all agreed to play, is fun. So I will purposefully betray everyone's trust and cheat at the game, so the game is more fun according to me" or at that's how I understand the act of fudging, someone saying, "I know better than you all, what is, and isn't enjoyable".



This has btw nothing to do with "if the table agrees that the GM doesn't need to roll", don't understand where that's coming from.
If the GM is going to fudge rolls, Why does he even roll?

[ad_hoc]

The problem isn't the saving throws.

It is the DM.

[Waazraath]

In my honest opinion, the GM doesn't get to decide on what is fun. Fun is a product of the game, which is relative to every person at the table.

True. And at the same time, come on. If I have 4 players who all spend days working on background, drawing pictures of their characters, preparing 20 level builds, I am confident enough to know that they won't consider it fun if they get tpk's in session 2 because of a wandering monster that rolls 3 20's in a row.



As such, the table agrees to play by certain rules, cause they hope to enjoy their time doing so by their own personal reasons, which may or may not involve fun, and that fun is only their own to decide.


Wut? If they don't want to have fun playing D&D, why on eath are they playing D&D :smalleek:



When the GM fudges rolls In the name of "fun" he is saying; "I don't think this result, that by the rules of the game that we have all agreed to play, is fun. So I will purposefully betray everyone's trust and cheat at the game, so the game is more fun according to me" or at that's how I understand the act of fudging, someone saying, "I know better than you all, what is, and isn't enjoyable".

You know, you might watch your language a little bit. I won't loose any sleep on an anonymous guy on the internet thinking me a dirty cheat, especially since I'm running succesful campaigns since the early 90's, and had plenty of praise for my DM'ing, from folks who actually played with me. But your comments about 'betraying' don't come across as nice, tbh.


If the GM is going to fudge rolls, Why does he even roll? This is a fallacy, and making a caricature of the argument.

Consider the following.

1) party is in over its head, about to get tpk'd, at a point irrelevant to the story and in a very non climax encounter.

- DM fudges a few rolls: booooo, CHEATING!
- DM deceides that a few monsters have a less hp than normal, on the fly: eeeh... cheating? The DM deceides the hp, doesn't he, and if he ajusts the xp, it's ok?
- DM deceides that the enemies run away, even if they are most likely to win easily: that's ok, the DM roleplays his own monsters, right?

2) BBEG is about to get killed/incapacitated in round 1 leading to an anticlimax ending.
- DM fudges his saving throw: boooo, CHEATING
- DM deceides the boss has more hp, or an extra legedary save: eeeh... cheating? Even if its xp gets upgraded?
- DM deceides that on the fly re-inforcements arrive, unspotted up to that moment: eh, ok I guess, that's what a DM does, deceiding on the monsters.

And it's all the same. Just like its the same as the already mentioned 'legendary saves', mcguffin items that provide immunity, etc.

The folks who said that 'the DM really can't cheat' gave this a lot more thought than you have, I think.

[zinycor]

True. And at the same time, come on. If I have 4 players who all spend days working on background, drawing pictures of their characters, preparing 20 level builds, I am confident enough to know that they won't consider it fun if they get tpk's in session 2 because of a wandering monster that rolls 3 20's in a row.
If your players hate the idea of their characters dying so much, Why doesn't your table make a rule where PCs don't die unless the player gives his approval? PCs could always get captured, taken prisoner, or whatever.



Wut? If they don't want to have fun playing D&D, why on eath are they playing D&D :smalleek:
I don't have fun while watching a beautiful sunset, or watching a gruesome documentary, or reading book about programming. But I get enjoyment out of those things. As long as they get enjoyment out of the session, everything is all right.



You know, you might watch your language a little bit. I won't loose any sleep on an anonymous guy on the internet thinking me a dirty cheat, especially since I'm running succesful campaigns since the early 90's, and had plenty of praise for my DM'ing, from folks who actually played with me. But your comments about 'betraying' don't come across as nice, tbh.

Didn't call you a cheater, and and I am sorry if I offended you. But cheating IS betraying the players trust, no matter how hard you think that word is.


This is a fallacy, and making a caricature of the argument.

Consider the following.

1) party is in over its head, about to get tpk'd, at a point irrelevant to the story and in a very non climax encounter.

- DM fudges a few rolls: booooo, CHEATING!
- DM deceides that a few monsters have a less hp than normal, on the fly: eeeh... cheating? The DM deceides the hp, doesn't he, and if he ajusts the xp, it's ok?
- DM deceides that the enemies run away, even if they are most likely to win easily: that's ok, the DM roleplays his own monsters, right.
2) BBEG is about to get killed/incapacitated in round 1 leading to an anticlimax ending.
- DM fudges his saving throw: boooo, CHEATING
- DM deceides the boss has more hp, or an extra legedary save: eeeh... cheating? Even if its xp gets upgraded?
- DM deceides that on the fly re-inforcements arrive, unspotted up to that moment: eh, ok I guess, that's what a DM does, deceiding on the monsters.

A few options:
-let the dice fall where they may and see where that leads.
-Ask your players if they are okay with how things are going, and make a house rule if needed.u


And it's all the same. Just like its the same as the already mentioned 'legendary saves', mcguffin items that provide immunity, etc.
The legendary saves are a part of the rules, therefore, not cheating.


The folks who said that 'the DM really can't cheat' gave this a lot more thought than you have, I think.
And regardless of the amount of thought they may or not have given the matter, we are now talking about it, and as far as I know, that line isn't present at the 5e DMG.

...

Having said that, am trying to have a civil conversation, If I have offended you, am sorry, it may be due to English being my second language.

[Mork]

I agree with waazrath, there are so many ways as a DM you can change the encounter. More monsters show up, or even the intelligence of the monsters. I rarely play monsters where they all bunch up on a single PC, beat it to death and go to the next. This from a gaming perspective would be the most optimal, but as a player I also think this is the least fun.

I often change the monster HP during the encounter, that 70 hp.. thats now 100. Why? I'm much better at sensing dramatic tension than at encounter design. If I would have been better I would have written down 100 before the encounter started. Because I want to archieve a certain something with the encounter. Does the order change a lot.. my players have never told me things were not fair, they have told me fights were really exciting.
I must say I also change things the other way around. Round 1 I crit and would KO an PC immediatly, maybe the attack deals 3 less damage. Next round if you are still there you are free game. But when I'm a player I don't think its fun to go down before you can do a thing. So I don't often do that to my players.

As to the safe or suck spells. If OP wants to stay with his DM and group, maybe think of spells that make the monster suck less? That way the DM might be less likely to fudge? "only" give it disadvantage? Taking the epic final boss without a ranged attack and canceling its movement.. well. if your dm is going to fudge anything it's going to be that.

As I DM myself, I admit that I might fudge a dice roll on the second go, when they are fighting a boss battle. So there is certainly some effect, but not encounter winning in itself. If it isn't a final boss I might throw another encounter instead. But man, I don't have an endless supply of encounters ready. DM'ing is hard enough as it is.

[NaughtyTiger]

If the monster is willing to use their reaction to identify the spell as it's being cast, I'll gladly show them the card. I have yet to encounter a DM that tells me what all saves are for before I roll them, usually it's only obvious things like AoE damage spells that get called ahead of time. It's only fair to have the enemies have the same disadvantage.

1) using your reaction to identify a spell is an optional rule (and a crappy one at that)
2) you don't get to dictate the rules to the DM
3) adversarial against the DM is one way to play.

[zinycor]

2) you don't get to dictate the rules to the DM


You absolutely get to, after all it's a game, it has rules.

[NaughtyTiger]

You absolutely get to, after all it's a game, it has rules.

my bad, i missed the rule where the player hides the spell from the DM... what page was it?
i thought it was the DM that determines the results and effects of player actions.


Absolutely not, the players and the GM by playing a game have agreed to play by the rules that the game defines. Even more, by the existence of the screen, the players have placed trust in the GM that he will use the information that only he knows (the roll on the die) and will share it openly.

If the GM judges his rolls, he, unlike the others, isn't playing by the rules of the game, therefore he is cheating.

Now, if the table agrees that the GM doesn't need to roll, and rolling the dice is only incidental for him, everything is ok. BUT it needs to be clear for everyone at the table that the GM has those special rights, otherwise, is just cheating.

I disagree with this for 2 reasons.

1) the PHB is clear that the DM may override any rule to make the game better... the DM has a responsibility to provide compelling story and gameplay, this may conflict with the written rules, dealing with those conflicts isn't cheating, it's DMing.

2) DM's also "cheat" the other way, providing for Deus Ex Machina to save the party when they screw up, nerfing a monster's crit against a player that would end the campaign, maybe targeting the tank so that player feels awesome, bending a spell effect so it does this really cool thing...

it tis clear that you and I have different views on the relationship between players and DM...
despite my sarcasm up top, you aren't wrong, the players should have a voice in the game they want to play.
but your interpretation puts more cuffs on a DM without much reward for players or DM.

[stoutstien]

I think a good rule is if you are going to change the outcome on a roll it should be in the party favor not against them.

If you are constantly needing to control the dice to keep the game good then it probably means the campaign you are running is a mismatch for the current players.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think a good rule is if you are going to change the outcome on a roll it should be in the party favor not against them.

If you are constantly needing to control the dice to keep the game good then it probably means the campaign you are running is a mismatch for the current players.

I think it should be in story favor not necessarily party favor...
but the 2nd point is worded so much better than i could say myself.

[zinycor]

I think it should be in story favor not necessarily party favor...


That's ridiculous, the story at the table is whatever happens at the table, and what happens should be a consequence of the PC's actions and the rules GM and players have agreed on.

When the GM cheats "In favor of the story", that only considers his point of view regarding what a better story is.

If the GM (or a player)considers that a certain thing happening or not happening would damage the story, then that should be acknowledged by the table so a houserule could be created.

I don't think that the GM betraying the trust put in them by the players, disregarding their input, is fair. Feels to me like a lack of trust on your fellow players.

[NaughtyTiger]

When the GM cheats "In favor of the story", that only considers his point of view regarding what a better story is.

Yep, and that ain't a problem. She is the story teller, that's her whole shtick.


I don't think that the GM betraying the trust put in them by the players, disregarding their input, is fair. Feels to me like a lack of trust on your fellow players.

I get the view the the GM is betraying the trust, and I disagree with it.

I don't understand how its that a GM doesn't trust players... doesn't trust them how?

[zinycor]

Yep, and that ain't a problem. She is the story teller, that's her whole shtick.

might as well write a book then.

[NaughtyTiger]

might as well write a book then.

okay, see this is getting silly....

I am saying "a DM fudging an occasional die roll"
You are responding with "might as well write a book then"

[zinycor]

okay, see this is getting silly....

I am saying "a DM fudging an occasional die roll"
You are responding with "might as well write a book then"

No, My answer to the Gm being the storyteller is that if that's the approach might as well write a book.

What I am saying is that GM fudging die rolls is cheating, since it betrays the trust place in them by the players. Excuses like wanting to make a better story are ridiculous cause the GM isn't the one telling a story. The GM, the players and the rules they agreed on, are telling a story.

[stoutstien]

Yep, and that ain't a problem. She is the story teller, that's her whole shtick.
This is only one of a number of different DMing philosophies.
I think I can name most of them

The guide- a a 50/50 split of control and player control.

The host- this style acts purely as the point where all the players are cowriting the campaign. The sandbox.

The arbiter- the DM maintains complete control of the rules and world while allowing the players to maintain control of the characters actions (most common one)

The puppet master- the rail road. The DM has a plan stick to it or may find that door A and door B lead to the same outcome.

[NaughtyTiger]

This is only one of a number of different DMing philosophies.
I think I can name most of them

The guide- a a 50/50 split of control and player control.
The host- this style acts purely as the point where all the players are cowriting the campaign. The sandbox.
The arbiter- the DM maintains complete control of the rules and world while allowing the players to maintain control of the characters actions (most common one)
The puppet master- the rail road. The DM has a plan stick to it or may find that door A and door B lead to the same outcome.

I said, DM is a storyteller.
In which of your 4 cases is she not telling the story?
In which does she not describe the environment?
In which does she not determine what encounters occur?
In which does she not determine the motivations and purposes for everything?

(to clarify, i don't understand guide/host... are the players saying, ooh, we wanna fight giants, make a random giant encounter? are you saying the players can control the enemies actions/reactions?)

[zinycor]

In which of your 4 cases is she not telling the story?




The guide- a a 50/50 split of control and player control.



And If the GM is cheating, there is nowhere close to 50/50.

[NaughtyTiger]

No, My answer to the Gm being the storyteller is that if that's the approach might as well write a book.
... The GM, the players and the rules they agreed on, are telling a story.

the DM determines the plot, the motivations, the encounters, the challenges, the environment. the DM describes the scenery, plays the NPCs, determines the effects of player actions.
the players pick an action and roll dice.

rules do not tell a story... (they are the mechanics by which you play the game... the meta)

yes, the DM and players are telling a story together, but the DM is doing the bulk of the work and has the most responsibility...
so i do agree with you it "is nowhere close to 50/50."

[Pex]

I said, DM is a storyteller.
In which of your 4 cases is she not telling the story?
In which does she not describe the environment?
In which does she not determine what encounters occur?
In which does she not determine the motivations and purposes for everything?

(to clarify, i don't understand guide/host... are the players saying, ooh, we wanna fight giants, make a random giant encounter? are you saying the players can control the enemies actions/reactions?)

If I understand zinycor's position, the objection to fudging is that the DM is dictating the results as opposed to the game play doing it. It is not the DM's story; it's everyone's story. The DM sets up the encounter but game play should determine what happens, not DM whim of changing a die roll to whatever the DM feels like for whatever reason.

[zinycor]

If I understand zinycor's position, the objection to fudging is that the DM is dictating the results as opposed to the game play doing it. It is not the DM's story; it's everyone's story. The DM sets up the encounter but game play should determine what happens, not DM whim of changing a die roll to whatever the DM feels like for whatever reason.

Exactly, very well put.

[NaughtyTiger]

If I understand zinycor's position, the objection to fudging is that the DM is dictating the results as opposed to the game play doing it. It is not the DM's story; it's everyone's story. The DM sets up the encounter but game play should determine what happens, not DM whim of changing a die roll to whatever the DM feels like for whatever reason.

and as I have said, I understand his position, but I disagree with it. The DM changes/creates lots of things throughout the story: NPCs reactions, rulings, narratives, additional heroes/villains, etc. The players can't find a solution to the puzzle, the DM simplifies the puzzle or adds a backdoor.
But we are getting hung up on a die roll because it is the one change that isn't abstract.

Hell I am pretty sure that we are only hung up on that die roll if it negatively affects the party. we wouldn't complain if the DM said, you dealt the killing blow even if the ogre had 2 HP left..

anyway, i am done... i have accidentally hijacked the thread.

[edit: italics said "your", i meant "you". i assume that is a point of confusion, otherwise people are arguing that you can't cut a fight short when outcome is clear... as Zinc put it, that's ridiculous]

[ProsecutorGodot]

If I understand zinycor's position, the objection to fudging is that the DM is dictating the results as opposed to the game play doing it. It is not the DM's story; it's everyone's story. The DM sets up the encounter but game play should determine what happens, not DM whim of changing a die roll to whatever the DM feels like for whatever reason.

This is also how I've read zinycor's position and after experiencing a few different ways the game can be played, I prefer it this way.

That isn't to say that I think the other methods are wrong, just that assuming they are the default and should be expected is something I disagree with. If you plan to fudge die rolls in favor of the player, be straightforward with them that you value the story's progression over possible tension a character death might cause. If they're fine with that, keep on going with it.

Character death is a bummer but it isn't automatically a bad thing. Fudging rolls to prevent a character from dying done sparingly can often times avoid the issue, but done too often can start to break the feeling that your characters are living/struggling in the world and not just passing through it.

[Sigreid]

and as I have said, I understand his position, but I disagree with it. The DM changes/creates lots of things throughout the story: NPCs reactions, rulings, narratives, additional heroes/villains, etc.
But we are getting hung up on a die roll because it is the one change that isn't abstract.

Hell I am pretty sure that we are only hung up on that die roll if it negatively affects the party. we wouldn't complain if the DM said, your dealt the killing blow even if the ogre had 2 HP left..

anyway, i am done... i have accidentally hijacked the thread.

Nope. I dont want DM fiat to save me either.

[zinycor]

and as I have said, I understand his position, but I disagree with it. The DM changes/creates lots of things throughout the story: NPCs reactions, rulings, narratives, additional heroes/villains, etc.
But we are getting hung up on a die roll because it is the one change that isn't abstract.

Hell I am pretty sure that we are only hung up on that die roll if it negatively affects the party. we wouldn't complain if the DM said, your dealt the killing blow even if the ogre had 2 HP left..

anyway, i am done... i have accidentally hijacked the thread.

Absolutely mistaken on that account. The game has rules.

[Aaedimus]

So my big issue here isn't that it happens, but that with about 60% of the DMs I've been with it tends to happen.... way to much when things don't go their way.

In my example I described a character I had with a DM a few DMs ago that wasted spell slots and throughout the entire campaign the baddies never failed one if their saving throws even when he used his portent. The plot armor is the problem. As a DM in my opinion, if a player kills the "bad guy" early, it isn't hard to write a different bad guy they were following into their place, or to write it into the story.

When the players never get the chance to succeed, their fun goes down. So, as a player wh plays mostly in AL, my strategy to ensure that the game is as fun as possible is to avoid preparing spells that provide saving throws!

[stoutstien]

I said, DM is a storyteller.
In which of your 4 cases is she not telling the story?
In which does she not describe the environment?
In which does she not determine what encounters occur?
In which does she not determine the motivations and purposes for everything?

(to clarify, i don't understand guide/host... are the players saying, ooh, we wanna fight giants, make a random giant encounter? are you saying the players can control the enemies actions/reactions?)

The guide/host are more reactive. You tend to not have a plot in mind and the players drive the story/game. Using the example of Giants the players express interest in/out of game that they want to encounter them so you make it possible to happen. It's more of let the party drive the story as you go vs the players acting out parts in a story.

[NaughtyTiger]

The guide/host are more reactive. You tend to not have a plot in mind and the players drive the story/game. Using the example of Giants the players express interest in/out of game that they want to encounter them so you make it possible to happen. It's more of let the party drive the story as you go vs the players acting out parts in a story.

I guess I have a problem with calling that a story (If i am misunderstanding, please correct me). There is no plot, no climax, just a bunch of encounters.



So my big issue here isn't that it happens, but that with about 60% of the DMs I've been with it tends to happen.... way to much when things don't go their way.

In my example I described a character I had with a DM a few DMs ago that wasted spell slots and throughout the entire campaign the baddies never failed one if their saving throws even when he used his portent. The plot armor is the problem. As a DM in my opinion, if a player kills the "bad guy" early, it isn't hard to write a different bad guy they were following into their place, or to write it into the story.

When the players never get the chance to succeed, their fun goes down. So, as a player wh plays mostly in AL, my strategy to ensure that the game is as fun as possible is to avoid preparing spells that provide saving throws!

As has been said before, the problem is the DM, not the Saving Throw. Cuz the same DM is just as likely to add 50 HP if the Giant gets hit too hard.

In my experience, this is amplified by AL, cuz DMs aren't allowed to introduce new big bads/change the story... or they have to fill a 4-hour block and you ended it with an hour left...

[Sigreid]

I guess I have a problem with calling that a story (If i am misunderstanding, please correct me). There is no plot, no climax, just a bunch of encounters.

And some of us aren't interested in a formal story but "living" our character's lives.

[Rynjin]

the DM determines the plot, the motivations, the encounters, the challenges, the environment. the DM describes the scenery, plays the NPCs, determines the effects of player actions.
the players pick an action and roll dice.

rules do not tell a story... (they are the mechanics by which you play the game... the meta)

yes, the DM and players are telling a story together, but the DM is doing the bulk of the work and has the most responsibility...
so i do agree with you it "is nowhere close to 50/50."

The bolded is kind of funny because it's only true if you use recursive logic. Yes, if the DM decides dice rolls and all other mechanical outcomes at critical moments, they are the decider of the story.

Otherwise, the mechanics often CAN tell the story. Sometimes the dice may tell the story that our brave hero, the Paladin, Smote the evil Fiend dead with a single strike, empowered by the might of his god to destroy evil wherever it arises! Other times it tells the story of an alternate universe where that Paladin and his stalwart allies triumph in a grueling battle. It takes all of their resources, cunning, and teamwork. The Rogue nearly dies to a wave of concentrated EEEEEVILLLLL the Fiend emits, and the Sorcerer is turned to stone for all eternity...but they triumph.

Or maybe it even tells the story of a horrible Fiend embroiled in a titanic battle with four of the world's bravest...and striking them down, ushering in a new wave of terror, as the people cry out for someone, ANYONE to save them...

The mechanics only don't tell a story if you utterly fail to integrate them INTO the story, which is part of your job as a DM.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I guess I have a problem with calling that a story (If i am misunderstanding, please correct me). There is no plot, no climax, just a bunch of encounters.

You wouldn't call it a scripted story, sure, but eventually a plot could develop, a climax could happen and the adventurers could retire.

I'd compare it to a choose your own adventure book. Instead of presenting the players with the premise having thought out a guideline to one of maybe 2 or 3 endings (success, failure or in between for example) you shape the story as it goes by their interests. It could end many ways. It could end suddenly, it could drag on for as long as the players maintain interest, characters could retire and their children take up their mantle in pursuit of a greater destiny.

There's no reason you can't take the players interest in fighting Giants and throw in some hints about a deeper reason behind there just being Giants around suddenly. If they take that hook, work it through a bit, if they ignore it keep it going on the side and let it play out without the players intervention while they pursue things that do interest them.

The players, at this point, may be developing their own story. "We're mercenaries who go where we're needed" or "We stopped a horde of Giant's from sacking that town, we're heroes." or "I'm searching for the battle that cements my place in history." and the DM can make strides to help the players reach those goals. It's different from presenting them with a story where the end is already set into stone.

[NaughtyTiger]

I guess I have a problem with calling that a story (If i am misunderstanding, please correct me). There is no plot, no climax, just a bunch of encounters.

As Godot pointed out, I contradicted myself with this post... let me course correct. Because even a single encounter is clearly a story.


This is only one of a number of different DMing philosophies.
I think I can name most of them

The guide- a a 50/50 split of control and player control.
The host- this style acts purely as the point where all the players are cowriting the campaign. The sandbox.
The arbiter- the DM maintains complete control of the rules and world while allowing the players to maintain control of the characters actions (most common one)
The puppet master- the rail road. The DM has a plan stick to it or may find that door A and door B lead to the same outcome.

I said, DM is a storyteller.
In which of your 4 cases is she not telling the story?
In which does she not describe the environment?
In which does she not determine what encounters occur?
In which does she not determine the motivations and purposes for everything?

[Sigreid]

As Godot pointed out, I contradicted myself with this post... let me course correct. Because even a single encounter is clearly a story.



I said, DM is a storyteller.
In which of your 4 cases is she not telling the story?
In which does she not describe the environment?
In which does she not determine what encounters occur?
In which does she not determine the motivations and purposes for everything?

Well, she shouldn't be determining the purpose and motivation for the characters. That's on the players of those characters.

[NaughtyTiger]

Well, she shouldn't be determining the purpose and motivation for the characters. That's on the players of those characters.

fine, you win. the DM is not a storyteller.

[KorvinStarmast]

You absolutely get to, after all it's a game, it has rules. And the DM is master of Rules, DMG p. 5.

That's ridiculousNo, it's a different play style than you prefer.
okay, see this is getting silly. I am saying "a DM fudging an occasional die roll."
You are responding with "might as well write a book then"Nice summary.
If I understand zinycor's position, the objection to fudging is that the DM is dictating the results as opposed to the game play doing it. It is not the DM's story; it's everyone's story. The DM sets up the encounter but game play should determine what happens, not DM whim of changing a die roll to whatever the DM feels like for whatever reason.
Well said. The fudge (to serve both the game and the story) should be a rare exception in my experience, if it is ever used. As a standard practice, roll the dice and see what happens as DM. The dice can be fickle, but they are mostly fair.
Absolutely mistaken on that account. The game has rules.And the DM as Master of Rules. Reading the DMG might be useful at this point. See also page 6 of the PHB.

Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

Well, she shouldn't be determining the purpose and motivation for the characters. That's on the players of those characters. In general, I tend to agree since the DM has to keep track of the motivations and purposes of all NPC's and monsters. The other players, who are the PCs, really need to step up and work on the motivations and purposes of the PCs. Seems fair.

[Waazraath]

If your players hate the idea of their characters dying so much, Why doesn't your table make a rule where PCs don't die unless the player gives his approval? PCs could always get captured, taken prisoner, or whatever.

I don't have fun while watching a beautiful sunset, or watching a gruesome documentary, or reading book about programming. But I get enjoyment out of those things. As long as they get enjoyment out of the session, everything is all right.

Didn't call you a cheater, and and I am sorry if I offended you. But cheating IS betraying the players trust, no matter how hard you think that word is.

A few options:
-let the dice fall where they may and see where that leads.
-Ask your players if they are okay with how things are going, and make a house rule if needed.u

The legendary saves are a part of the rules, therefore, not cheating.

And regardless of the amount of thought they may or not have given the matter, we are now talking about it, and as far as I know, that line isn't present at the 5e DMG.

...

Having said that, am trying to have a civil conversation, If I have offended you, am sorry, it may be due to English being my second language.

No worries about the latter remark, can relate (English being my second language also). The thing is, as for the bolded part (for emphasis), no: it's not cheating, and it's not betraying anything. I hope my own DM's act in the same way. I wouldn't mind playing in a game where 'no roll fudged by DM, ever', but tbh, I hope my DM's are capable and willing to employ the instrument, when needed.

'Fun' is in my point the same as 'enjoyment' - if you prefer the term, just read that word instead of 'fun'.

Your suggestions miss their mark, because you're not responding to my points. You say "If your players hate the idea of their characters dying so much", but I never said that. My point is that players (in general) hate to have their characters die in an unmeaningful way due to arbitrary bad luck of the dice. Just as that players like to have their boss fight to be a climax and not ending after the first player's turn.

Same for your arguments on 'let the dice fall and see where they lead' (yes, I do, almost always, but sometimes they simply lead to less enjoyment for everybody) and 'ask your players how things are going' (yes, I always do, session 0 and all that - but as I said in my earlier post, on this specific point this isn't the solution).

You didn't bother to reply to my main point, one that has been made now by several other posters. A DM always deceides the outcome of each and every combat. By picking the challenge, by using smart or less smart tactics, by calling in reinforcements (or not), by adjusting hp, attack modifiers or save modifiers, etc. Fudging a dice is simply one of these things. It is arbitrary to make a big thing out of it (cheating!!!) while there are plenty of other ways a DM does just the same.

As NaughtyTiger already said, also in 5e the PHB states the DM has the power to change rules when needed. So, once again, their is not cheating. Not in 5e. And following from the argument before that, the argument that a DM even could cheat doesn't hold.

To approach this from the other angle: in the way you interpret the game, a DM is entitled to make a completely wrong assuption on what the party can handle, and send them into a certain death tpk - but at the same time, when realizing this during the combat, but wouldn't be allowed (cheating!!) to fix it by turning a few hits into misses, failing a save that would have been made, reduce some hp, or have the superior foe have "tactical retreat" (wink wink). In my book, that's a bit silly, and contrary to the goals of the game, and the job of the DM.


..., there are so many ways as a DM you can change the encounter. More monsters show up, or even the intelligence of the monsters. I rarely play monsters where they all bunch up on a single PC, beat it to death and go to the next. This from a gaming perspective would be the most optimal, but as a player I also think this is the least fun.

I often change the monster HP during the encounter, that 70 hp.. thats now 100. Why? I'm much better at sensing dramatic tension than at encounter design. If I would have been better I would have written down 100 before the encounter started. Because I want to archieve a certain something with the encounter. Does the order change a lot.. my players have never told me things were not fair, they have told me fights were really exciting.
I must say I also change things the other way around. Round 1 I crit and would KO an PC immediatly, maybe the attack deals 3 less damage. Next round if you are still there you are free game. But when I'm a player I don't think its fun to go down before you can do a thing. So I don't often do that to my players.

...

As I DM myself, I admit that I might fudge a dice roll on the second go, when they are fighting a boss battle. So there is certainly some effect, but not encounter winning in itself. If it isn't a final boss I might throw another encounter instead. But man, I don't have an endless supply of encounters ready. DM'ing is hard enough as it is.

So much this. Especially the last part. Yes, it's more elegant to avoid TPK by having everbody taken prisonor or having the cavelary arrive. But that isn't always an option (an Owlbear doesn't take prisoners), nor can I always improvise it in the heat of battle. Sometimes a fudged dice is the best option.




If you are constantly needing to control the dice to keep the game good then it probably means the campaign you are running is a mismatch for the current players.

True, of course - but note that the whole discussion here is more about fudging a dice every 3 sessions.


The DM changes/creates lots of things throughout the story: NPCs reactions, rulings, narratives, additional heroes/villains, etc. The players can't find a solution to the puzzle, the DM simplifies the puzzle or adds a backdoor.
But we are getting hung up on a die roll because it is the one change that isn't abstract.


This.


Well, she shouldn't be determining the purpose and motivation for the characters. That's on the players of those characters.

Of course. But how is this relevant in any way to the discussion here, or has this anything to do with the fact that the DM is the storyteller - next to the arbiter, and the one who plays the NPC's, and has a whole lot of other roles?

[Aaedimus]

True, of course - but note that the whole discussion here is more about fudging a dice every 3 sessions.


Actually it was less about fudging the dice every three sessions rather than: Fudging the dice every time something happens that contradicts your plans for the story.

It's the same for illusions. Illusionist Wizard is a VERY DM dependent class, because some DMs say give auto checks and successes for simple things, while other DMs are willing to play along and see what happens. It should be a ballance, AND you should WANT the players to succeed, because succeeding is fun!

As a DM, I think the former (and quite a bit of dice roll flubbing) is laziness rather than working to improve the experience. Additionally the biggest issue for me is that it discourages origionality and inventiveness

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

I accidentally hijacked the thread, which is bad, because it took away from Mork's post. This post is worth a second read.

[Corran]

fine, you win. the DM is not a storyteller.
This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

[NaughtyTiger]

This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

Some people can read my posts to figureoutwhat my definition of story teller is... Some people cant

[Aaedimus]

The way I see it, the DM IS the story-teller but does not specifically choose the direction of the story. It's not a pre-designed story (or you'd jsut read a book), you're creating the story collaboratively and the DM is the central voice for that story.

[JNAProductions]

Some people can read my posts to figureoutwhat my definition of story teller is... Some people cant

If you're using a set of common words, but require someone to parse them differently than the commonly understood definition, perhaps you're using the words wrong?

Or, if not wrong, in a less than perfectly clear fashion.

[DrLoveMonkey]

There's different circumstances to fudging die rolls that can make it more or less bad, but they're almost always the result of the DM not properly planning for things.

For example your party of third level adventurers are attending the grand opening of a noble's new museum. A novel idea, a place where art or magical curiosities can be put on display and people pay a fee to come and learn about them. Unfortunately, one of the magical curiosities is far more than it appears. It's a simple thing, a glimmering glass orb, but unbeknownst to all present it's actually a key to tearing the world apart and turning all life into twisted undead versions of their old selves. So during this event a powerful and evil mage teleports into the grand hall of this museum with the intent to snatch up the orb and make a quick escape. Then the focus of the campaign is working your way up his minions, forging alliances and hunting down this insane wizard before the ritual can be complete.

As soon as he teleports in the guards try to take him down, but a quick Shield spell deflects their attacks! Then one of the players casts hold person on him and he fails the save...and he doesn't recover for three rounds by which time everyone has beaten him to death. Then the players smash the orb on the ground, destroying with it all possibility of the global catastrophy and the campaign is over twenty minutes into the first session, everyone can start thinking up characters for the next campaign.

At that point, I don't think it's unreasonable for the DM to fudge the hold person roll. Of course an experienced DM should never have let it come to that point where a single spell ends the campaign in the first scene, but if you're not experienced enough to account for that, then that's really the only option.


Otherwise if you're just fudging the numbers because you want this hill giant to smash more stuff before he dies then that's garbage and you're totally killing the wizard's fun. Besides, you're the DM, you don't need to fudge rolls, just attack with like 4 fire giants instead of 1, or attack with two waves of 2, that way the wizard can totally shut down one wave like the master of arcane he is, and still not always save every building every time.

[False God]

Sounds like your DM experiences suck.

Fair is fair. You roll for saves when monsters shoot magic at you. I roll for saves when you shoot magic at my monsters. IME, playing monsters tactically is far more fun, and far more deadly than simply saying "oh yeah they pass!". Generally I'm far more inclined to favor the players in any situation, since I find games to be far more exciting when the PCs have to struggle...but ultimately succeed. I don't want to beat them, I don't want them to beat me. I don't see us as on separate teams. We're all on the same team here, but I want them to work for it.

[Rynjin]

There's different circumstances to fudging die rolls that can make it more or less bad, but they're almost always the result of the DM not properly planning for things.

For example your party of third level adventurers are attending the grand opening of a noble's new museum. A novel idea, a place where art or magical curiosities can be put on display and people pay a fee to come and learn about them. Unfortunately, one of the magical curiosities is far more than it appears. It's a simple thing, a glimmering glass orb, but unbeknownst to all present it's actually a key to tearing the world apart and turning all life into twisted undead versions of their old selves. So during this event a powerful and evil mage teleports into the grand hall of this museum with the intent to snatch up the orb and make a quick escape. Then the focus of the campaign is working your way up his minions, forging alliances and hunting down this insane wizard before the ritual can be complete.

As soon as he teleports in the guards try to take him down, but a quick Shield spell deflects their attacks! Then one of the players casts hold person on him and he fails the save...and he doesn't recover for three rounds by which time everyone has beaten him to death. Then the players smash the orb on the ground, destroying with it all possibility of the global catastrophy and the campaign is over twenty minutes into the first session, everyone can start thinking up characters for the next campaign.

At that point, I don't think it's unreasonable for the DM to fudge the hold person roll. Of course an experienced DM should never have let it come to that point where a single spell ends the campaign in the first scene, but if you're not experienced enough to account for that, then that's really the only option.

It's not the only option at all. Take your lumps and move on. A valuable lesson you need to learn as a GM is how to react to things on the fly. Or do you prepare speeches for every random NPC the players might strike up a conversation with?

If your plot is derailed, there's plenty of stuff you can do to re-rail it without making the players feel like nothing they do matters.

Option A.) Don't let the object be smashed, for one. That sounds like Artifact level magic, and Artifacts have VERY specific destruction requirements. "Just hit it with a hammer" isn't going to cut it. perhaps then urn the adventure into a quest to figure out how to destroy this thing, because knowledge of its existence is now public and every Necromancer, Chaos cultist, and omnicidal maniac in the land is going to be gunning for this thing.

Number 2: Make it clear that this wizard was a high level minion of some greater force. After all, why would the guy have come to steal this thing in person?

Number C.) Say "good job everybody, you stopped the bad guy" and come up with a new plot. You can even re-use a lot of the encounters from the previous plot idea.

These are three viable options I can think of in under 5 minutes that don't require you to **** with your players.

[DrLoveMonkey]

It's not the only option at all. Take your lumps and move on. A valuable lesson you need to learn as a GM is how to react to things on the fly. Or do you prepare speeches for every random NPC the players might strike up a conversation with?

If your plot is derailed, there's plenty of stuff you can do to re-rail it without making the players feel like nothing they do matters.

Option A.) Don't let the object be smashed, for one. That sounds like Artifact level magic, and Artifacts have VERY specific destruction requirements. "Just hit it with a hammer" isn't going to cut it. perhaps then urn the adventure into a quest to figure out how to destroy this thing, because knowledge of its existence is now public and every Necromancer, Chaos cultist, and omnicidal maniac in the land is going to be gunning for this thing.

Number 2: Make it clear that this wizard was a high level minion of some greater force. After all, why would the guy have come to steal this thing in person?

Number C.) Say "good job everybody, you stopped the bad guy" and come up with a new plot. You can even re-use a lot of the encounters from the previous plot idea.

These are three viable options I can think of in under 5 minutes that don't require you to **** with your players.

For options A and 2 though you’re now changing things that you didn’t previously set up to make your players not win when they actually did. It’s like if your players kill a lich before you wanted them to and now there’s suddenly two liches. They get their hands on the orb, which previously was easily smashed and maybe that was even going to be part of the plot later, that the wizard took absurd precautions to keep it safe, and now suddenly it’s invulnerable.

At that point you might as well just say “oh crap, well really this kind of foe should have legendary resistance.” and he passes anyway. Option C is okay, but it’s also a kind of a waste of an evening and possibly a lot of planning. Not that you can’t expect the PCs to trash through your setting, but now you’re welding broken character relations and possible plots around. If you’re running a shoot and loot megadungeon campaign you just keep going but if it’s really story heavy you’re going to need some time off.

The real solution is just to not have the int 22 level 20 wizard lord just walk in to get a thing totally alone and by himself while the room is full of adventurers. At the very least send your simulacrum and a boatload of minions. Also give your CR 24 boss monsters LR. It’s not like your players win because you couldn’t bring enough stuff to beat them, if you want a cabal of 5 ancient liches divine that the PCs will eventually grow powerful enough to challenge them so they come and Meteor Swarm them when they’re level 5, and that’s not cheating in any way.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you're using a set of common words, but require someone to parse them differently than the commonly understood definition, perhaps you're using the words wrong?

Or, if not wrong, in a less than perfectly clear fashion.

Not sure what you meant there, but given that the phb calls the DM the "game's lead storyteller and referee", i am comfortable with that as the commonly understood definition....

[False God]

Not sure what you meant there, but given that the phb calls the DM the "game's lead storyteller and referee", i am comfortable with that as the commonly understood definition....

Technically the book is using that line to define the roles of the DM. It's not defining what a storyteller is. Which was what JNAProductions' question was to you: "how are you defining a storyteller?" Because in JNAProductions' view a storyteller is someone who reads a pre-set text to people, with no input from the listeners.

Also, that's not a terribly good definition of a DM either (which is a long standing issue with a number of D&D's RP elements) since as JNAProductions' question rightly asks: "What does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?" The cited definition does potentially imply that the game is a cooperative storytelling experience since 'lead storyteller' implies that there are co- or subordinate storytellers. But it still leaves it unclear exactly the degree to which the DM 'leads'. The answer here is vague because D&D is designed to enable multiple levels of story-leadership from 99% to 1%. And there are certainly adventures that rely heavier on lower or higher DM leadership than others.

Anyway. The question wasn't "What is the role of the DM?" The question was "What is a storyteller?"

[Rynjin]

For options A and 2 though you’re now changing things that you didn’t previously set up to make your players not win when they actually did. It’s like if your players kill a lich before you wanted them to and now there’s suddenly two liches. They get their hands on the orb, which previously was easily smashed and maybe that was even going to be part of the plot later, that the wizard took absurd precautions to keep it safe, and now suddenly it’s invulnerable.

It's not really the same thing, since you let the players achieve a victory they earned (and will likely be awarded for, with both XP and treasure, in terms of Wizard-body-loot and gratitude from the ruling body of Whereveristan) and then also let the campaign continue. it's also weird that the orb would be easily smashed in the first place. if it's dangerous, evil, and easily destroyed, why is it being kept around instead of having been smashed forever ago?

It's the difference between saying "No you can't do that" and saying "Yes, and/but" in improv terms.


The real solution is just to not have the int 22 level 20 wizard lord just walk in to get a thing totally alone and by himself while the room is full of adventurers.

Yes, obviously, though this was covered by the initial post I quoted already.

[Waazraath]

This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

Seriously? For me, this is not a definition of 'storyteller' but of extreme railroading and a textbook example of bad DM'ing. Which isn't related to fudging the occasional dice, because a DM like this, if he does't fudges a dice, has an endless amount of other tools to enforce a party stays on the railroad. And I think it was quite obvious from the discussion that this isn't the 'storyteller' NaughtyTiger is talking about...

Yeah, fudging the occastional dice with a bad DM sucks. But that's because bad DM'ing sucks.

[Aaedimus]

The team kills the BBG and his body crumbles into a shower of ice and snow. You see an identical copy step from behind the orb, grab it and disappear... laughing.


Less cheap than fudging the roll in that situation and adds to the fun rather than taking away

[DrLoveMonkey]

It's not really the same thing, since you let the players achieve a victory they earned (and will likely be awarded for, with both XP and treasure, in terms of Wizard-body-loot and gratitude from the ruling body of Whereveristan) and then also let the campaign continue. it's also weird that the orb would be easily smashed in the first place. if it's dangerous, evil, and easily destroyed, why is it being kept around instead of having been smashed forever ago?
.

Well the premise of that setup was that nobody actually knew how important it was until it was stolen, leading to one of those “holy crap we’ve been sitting next to a niclear bomb all this time.” moments.

I do think that’s probably a better solution, but I also don’t think that just fudging the roll there is a great evil either, especially since it should happen so rarely. Usually only a few times for a single DM before he realizes what’s going on. For instance one of my soft rules is if a villain absolutely must succeed, then whatever they’re trying to do will happen when the PCs are a continent away, just because I assume if my PCs are anywhere near the situation they’ll prevent it.

If you’re a DM who’s fudging rolls just because your players are winning too much then you’re either grossly underestimating them every in game day, or just a ****. I just don’t think that the two situations should be talked about in the same way. The best way to incorporate PC backstories is to deftly weave them together in ways that make sense, so that each of their lives brings them the moment the game starts, and then fall into eachother, so that they’re all driven towards the same ends as the game progresses, advancing their character development and supporting each of their roles in the team. Saying “The game starts on this pier in Waterdeep, I don’t care how you justify it but your characters are all there at the beginning.” is...not as good as that, but it’s not awful either, especially if you’re a new DM, or just not that good at the story stuff, not every DM is the best at all aspects of the game.

[Sigreid]

fine, you win. the DM is not a storyteller.

I think I may just be projecting on your argument some experiences I've had in the past where the DM really only wanted to be a story teller and their players were little more than an audience for their "genius". Those experiences have left a bad taste in my mouth for situations where it even sounds like the DM is so intent on the story line they created that no matter how good the plan or how lucky the rolls the course of the campaign will not change. I'm also admittedly very much a sandbox DM. Most of the time the only planning I do happens after the players have decided on a course of action or goal and I start building around that a little in advance of where they seem to want to go. Never very far because they can change direction at any time.

Sorry if I came off excessively hostile.

[Corran]

I think I may just be projecting on your argument some experiences I've had in the past where the DM really only wanted to be a story teller and their players were little more than an audience for their "genius". Those experiences have left a bad taste in my mouth for situations where it even sounds like the DM is so intent on the story line they created that no matter how good the plan or how lucky the rolls the course of the campaign will not change. I'm also admittedly very much a sandbox DM. Most of the time the only planning I do happens after the players have decided on a course of action or goal and I start building around that a little in advance of where they seem to want to go. Never very far because they can change direction at any time.

Sorry if I came off excessively hostile.
That's a very nice way of putting it. It's relaxing when someone else finds the right way to say what you mean, so thanks.

[Cybren]

Alternatively, you could just talk to the players at your table like an adult when you screw something up. And, when they say "yeah, we're OK with fixing it this way," you do that thing. Nowadays I'm more careful with my plot designs so this doesn't happen, but we were all beginners once. I think it's much better when you admit your mistake to your table and figure out how best to move forward.

I think 90% of D&D horror stories could be solved by that simple rule: talk to your table, particularly when you made a mistake, whether player or DM.

the best way to move forward is to not be so precious with your NPCs that you can't handle their death in a game where the PCs are designed to generate death like a grim reaper factory

[NaughtyTiger]

Technically the book is using that line to define the roles of the DM. It's not defining what a storyteller is. Which was what JNAProductions' question was to you: "how are you defining a storyteller?" Because in JNAProductions' view a storyteller is someone who reads a pre-set text to people, with no input from the listeners.

Also, that's not a terribly good definition of a DM either (which is a long standing issue with a number of D&D's RP elements) since as JNAProductions' question rightly asks: "What does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?" The cited definition does potentially imply that the game is a cooperative storytelling experience since 'lead storyteller' implies that there are co- or subordinate storytellers. But it still leaves it unclear exactly the degree to which the DM 'leads'. The answer here is vague because D&D is designed to enable multiple levels of story-leadership from 99% to 1%. And there are certainly adventures that rely heavier on lower or higher DM leadership than others.

Anyway. The question wasn't "What is the role of the DM?" The question was "What is a storyteller?"

Okay, i think you are confusing JNA and Corran...



This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

Corran did not ask "how are you defining a storyteller"
Corran did not ask "what does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?"
in fact, despite the question mark, Corran did not ask a question.


If you're using a set of common words, but require someone to parse them differently than the commonly understood definition, perhaps you're using the words wrong?
Or, if not wrong, in a less than perfectly clear fashion.


JNA did not ask "how are you defining a storyteller"
JNA did not ask "what does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?"
in fact, despite the question mark, JNA did not ask a question.


So you are asking me how i define a storyteller... i will go with:

a person who describes a world, its inhabitants, and its events relative to one or more plot points.

if you can't figure that out, then you haven't read my posts. be respectful and actually read my posts in the thread before calling me out.

[Segev]

In the orb of destruction plot line proposed above, the solution I would use if I wanted a set piece that the PCs could do nothing about would be to wait for the PCs to be gone. If I wasn't metagaming, I'd actually have the wizard time his arrival for after the party, or create a massive distraction (like having bandits attack the party or something) to distract everyone while he teleports in, invisibly, to quietly snatch up the orb and vanish.

[Dalebert]

I don't use DM screens and I always roll in the open. It absolves me of responsibility if I get a string of crits and end up dropping people.

[zinycor]

I'll Say this: Fudging is Cheating since it breaks the fundamental mechanics and understanding present at the game and betrays the trust of the players by lying to them.

Now, some have said along the lines of: "The GM is the master of rules, therefore, he can't cheat." The problem is that Rules are public, and can be modified, discussed, changed and be played with or around. Fudging isn't a rule cause it is made in secret, only posible because the players don't see the result of your roll. Now, if you had a public rule, that ststed the GM right to Fudge his rolls, then fudging wouldn't be cheating, but I don't think this is the case for most tables, and as far as I have seen, nobody has stated that they do so.

Another argument in favor of fudging goes along the lines of "Sometimes as a GM you balance things wrongly and fudging is needed". I don't think it is, you could always stop the game, talk to the players, and nerf the enemies appropiattely so they now are a become an appropiatte challenge for the party. Now, some groups of players will say:"Don't, let us try to defeat this challenge as it is" in that case, at least now they know the encounter challenging, and they wouldn't have wanted the Fudging anyway.

Another argument in favor of fudging goes along the lines of "The GM changes things all the time, creating deus Ex Machinas to save the party, giving NPCs a bunch of hp out of nowhere, having them act out of character, etc." To these I say, these are also cheating. Now, situations do come up where these things may be needed, if that's the case, then tell your players that you are about to do these things, explain your problem to them. Be honest and open with your players and do better next time, don't hide behind your GM screen.

Regarding story reasons for fudging; The whole reason for tabletop storytelling is that you and the players are telling a story with the rules you have agreed on as the motor for things to happen. If you fudge, or cheat in any other way, in the name of the story, you are ignoring the players input, and whatever rules you agreed on. You would have been better wirting a book. A good story on TRPGs is a story that the whole table created, where even the GM is surprised, creator and watcher.

Now, This has been a wonderful conversation, and thanks to you all, I now have whle bunch of things that I now consider unnaceptable :smallbiggrin:.

[stoutstien]

I think what bugs me about 'fixing' dice results is that is backdoor way of controlling player actions and choices without the players knowledge. There is no difference between telling a player they can't do X because you weren't prepared for it than allowing them to attempt X and move the goal out of reach if the succeed. Besides I think the second option is worse because they wasted resources.

If you were taken an exam to bypass some busy work and after you turned it in the professor changed the questions so you got them wrong and suddenly declared that you failed I doubt it would go over well.

[zinycor]

I think what bugs me about 'fixing' dice results is that is backdoor way of controlling player actions and choices without the players knowledge. There is no difference between telling a player they can't do X because you weren't prepared for it than allowing them to attempt X and move the goal out of reach if the succeed. Besides I think the second option is worse because they wasted resources.

If you were taken an exam to bypass some busy work and after you turned it in the professor changed the questions so you got them wrong and suddenly declared that you failed I doubt it would go over well.

Very well said.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think what bugs me about 'fixing' dice results is that is backdoor way of controlling player actions and choices without the players knowledge. There is no difference between telling a player they can't do X because you weren't prepared for it than allowing them to attempt X and move the goal out of reach if the succeed. Besides I think the second option is worse because they wasted resources..

Whereas, I do see you point, there is a difference...
Telling a player "you can't do X" explicitly makes the player aware he is prevented. Moving the goal posts without the player knowledge means the player may not be aware he is prevented.

is there ever a reason to do it? yes, if it helps the story (already discussed and fought over), and another that comes up in AL, if it helps fun.

(Note: poster is AL, so this is relevant to him... )
In AL, DMs have constraints: time, modifications to the encounter (number and type of creature), table size
Often you have 6-7 players at a table. There are 2-3 combats per 4-hour setting. Setup for combat can take a while, each round of combat can take up to 30 minutes. So DM yells, roll initiative... you realize you rolled a 4... you are going last. so 5minutes of setup, 20 minutes of combat (in which you do nothing)... and the monsters are all dead... you didn't get to go. if combat is over before you get to play during a whole session, that decreases fun.

heck, you might even finish the module early... you planned 4-hours of DnD, but wrapped up at 2.5.... getting jipped by 90 minutes sucks.

if I add 50hp to extend the fight for at least 1 full round, everyone gets to roll the dice in the 4-hour block.

[zinycor]

Whereas, I do see you point, there is a difference...
Telling a player "you can't do X" explicitly makes the player aware he is prevented. Moving the goal posts without the player knowledge means the player may not be aware he is prevented.

is there ever a reason to do it? yes, if it helps the story (already discussed and fought over), and another that comes up in AL, if it helps fun.

(Note: poster is AL, so this is relevant to him... )
In AL, DMs have constraints: time, modifications to the encounter (number and type of creature), table size
Often you have 6-7 players at a table. There are 2-3 combats per 4-hour setting. Setup for combat can take a while, each round of combat can take up to 30 minutes. So DM yells, roll initiative... you realize you rolled a 4... you are going last. so 5minutes of setup, 20 minutes of combat (in which you do nothing)... and the monsters are all dead... you didn't get to go. if combat is over before you get to play during a whole session, that decreases fun.

heck, you might even finish the module early... you planned 4-hours of DnD, but wrapped up at 2.5.... getting jipped by 90 minutes sucks.

if I add 50hp to extend the fight for at least 1 full round, everyone gets to roll the dice in the 4-hour block.

Never had a situation where short sessions would be a problem

[patchyman]

Character death is a bummer but it isn't automatically a bad thing. Fudging rolls to prevent a character from dying done sparingly can often times avoid the issue, but done too often can start to break the feeling that your characters are living/struggling in the world and not just passing through it.

And if you are fudging dice rolls to avoid character death, do it when the character is dying, and not just when the character might get damaged.

[patchyman]

True. And at the same time, come on. If I have 4 players who all spend days working on background, drawing pictures of their characters, preparing 20 level builds, I am confident enough to know that they won't consider it fun if they get tpk's in session 2 because of a wandering monster that rolls 3 20's in a row.

This happened to me in a level 2 one shot I ran. A mixed groups of wolves and dire wolves attacked the PCs. The barbarian took on two of them, and didn’t rage (I don’t know if he forgot or considered that the first fight of the game wasn’t worth it). The wolves get two critical hit on him (added by Pack Tactics) and the barbarian goes down. The druid has to drop their Wild Shape to heal the barbarian. No characters died, but the characters definitely felt that the consequences of having expended extra resources in the first fight and played carefully after that.

I don’t fudge dice. A battle that would otherwise have been pretty forgettable became a fun tense brawl because the enemies landed a couple of lucky shots.

Maybe you honestly know when it is more fun to fudge dice than to play them as they lay. I think it is more likely that you just think you do.

[patchyman]

For example your party of third level adventurers are attending the grand opening of a noble's new museum. A novel idea, a place where art or magical curiosities can be put on display and people pay a fee to come and learn about them. Unfortunately, one of the magical curiosities is far more than it appears. It's a simple thing, a glimmering glass orb, but unbeknownst to all present it's actually a key to tearing the world apart and turning all life into twisted undead versions of their old selves. So during this event a powerful and evil mage teleports into the grand hall of this museum with the intent to snatch up the orb and make a quick escape. Then the focus of the campaign is working your way up his minions, forging alliances and hunting down this insane wizard before the ritual can be complete.

As soon as he teleports in the guards try to take him down, but a quick Shield spell deflects their attacks! Then one of the players casts hold person on him and he fails the save...and he doesn't recover for three rounds by which time everyone has beaten him to death. Then

...the adventure begins as the characters have to find a way to destroy the orb while every villain in the continent tries to steal it for themselves...

No fudging. The player who landed the Hold Person feels awesome, especially if you tell them privately that the villain was supposed to escape, and the campaign is just as fun as if the wizard had escaped (and more original).

[Aaedimus]

Fudging rolls is just lazy.

For anyone that says it's forgiveable or there are situations that specifically warrant it,

I've been DMing for years and specifically have chosen to avoid it. I've never ran into a problem where anyone wished I had faked it.

[stoutstien]

Whereas, I do see you point, there is a difference...
Telling a player "you can't do X" explicitly makes the player aware he is prevented. Moving the goal posts without the player knowledge means the player may not be aware he is prevented.

is there ever a reason to do it? yes, if it helps the story (already discussed and fought over), and another that comes up in AL, if it helps fun.

(Note: poster is AL, so this is relevant to him... )
In AL, DMs have constraints: time, modifications to the encounter (number and type of creature), table size
Often you have 6-7 players at a table. There are 2-3 combats per 4-hour setting. Setup for combat can take a while, each round of combat can take up to 30 minutes. So DM yells, roll initiative... you realize you rolled a 4... you are going last. so 5minutes of setup, 20 minutes of combat (in which you do nothing)... and the monsters are all dead... you didn't get to go. if combat is over before you get to play during a whole session, that decreases fun.

heck, you might even finish the module early... you planned 4-hours of DnD, but wrapped up at 2.5.... getting jipped by 90 minutes sucks.

if I add 50hp to extend the fight for at least 1 full round, everyone gets to roll the dice in the 4-hour block.

If I caught a DM doing this I would never play with them again. Keep that crap in GRUPS or people need to learn to be better DMs not using bad habits like this.

Edit. That came out more harsh than intended.

[NaughtyTiger]

If I caught a DM doing this I would never play with them again. Keep that crap in GRUPS or people need to learn to be better DMs not using bad habits like this.

Again, the DMs are limited within the constraints of Adventurers League...

You have stated that you would rather some players at the table not get to participate in combat for 4 hours, rather than a DM beef up the opponents...

i am not a great DM, but i am an okay one...
i miscalculate encounters regularly... i shouldn't TPK the players cuz i screwed up, and they shouldn't get shortchanged playtime cuz i screwed up.
my concern is that everyone gets their moment to shine.
they can't do that if the fight ends before they get a chance.
they can't do that if the session ends 2 hours early cuz i gotta replan an entire campaign.


this is what i see:
half the folks are an occasional fudge/HP bump is cool cuz the DM miscalculated an encounter and wants to recover.
half the folks are hardline that any adjustments to the encounter in play is the definition of bad DM and would never play with them again.

[zinycor]

Again, the DMs are limited within the constraints of Adventurers League...

You have stated that you would rather some players at the table not get to participate in combat for 4 hours, rather than a DM beef up the opponents...


What? I don't understand what you are saying there



this is what i see:
half the folks are an occasional fudge/HP bump is cool cuz the DM miscalculated an encounter and wants to recover.
half the folks are hardline that any adjustments to the encounter in play is the definition of bad DM and would never play with them again.

I can't speak for others, But I am all for rebalancig an encounter as long as you have authorization from your table.

[NaughtyTiger]

What? I don't understand what you are saying there.
not that hard to follow:
i said: if I add 50hp to extend the fight for at least 1 full round, everyone gets to roll the dice in the 4-hour block.
stout said: If I caught a DM doing this I would never play with them again.
i said: stout would prefer combat end before the low init guy get an action, rather than change the HP of a creature mid fight.


But I am all for rebalancig an encounter as long as you have authorization from your table.

no you are not in favor of rebalancing an encounter; that's what we have been fighting about.
when I suggested changing the HP on an ogre you highlighted that text and said "Absolutely mistaken on that account. The game has rules." you have said that is the DM deciding what is more fun...

moreover, how is changing a die roll any different from adding/removing HP or adding new enemies that weren't originally planned?

the table has already given her the authorization to rebalance an encounter BECAUSE by sitting at her table, they have given her the authorization to create a balanced encounter in the first place.

[Zhorn]

the table has already given her the authorization to rebalance an encounter BECAUSE by sitting at her table, they have given her the authorization to create a balanced encounter in the first place.
Keep in mind that zinycor's table is pretty much comprised of rotating GMs, and so their perspective on what the DM can do is shaped by that, and the usual power/authority dynamic of it being 'the DM's table' means something different to the common standard.
I'm not saying one way of play is better or worse than another, just that after finding out about zinycor's table from another thread a lot of their views and opinions make more sense as to what formed them. The usual rule zero isn't the same at their table.

[stoutstien]

Again, the DMs are limited within the constraints of Adventurers League...

You have stated that you would rather some players at the table not get to participate in combat for 4 hours, rather than a DM beef up the opponents...

i am not a great DM, but i am an okay one...
i miscalculate encounters regularly... i shouldn't TPK the players cuz i screwed up, and they shouldn't get shortchanged playtime cuz i screwed up.
my concern is that everyone gets their moment to shine.
they can't do that if the fight ends before they get a chance.
they can't do that if the session ends 2 hours early cuz i gotta replan an entire campaign.


this is what i see:
half the folks are an occasional fudge/HP bump is cool cuz the DM miscalculated an encounter and wants to recover.
half the folks are hardline that any adjustments to the encounter in play is the definition of bad DM and would never play with them again.

All adjustments should be done before any dice hit table. This is a sign of under a under prepared DM who hasn't tested any of the material (yes this includes published stuff which is mostly crap) prior to the session.

Sure every once in a while the party goes ham and wipes out an encounter 2x as fast. That's part of the game. Some times they will screw up an easy one. Like I said if you want to play puppet master GRUPS just works better

[zinycor]

not that hard to follow:
i said: if I add 50hp to extend the fight for at least 1 full round, everyone gets to roll the dice in the 4-hour block.
stout said: If I caught a DM doing this I would never play with them again.
i said: stout would prefer combat end before the low init guy get an action, rather than change the HP of a creature mid fight.

Oh, ok, In my opinion it's not a big deal if a low initiative player doesn't get ot act on a fight.



no you are not in favor of rebalancing an encounter; that's what we have been fighting about.
when I suggested changing the HP on an ogre you highlighted that text and said "Absolutely mistaken on that account. The game has rules." you have said that is the DM deciding what is more fun...
As I said, Am in favor of rebalancing an encounter As long as that rebabalncing is okay with your party


moreover, how is changing a die roll any different from adding/removing HP or adding new enemies that weren't originally planned?
If you are doing that in the middle of the session, without informing your players about it. Then yeah, it isn't different, is cheating.


the table has already given her the authorization to rebalance an encounter BECAUSE by sitting at her table, they have given her the authorization to create a balanced encounter in the first place.

As I see it, players have given authorization to the GM to create the encounter, rebalancing it is whole other thing, once it has interacted with the players it exist as a construct in the table, and rebalancing it would be substantial change, therefore would need to be approved.


Keep in mind that zinycor's table is pretty much comprised of rotating GMs, and so their perspective on what the DM can do is shaped by that, and the usual power/authority dynamic of it being 'the DM's table' means something different to the common standard.
I'm not saying one way of play is better or worse than another, just that after finding out about zinycor's table from another thread a lot of their views and opinions make more sense as to what formed them. The usual rule zero isn't the same at their table.

Yeah, that may be the case.

[SpanielBear]

All adjustments should be done before any dice hit table. This is a sign of under a under prepared DM who hasn't tested any of the material (yes this includes published stuff which is mostly crap) prior to the session.

Sure every once in a while the party goes ham and wipes out an encounter 2x as fast. That's part of the game. Some times they will screw up an easy one. Like I said if you want to play puppet master GRUPS just works better

This is steering pretty close into "your fun is wrong" territory.

[zinycor]

This is steering pretty close into "your fun is wrong" territory.

If your fun depends on cheating, I would say it is wrong.

[SpanielBear]

If your fun depends on cheating, I would say it is wrong.

Hardly dependent. And I object to the idea that a DM reading the table and adapting to the prevailing mood so that a group of friends have a fun evening should have that level of emotive language used to describe it.

Bad DMing is creating an experience that the players do not enjoy. It is fine for you to feel that a DM changing scenarios on the fly would make a bad experience for you, and I am not asking you to change how you want to play. But similarly there are clearly those who do find that being more fluid improves the game for their table. They are not DMing in bad faith.

[stoutstien]

This is steering pretty close into "your fun is wrong" territory.

I'm all for the DM having fun but doing at the expense of the rest of the table is playing a very dangerous game of pulling strings that may start pulling back.

[SpanielBear]

I'm all for the DM having fun but doing at the expense of the rest of the table is playing a very dangerous game of pulling strings that may start pulling back.

I agree, and I don't think anyone who has posted on this thread would argue that the DM should fudge or make changes that were obviously making the other players unhappy or dissatisfied. But that doesn't mean that the other extreme of no changes ever is the only other option. A DM *can* read the table, especially one where the other players are long term friends, and see where they are flagging or losing interest. As DM, they have tools available to make a positive experience. I am categorically not suggesting the DM should act as a tyrant and run rough-shod, but what I am saying is that flexibility isn't in itself a sin.

[Waazraath]

This happened to me in a level 2 one shot I ran. A mixed groups of wolves and dire wolves attacked the PCs. The barbarian took on two of them, and didn’t rage (I don’t know if he forgot or considered that the first fight of the game wasn’t worth it). The wolves get two critical hit on him (added by Pack Tactics) and the barbarian goes down. The druid has to drop their Wild Shape to heal the barbarian. No characters died, but the characters definitely felt that the consequences of having expended extra resources in the first fight and played carefully after that.

I don’t fudge dice. A battle that would otherwise have been pretty forgettable became a fun tense brawl because the enemies landed a couple of lucky shots.

Maybe you honestly know when it is more fun to fudge dice than to play them as they lay. I think it is more likely that you just think you do.

So.... the example I gave didn't 'happend to you', something completely different happened to you. Your party had a very challenging encounter, which was fun. Which is great! Except for the fact that 1) this is quite commen knowledge, that close calls can be great fun, and more important, b), this has completely, utterly nothing to do with the example I gave. Which was "If I have 4 players who all spend days working on background, drawing pictures of their characters, preparing 20 level builds, I am confident enough to know that they won't consider it fun if they get tpk's in session 2 because of a wandering monster that rolls 3 20's in a row."

So if you really want to have a discussion in good faith, please take my words at face value and respond to the situation I describe, instead of a distorted version that better fits the opinion you seem to have. Do you really think I should kill off an entire party in an rather irrelevant random encounter, just because some bad luck, after we just started and they invested massive time into creating some characters?

As for wether I know or just think I know how my players would respond: well, I know I know so I don't really care what you think. But for added info: I play with childhood friends I know over 30 years, highschool friends I know over 20, and friends from university I know for over a decade.



Another argument in favor of fudging goes along the lines of "Sometimes as a GM you balance things wrongly and fudging is needed". I don't think it is, you could always stop the game, talk to the players, and nerf the enemies appropiattely so they now are a become an appropiatte challenge for the party. Now, some groups of players will say:"Don't, let us try to defeat this challenge as it is" in that case, at least now they know the encounter challenging, and they wouldn't have wanted the Fudging anyway.

Another argument in favor of fudging goes along the lines of "The GM changes things all the time, creating deus Ex Machinas to save the party, giving NPCs a bunch of hp out of nowhere, having them act out of character, etc." To these I say, these are also cheating. Now, situations do come up where these things may be needed, if that's the case, then tell your players that you are about to do these things, explain your problem to them. Be honest and open with your players and do better next time, don't hide behind your GM screen.

Maybe there are groups who are open to that, but all I've ever met rather have me fudge a dice or pull a deus ex machina instead of halting the game for an introspective evaluative 'how can we do this better next time' talk, 'oh and forget the last 10 minutes, it only were 3 orks instead of 6 and you all are alive again'. I don't know anything that kills the mood and story quicker than that.

Further: be aware that you call a lot of stuff 'cheating' which really isn't. You could make a case about a fudged die, but having declare every Deus ex machina 'cheating' sure as hell isn't RAW (or point me to the page in the PHB or DMG where it says so). If you want to play like that fine, but you are the one deviating from the rules there.



Regarding story reasons for fudging; The whole reason for tabletop storytelling is that you and the players are telling a story with the rules you have agreed on as the motor for things to happen. If you fudge, or cheat in any other way, in the name of the story, you are ignoring the players input, and whatever rules you agreed on. You would have been better wirting a book. A good story on TRPGs is a story that the whole table created, where even the GM is surprised, creator and watcher.

So claiming the 20 I rolled as a DM is a 19 is "ignoring players input" now? :smallconfused:


Now, This has been a wonderful conversation, and thanks to you all, I now have whle bunch of things that I now consider unnaceptable :smallbiggrin:.

If it works for you, again, fine, but that's really a terrible conclusion from this discussion. Because you discard a whole bunch of good decades tried DM tools on the base of some personal dislikes, instead of the rulebooks. Which is rather ironic. I honestly think you'll be a worse DM for it.


Another 2 things I'd like to remark. I notice some folks to have a rather good idea about what it takes to DM; that different DM's have different strengths; that sometimes, improvisation is needed in the blink of an eye, and it is impossible to always pick the perfects solution. Others are rather judgemental about any DM that isn't able to instantly fix an unwanted situation (either tpk or 1 shot killed BBEG). Fine you all are / have such super competent DM's who never need to fudge a dice and always are 100% prepared and never have a bunch of unlucky rolls in a row (a statitically unlikelyhood) - but this really isn't the norm.

Number 2: I find the "fudging a dice is cheating" camp to be rather judgemental in their terminology: cheating, betrayal of trust, lazy DM'ing. All fine, you can do that. But do note that if I'd care to express the same judgementalism, I'd use terms as "fundementally flawed understanding of the game and its rules" and "incompence in DM'ing due to dogmatic views". Which I won't, cause if your type of gaming works and you have fun, that's fine. But those that do fudge the occasional die do not have BadWrongFun either... (ah - wait, I see that at least 1 person already claims it is. Oh well.).


One question for everybody: is 5e really different in this respect, that fudging a dice isn't mentioned explicitly? Or is it heavily enough implied? And if there is a difference with earlier editions, why?

[zinycor]

So claiming the 20 I rolled as a DM is a 19 is "ignoring players input" now? :smallconfused:

No, not all fudging is ignoring players input, even if it is cheating, if the fudging is for the saving throws the bad guys needs to do (Like on the OP) it is ignoring player input.




Another 2 things I'd like to remark. I notice some folks to have a rather good idea about what it takes to DM; that different DM's have different strengths; that sometimes, improvisation is needed in the blink of an eye, and it is impossible to always pick the perfects solution. Others are rather judgemental about any DM that isn't able to instantly fix an unwanted situation (either tpk or 1 shot killed BBEG). Fine you all are / have such super competent DM's who never need to fudge a dice and always are 100% prepared and never have a bunch of unlucky rolls in a row (a statitically unlikelyhood) - but this really isn't the norm.
Personally I am not judgemental about any GM that isn't able to instantly fix an unwanted situation, I Am judgemental about fixing that problem by lying to players.


Number 2: I find the "fudging a dice is cheating" camp to be rather judgemental in their terminology: cheating, betrayal of trust, lazy DM'ing. All fine, you can do that. But do note that if I'd care to express the same judgementalism, I'd use terms as "fundementally flawed understanding of the game and its rules" and "incompence in DM'ing due to dogmatic views". Which I won't, cause if your type of gaming works and you have fun, that's fine. But those that do fudge the occasional die do not have BadWrongFun either... (ah - wait, I see that at least 1 person already claims it is. Oh well.).


And you ould be wrong on those claims


One question for everybody: is 5e really different in this respect, that fudging a dice isn't mentioned explicitly? Or is it heavily enough implied? And if there is a difference with earlier editions, why?

I don't think so.

[patchyman]

Which was "If I have 4 players who all spend days working on background, drawing pictures of their characters, preparing 20 level builds, I am confident enough to know that they won't consider it fun if they get tpk's in session 2 because of a wandering monster that rolls 3 20's in a row."

So if you really want to have a discussion in good faith, please take my words at face value and respond to the situation I describe, instead of a distorted version that better fits the opinion you seem to have. Do you really think I should kill off an entire party in an rather irrelevant random encounter, just because some bad luck, after we just started and they invested massive time into creating some characters?

Did your example really happen, or was it a hypothetical? Because based on your description, it seemed hypothetical. My example was something that really happened that was extremely close to what you described.

To build on a secondary point of my post: even at level 2, when characters are almost at their most fragile, 3 critical rolls will not result in a TPK. A character goes down, there are spells, potions and a good old DC 10 Médecine check. Another thread is arguing that healing is overpowered because of how quickly characters get up again.

Players are resourceful, characters are tough. Don’t assume you need to fudge to make the game exciting or more fun.

[Knaight]

To those saying that DM's fudging rolls is wrong, what about Legendary Resistance?

It seems nothing short of DM-Fiat built into the actual rules.
What about hit points? You successfully rolled to hit something, but instead of them reeling away short a limb they just spent some of their hit point supply and ignored it. What about Inspiraiton, from the player side? What about death saves? What about Portent?

There's a fundamental difference between GM or player fudging and a game system modeling defenses or having ways to alter rolls.


Number C.) Say "good job everybody, you stopped the bad guy" and come up with a new plot. You can even re-use a lot of the encounters from the previous plot idea.

There's even an obvious one here. You, personally, just ruined the plot of a doomsday cult. That information getting out is pretty much guaranteed by the scenario, and now they can't do their doomsday plan and need to find something else to do. Like revenge. On you.

[mephnick]

Just to say zinycor, I agree with you fully. The DM who decides they know what is best for the story is denying the players the outcome of their actions. The DM must be pretty full of themselves to assume that they know what would be the most fun outcome. Maybe that character's death in session 1 leads to a better character. Or a better villian. Or a new quest. But you'll never get anywhere trying to change the minds of the failed writers that populate the DnD world.

The story is the tale you tell after the session is over, not what is happening in the moment. Don't worry about controlling the narrative. Let it unfold.

[NaughtyTiger]

Did your example really happen, or was it a hypothetical? Because based on your description, it seemed hypothetical. My example was something that really happened that was extremely close to what you described.

Yes that happens especially with middle schoolers! i ran a campaign at my FLGS, and yeah, they showed up with art, story, and their mini fresh from heroforge.

and yes, my DM dice are mean... i dropped a college kid's sorc about 3 sessions in, he quit DnD for 6 months...



All adjustments should be done before any dice hit table. This is a sign of under a under prepared DM who hasn't tested any of the material (yes this includes published stuff which is mostly crap) prior to the session.

holy crap.. you had me going... right up to you saying the DM should playtest a session before she plays a session...

again... about half the folks on this thread think they are gods gift to DMing, perfectly sizing up their table's capability before the session,
the other half just plays the game knowing they have limits....



This is steering pretty close into "your fun is wrong" territory.
this is well inside the territory, building permanent homes, raising a family...

i hope new players don't read this thread.... these folks are hostile to inexperienced DMs

[stoutstien]

Yes that happens especially with middle schoolers! i ran a campaign at my FLGS, and yeah, they showed up with art, story, and their mini fresh from heroforge.

and yes, my DM dice are mean... i dropped a college kid's sorc about 3 sessions in, he quit DnD for 6 months...




holy crap.. you had me going... right up to you saying the DM should playtest a session before she plays a session...

again... about half the folks on this thread think they are gods gift to DMing, perfectly sizing up their table's capability before the session,
the other half just plays the game knowing they have limits....



this is well inside the territory, building permanent homes, raising a family...

i hope new players don't read this thread.... these folks are hostile to inexperienced DMs

It's not about being perfect. It's about learning when you do mess up. If every time a DM misses the mark they cover it up with fixing the dice they never have to get better. Players out play you and capture the BBEG you planned to use for the next 6 sessions? Yep next time better not be dumb and seen a minion to heckle the party.
If you are will to play a hand be prepared to lose.

I will be the first to admit I mess up alot as DM but covering it up and trying to pass it off as being a better story teller isnt my idea if continual improvement.

[NaughtyTiger]

It's not about being perfect. It's about learning when you do mess up. If every time a DM misses the mark they cover it up with fixing the dice they never have to get better. Players out play you and capture the BBEG you planned to use for the next 6 sessions? Yep next time better not be dumb and seen a minion to heckle the party.
If you are will to play a hand be prepared to lose.

I will be the first to admit I mess up alot as DM but covering it up and trying to pass it off as being a better story teller isnt my idea if continual improvement.

okay, i misinterpreted your position.

that said, i still disagree with the premise. in my view, adding 50HP or fudging a die roll is better than breaking immersion by saying

"okay, you guys killed the BBEG before Bob got to do an action. i should have added 50HP before combat started or added a second ogre, but i didn't, so Bob doesn't get to go. sorry bob, i know you waited 20 minutes for your turn, and didn't get to stab. but don't you feel better knowing that i admitted i screwed up and will fix it next time. anyway, this ended early and i didn't prepare anything else so see you next week.'"
or

"okay, guys i really thought you could handle 2 ogres, but i was wrong. it's going to be a TPK, i will know better for next time. but don't you feel better knowing ..."

i contend that i can still learn even if i fudge a die roll.
i contend that screwing up and not letting the players know is continual improvement.
note: i can disagree with you without saying i will never play with you, or that you are so rigid you are ruining for others, or accuse you of being a bad DM, or i don't attack strawman arguments...
i actually took 15 seconds to consider it from your point of view and i tried to address your issues.
i am pissed, because neither you nor zinc have shown others the same courtesy.

[stoutstien]

okay, i misinterpreted your position.

that said, i still disagree with the premise. in my view, adding 50HP or fudging a die roll is better than breaking immersion by saying

"okay, you guys killed the BBEG before Bob got to do an action. i should have added 50HP before combat started or added a second ogre, but i didn't, so Bob doesn't get to go. sorry bob, i know you waited 20 minutes for your turn, and didn't get to stab. but don't you feel better knowing that i admitted i screwed up and will fix it next time. anyway, this ended early and i didn't prepare anything else so see you next week.'"
or

"okay, guys i really thought you could handle 2 ogres, but i was wrong. it's going to be a TPK, i will know better for next time. but don't you feel better knowing ..."

i contend that i can still learn even if i fudge a die roll.
i contend that screwing up and not letting the players know is continual improvement.
note: i can disagree with you without saying i will never play with you, or that you are so rigid you are ruining for others, or accuse you of being a bad DM, or i don't attack strawman arguments...
i actually took 15 seconds to consider it from your point of view and i tried to address your issues.
i am pissed, because neither you nor zinc have shown others the same courtesy.

I did back when I listed four of the most popular styles of running a game. It just fixing dice and moving HP, ac and suddenly giving NPCs immunity on the fly is all signs of a puppet master style DM. Which is fine if the player know about it. Doing it without their knowledge is dangerous waters I would not recommend to a new DM

[Aaedimus]

What I'll say about what you're describing NaughtyTiger, is that the situations you are trying to avoid aren't a big deal. If a team member doesn't get to participate in a combat I've never had anyone get frustrated (I've seen more get frustrated because the DM fudges roles and their magic is useless)

And TPKs can be fun! You all get to build new characters and see what happened as a result of the death of your characters!

I'm not an absolutist, but the point remains that DMs cheating to keep their story line in tact is socially acceptable in many settings and because of this, I have found that when rating spells for gameplay any spell with a saving throw becomes MUCH less effective than designed. To the point that the players you let participate in the conflict feel jipped because their action consisted of: "nothing happened. They passed the save" 4 out of 5 of their turns (that's much worse than not getting to participate in a short combat) because the DM doesn't want to deal with save or suck spells for example

[DrLoveMonkey]

There's even an obvious one here. You, personally, just ruined the plot of a doomsday cult. That information getting out is pretty much guaranteed by the scenario, and now they can't do their doomsday plan and need to find something else to do. Like revenge. On you.

Yeah, right I agree. I’m not saying that die fudging should be a thing that happens all the time to make everything happen as the DM foresaw it. Again there’s totally rules legal ways to do that anyway. Like a trickster god incarnates into the world, casts a mass DC 28 wis save Dominate Person on the entire party and puppeteers them to do whatever he wants. That’s probably a ****ty DM who’s not going to get another session, barring this being a very clever DM and accepting group, but that’s not rules illegal either. It’s a god, it has whatever stats you want it to have.

But there’s a difference between the DM who passes twenty saves in a row and chuckles in the player’s face about bad luck, forcing them to go through the last ten combats doing absolutely nothing but burning spell slots and getting more and more frustrated, and the novice DM who’s panicking because the lynchpin of the entire campaign is about to die a disappointing and pathetic death and he has no idea that the Clone spell even exists or that medium size enemies can have legendary resistance so he fudges that one roll and then never again in that campaign. The latter is bad DMing in the way that sending your level 1 party through a badass vampire castle because you all love Castlevania and thought that’d be fun is bad DMing. Which it is, and also totally forgivable, where the former is not.

Experienced and masterful DMs just won’t run into this problem because they have an understanding of the world and mechanics, and free reign to just make **** up even if it doesn’t exist so the chances of them getting caught out like that are extremely low. Also they should have the chops to just have the court wizard drop their spell focus in shock and say “Please, please, for the love of all the gods tell me you didn’t just kill the Matriarch of Wyrms’ favoured servant...” when they brag to him about it. Then again “Congrats on killing the CR 24 mage villain, y’all are ready to fight Tiamat now, right?” Is also bad.

[zinycor]

.
i am pissed, because neither you nor zinc have shown others the same courtesy.

I haven't called anyone a bad GM, nor have I insulted anyone's intelligence, or made conclusions about anyone's game.

I have stated that there are several things that I consider cheating, the reasons why, I even took one of the arguments at heart, that stated that adding 50 points to a NPC is the same as fudging, and I agreed with it.

So I consider myself in disagreement with you, but I have read your post, I believe you and others when they say they have had great gaming "careers", I disagree with you and others on the cheating points.

So I won't consider your statement valid. If I offended you, am sorry about it, it might be because I use hard words, but it wasn't my intention, nor do I think any less of you or others.

[Waazraath]

Ok... it feels a bit like discussing with the Miko Miyazaki fanclub here. HOW ARE YOU GUYS DOING, UP THERE, OH SO HIGH ON YOUR MORAL HORSES?!

to summarize:

- this is essentially a RAW-debate, on how far the arbitary powers of a DM go (as in: can a Master of the Rules fudge a dice, when in service of the gaming experience).
- the people who don't think this is allowed, have called people who think otherwise cheats, betrayers, lazy, not worth playing with and in the most recent posts since my last, liars and 'failed writers'.
- ... as well as having badwrongfun. Literally.
- and the number of fallacies that is employed is impressive. People who argue for the occasional fudged die to improve the story and the experience for their player are made suspicious, "wanting to control the story", wanting "to outplay the players", or een have failed literary ambitions. This is seriously pathetic, and offensive. A lot of bad DM experiences are projected on the other side of the argument, while these things have nothing to do with it, and are totally uncalled for.

I find the number of people who take a hardline, dogmatic stance in this surprising. But I think the amound of moral superiority going around, the patronizing and condesending tone, seriously repulsive.


Just to say zinycor, I agree with you fully. The DM who decides they know what is best for the story is denying the players the outcome of their actions. The DM must be pretty full of themselves to assume that they know what would be the most fun outcome. Maybe that character's death in session 1 leads to a better character. Or a better villian. Or a new quest. But you'll never get anywhere trying to change the minds of the failed writers that populate the DnD world.

Thank you for illustrating my point.


Keep in mind that zinycor's table is pretty much comprised of rotating GMs, and so their perspective on what the DM can do is shaped by that, and the usual power/authority dynamic of it being 'the DM's table' means something different to the common standard.
I'm not saying one way of play is better or worse than another, just that after finding out about zinycor's table from another thread a lot of their views and opinions make more sense as to what formed them. The usual rule zero isn't the same at their table.

Could be, and I'm willing to try to look from that viewpoint. But as NaughtyTiger already mentioned, the other side of the debate doesn't seem the least interested in other experiences than their own, and how these could colour their perspective.



Personally I am not judgemental about any GM that isn't able to instantly fix an unwanted situation, I Am judgemental about fixing that problem by lying to players.

The discussion is wether this constitutes 'cheating' or not. So yeah, by calling people cheaters, and liars, and betrayers of trust, you really don't have a good place to prentend to be all mister reasonable like your doing here in #148


I don't think so.


Wait, you don't think it was different in other editions? Even though DM guides explicitly stated that fudging dice was ok? :smallconfused:


okay, i misinterpreted your position.

that said, i still disagree with the premise. in my view, adding 50HP or fudging a die roll is better than breaking immersion by saying

"okay, you guys killed the BBEG before Bob got to do an action. i should have added 50HP before combat started or added a second ogre, but i didn't, so Bob doesn't get to go. sorry bob, i know you waited 20 minutes for your turn, and didn't get to stab. but don't you feel better knowing that i admitted i screwed up and will fix it next time. anyway, this ended early and i didn't prepare anything else so see you next week.'"
or

"okay, guys i really thought you could handle 2 ogres, but i was wrong. it's going to be a TPK, i will know better for next time. but don't you feel better knowing ..."

i contend that i can still learn even if i fudge a die roll.
i contend that screwing up and not letting the players know is continual improvement.
note: i can disagree with you without saying i will never play with you, or that you are so rigid you are ruining for others, or accuse you of being a bad DM, or i don't attack strawman arguments...
i actually took 15 seconds to consider it from your point of view and i tried to address your issues.
i am pissed, because neither you nor zinc have shown others the same courtesy.

Amen.

[Mitsu]

Imo TPK or Boss fast death as excuse to cheat rolls/stats is lame excuse. You learn on your mistakes, as TPK only happens when you allow it to continue.

For example I once (long ago) TPK whole party because I made bad encounter. So then I changed not stats/mechanics but narrative and made a powerful organization rise them from death so they can repay debt. I didn't break narrative, didn't cheat roll, I just went with TPK as a story feature.

Boss.

I can't count how many times players killed Boss in 2-3 turns. Sure it can be avoided or mitigated by adding minions, taking maximum HP from monster Hit Dice (you still use his stat blocks) etc. but sometimes that how it is. If you have party that consist of Samurai Archer, Sorcadin, Zealot + Sorlock then It's just reality- bosses will go down super fast. So just accept it. There is nothing wrong with Boss going down fast. It's also epic. No need to increase his HP or cheat on rolls. It died. End. Move along.

I never understood the problem with how fast party kills a boss. Sometimes it's painfully slow (new players and their Dwarf Wizards and Half-Elf Barbarians) and sometimes it's just "puf! Gone" (optimized party of veteran munchkins).

Focus on story and good plot instead of some numbers. No need to cheat.

[Sigreid]

As a player, as long as I'm not forced into the situation and have some indication what I'm up against, I prefer the DM play it square. So as a DM that's the way i play it. If the party has a rough time, that's awesome. If the party finds a way to totally curb stomp the opposition, that's also awesome.

[stoutstien]

Ok... it feels a bit like discussing with the Miko Miyazaki fanclub here. HOW ARE YOU GUYS DOING, UP THERE, OH SO HIGH ON YOUR MORAL HORSES?!

to summarize:

- this is essentially a RAW-debate, on how far the arbitary powers of a DM go (as in: can a Master of the Rules fudge a dice, when in service of the gaming experience).
- the people who don't think this is allowed, have called people who think otherwise cheats, betrayers, lazy, not worth playing with and in the most recent posts since my last, liars and 'failed writers'.
- ... as well as having badwrongfun. Literally.
- and the number of fallacies that is employed is impressive. People who argue for the occasional fudged die to improve the story and the experience for their player are made suspicious, "wanting to control the story", wanting "to outplay the players", or een have failed literary ambitions. This is seriously pathetic, and offensive. A lot of bad DM experiences are projected on the other side of the argument, while these things have nothing to do with it, and are totally uncalled for.

I find the number of people who take a hardline, dogmatic stance in this surprising. But I think the amound of moral superiority going around, the patronizing and condesending tone, seriously repulsive.



Thank you for illustrating my point.



Could be, and I'm willing to try to look from that viewpoint. But as NaughtyTiger already mentioned, the other side of the debate doesn't seem the least interested in other experiences than their own, and how these could colour their perspective.



The discussion is wether this constitutes 'cheating' or not. So yeah, by calling people cheaters, and liars, and betrayers of trust, you really don't have a good place to prentend to be all mister reasonable like your doing here in #148



Wait, you don't think it was different in other editions? Even though DM guides explicitly stated that fudging dice was ok? :smallconfused:



Amen.

How high up the horse to you need
to be to believe changing dice outcome without the tables consent is bad?
Let me be clear, fudging dice isn't the problem. Doing it without the player's knowable is. Players initially have very absolute but very limited spaces of control in the game in the form of their players actions.

If you are going to keep the ablity to do it the players should know the start.

We can't have a clear picture of how it effects tables if the players don't even know that it's happening. For all I know players will love it or more likely they will ask the same question I did. Why roll at that point?

[Zhorn]

It can be hard to explain why fudging rolls is a good thing if your only experience with it was from antagonistic DMs with that DM vs Player mindset.
But just because a bad DM abused the tools they had it doesn't mean the tools are bad.

I had to fish this video up because Seth Skorkowsy is just a treat to watch, and he explains it far better than I can in a single forum post

https://youtu.be/gq6zdf2iQJs?t=329
The whole video is worth watching, but point #3 (time stamp 5m28s) is pretty on topic.

[zinycor]

The discussion is wether this constitutes 'cheating' or not. So yeah, by calling people cheaters, and liars, and betrayers of trust, you really don't have a good place to prentend to be all mister reasonable like your doing here in #148

Ok... I just re read my posts and I don't see an instance of me calling someone else anything, just judging the action. As I said, I don't judge YOU or any of other people, I judge the action you are defending.

[Corran]

Let me be clear, fudging dice isn't the problem. Doing it without the player's knowledge is.
You do understand though that this is a very theoretical problem, right? Yes, we can argue if it's ''good'' or ''bad'' to fudge the rolls without the players knowing, but practically, if no one but the DM knows this, then it's not something that concerns the players or takes away from their enjoyment of the game.

Edit:

It can be hard to explain why fudging rolls is a good thing if your only experience with it was from antagonistic DMs with that DM vs Player mindset.
It's perhaps even worse when it's done for story purposes. If you have a ''bad'' DM then nothing saves your game, but if not, it could be a waste of a good campaign if you fudge the rolls so that the narrative continues to run in the usually obvious and predetermined way. The objection from some people here, is not because we dont condone a DM fudging the rolls to kill or screw with a pc; nobody condones that (or at least I think that the vast majority of us can agree on this one and move on). The disagreement here (or at least part of the disagreement; can't speak for others), is over how much if at all, it is justified to negate, disregard or completely turn on their head, consequences of the players' actions, so that we dont mess with the direction in which, we as a DM, had envisioned the campaign progressing.

[Sigreid]

Ok... I just re read my posts and I don't see an instance of me calling someone else anything, just judging the action. As I said, I don't judge YOU or any of other people, I judge the action you are defending.

In the end, this is a table thing. I think we all know that the same thing that makes you the greatest DM in history at one table will make you the worst at another. For example, I've enjoyed watching several Mike Coville (or however his name is spelled) videos on how to DM. It's interesting to see a different perspective but frankly I would not be happy as a player at his table. I'm just as certain he'd be unhappy as a player at mine.

[stoutstien]

You do understand though that this is a very theoretical problem, right? Yes, we can argue if it's ''good'' or ''bad'' to fudge the rolls without the players knowing, but practically, if no one but the DM knows this, then it's not something that concerns the players or takes away from their enjoyment of the game.
True but if the players found out they will start to question every roll.

Players will pick up on it and like the OP will look for ways to try to change it within their scope of power which in this case is avoiding ST spell because he/she feels the DM is unjustly hampering them. Is this Dm fudging rolls? Only they know but once the possibility becomes an option I doubt anyone going to let them be the banker in the next Monopoly game.

[patchyman]

Yes that happens especially with middle schoolers! i ran a campaign at my FLGS, and yeah, they showed up with art, story, and their mini fresh from heroforge.

If you are playing with middle school aged children, who are inexperienced players, in a low level campaign, who are extremely attached to their characters, just tell them when you start: if you fail 3 death saves, you will be knocked out for the rest of the fight. You will have to take a short rest to recover, during which you can spend HD as normal.

As a DM, I am always on my players’ side, heart and soul. It is precisely that reason that I have to be scrupulously fair in adjudicating the rules, and that means that the dice lay where they fall.

I play a lot of board games as well, and when I play Pandemic, or any other coop game, I don’t fudge dice rolls. Part of the fun is the possibility of losing, and changing dice rolls removes that, whether I do it or someone else does it on my behalf.

[patchyman]

As a player, as long as I'm not forced into the situation and have some indication what I'm up against, I prefer the DM play it square. So as a DM that's the way i play it. If the party has a rough time, that's awesome. If the party finds a way to totally curb stomp the opposition, that's also awesome.

If the party finds a way to curb stomp the opposition, that’s better! Congrats, guys, you came up with a tactic I didn’t consider.

[Willie the Duck]

Not going to get involved in the shouting match, just going to go back to the point about fudging.
I am of the opinion that, in general (and with some caveats) fudging rolls or otherwise altering the scenario on the fly is not a good long-term solution. This is mostly because, without accurate feedback of results from their actions, neither DM not player can accurately fine-tune their playing style to get better at their respective craft. As people learn from their mistakes, they get better at judging challenge, and thus whomever is choosing the difficulty* will be better at setting the players up for encounters that are just the right amount of risk for their preferences.
*DM or player, depending on if this is a laid out adventure, sandbox, or something in between.

All of this is predicated (so, the caveats) on mature adult individuals who will not walk away from the game after a particularly devastating happenstance (so the middle schooler example would be an exception) and many repeated playsessions such that people actually do have a chance to adapt to each other's playstyle (so the AL sessions). Those exceptions are, indeed exceptional, and there's no one good metric for how to adjudicate them. Experience, skill, and deference are needed and there's no one purist and formulaic rule that will take their place.

Mind you, this was all a lot easier in OSR play when a disastrous defeat could be fixed with, "cool, hand me 3D6. I'll have a new guy up and running in 5 minutes." With elaborately built characters and back stories and lovingly crafted character art and the like, it becomes a different story (although I think that example was also the middle schooler scenario, so it was already an exception). Despite the game changing such that characters aren't nearly as disposable, the rules haven't changed to keep pace such that running away (when the fight has gone south) be made particularly easier. For that reason, I've tended to institute what I call a 'wayback machine' -- If an encounter has gone perfectly wrong, and it's going to be a TPK (or nearly so), I tend to say afterwards, "Okay, so I was not expecting that. I think I misjudged how many Tentacled Dire VelociR hinos you guys could handle, and didn't really give a good out. Let's say that your Characters never made it to the Temple of the Bedazzled Ocelot this session, and instead got waylaid by a [pre-packaged modular mini adventure I have waiting in a manila folder], which we'll play for the rest of the session, and I'll set up a new temple adventure for next week. Make sure to keep tabs on escape routes next time. Sorry guys." Players still 'lost,' they don't get any rewards for (all of us) screwing up, but they get to keep their lovingly crafted characters, and don't have to sit out the rest of the evening's fun, or the like.

[Sigreid]

If the party finds a way to curb stomp the opposition, that’s better! Congrats, guys, you came up with a tactic I didn’t consider.

I also think it's awesome if the party gets curb stomped too. Occasional failures are why victories are meaningful.

[Aaedimus]

I love how this started as "DMs fudge rolls, so this is how I try to avoid that"

to a discussion on the morality of fudging

Also it's pretty funny that as the OP I've made about... 5? comments in the string that all keep getting ignored lol

[Nagog]

Seconded. This isn't a problem with spells that use Saving Throws. This is a problem with a DM that wants to 'win' against the party.
I ran a BBEG that had the infamous Darkness + Devil's Sight combo. The party hit him less often, and they couldn't deal enough damage in 1 go to make the DC more than 10. I rolled Concentration checks for him every time, but I just never rolled low enough to drop concentration.
They still killed him dead, it just took longer.

I'm also vehemently against adversarial DMing. I hope that my players will tell me if I'm straying in that direction by accident, so I can adjust my course.
DnD is supposed to be fun for everybody at the table. As DM, you can throw everything at the party to kill them if you want. The fun is in making things challenging, but not un-fun.


That's interesting. I do roll behind my DM screen, but if the creature does succeed, I usually take the D20 as it is - and set it in front o the screen so my players know I am not fudging the numbers in my favor. I, for example, had a custom Undead Black Dragon (won't go into the long story), but it wasn't at full power because it had just been resurrected in its current state of undead (intentionally so because the party were all level 5 - granted 7 players...) But it had 3 attacks, that had a good chance to hit, and did some damage (which was good for the challenge - because of having 7 players, two of which were up front tanks - a fighter and barbarian - and plus a ranger - a wizard - a bard - a cleric and a rogue).

This thing had 260 hit points. So I was planning for a good, long fight that should be a good challenge. First few rounds, things are going great - the party is freaked out, but they're doing damage (the dragon fear failed on everyone but the rogue), and the dragon's doing damage to them.

The cleric had tried some kind of divination attack against undead, and the Dragon saved each time - and I showed the rolls (which were like 16, 16, and 19).

Then the Wizard casts Slow on the Dragon. If I fail, those three attacks are reduced to one. Still a challenge, but certainly tampers the danger level. I rolled. Failed. Rolled a 3. No amount of bonuses were going to pass. So now this dragon went from 3 attacks to 1 every round. Each round - four rounds of this - I tried to save, and could not roll higher than a 9. As a result, they were able to take down the dragon.

An interesting opposition to your problem is, as a DM I always try to read my players. The bard in the group (they're all BRAND new to D&D - we've done like 10 sessions now) is often feeling overshadowed (she can't match the damage of the fighter, barbarian, ranger, or rogue; her songs don't heal as much as the cleric; and none of her spells hit as hard as the wizard) - so as such I focus on things in town for her to do (High CHR, so she's the shining star). But I've fudged in FAVOR of the bard's spells sometimes (saying I failed a save when she casts), because to me, my job as a DM is to weave an adventure for them to shape; but I also need to make sure everyone is having fun at my table - even if it's at the cost of my monsters or "plans" - because if they're not having fun, I am failing.

Great example! The DM may be God, but even the DM answers to the whims of the Dice. Most of the time. For myself, I have fudged a few rolls here and there, but I make sure to play both sides of the street. If the player rolled a 26 to discover an NPC was lying about something important and the NPC rolled a natural 20, but they need that information for later, I'll fudge the roll in favor of the party. If the party has an enemy grappled and that enemy needs to escape the combat to set things in motion for the plot later down the road, I may fudge a number here and there for narrative purposes. All in all, the issue here isn't necessarily that the DM is fudging rolls, it's that the DM is actively hindering the party for their own amusement or sense of competition. I'm all for fudging rolls if it adds to the fun of the game. Completely shutting down a character because they use spells that require the DM to roll does not enhance the fun at all, and detracts from it greatly.

[zinycor]

I love how this started as "DMs fudge rolls, so this is how I try to avoid that"

to a discussion on the morality of fudging

Also it's pretty funny that as the OP I've made about... 5? comments in the string that all keep getting ignored lol

Sorry about that.

For what is worth, I agree to all of your comments and I can relate to your experience, even though in my case it was just one GM who was a problem and it surprises me to find out that you keep finding these GMs on a regular basis. As others have said, it might be because of AL format.

If this is such a systematic problem in AL maybe you Could bring it up to them, and get their opinion, excuses or whatever. If that doesn't work, personally I would either play in such way that wouldn't matter (like you are doing right now) or just leave those groups (like I ended up doing).

[Waazraath]

How high up the horse to you need
to be to believe changing dice outcome without the tables consent is bad?

So basicly, "no you!". I guess I could expect this at this point. Oh well.



Let me be clear, fudging dice isn't the problem.
For some folks it is.



Doing it without the player's knowable is. Players initially have very absolute but very limited spaces of control in the game in the form of their players actions.

If you are going to keep the ablity to do it the players should know the start.

We can't have a clear picture of how it effects tables if the players don't even know that it's happening. For all I know players will love it or more likely they will ask the same question I did. Why roll at that point?

As said earlier, I play with people I know for 1, 2 or 3 decades. I find it very presumptious that others fill in for me how well I can judge how they feel about this. I'm pretty damn sure, and pretty damn sure that when they are DM'ing, they do exactly the same. And I don't want to know, for reasons already discussed. And mentioned in the youtube clip posted by Zhorn.


It can be hard to explain why fudging rolls is a good thing if your only experience with it was from antagonistic DMs with that DM vs Player mindset.
But just because a bad DM abused the tools they had it doesn't mean the tools are bad.

I had to fish this video up because Seth Skorkowsy is just a treat to watch, and he explains it far better than I can in a single forum post

https://youtu.be/gq6zdf2iQJs?t=329
The whole video is worth watching, but point #3 (time stamp 5m28s) is pretty on topic.

Very good fragment, thank you for sharing. He explains it rather well. Also (and this was new to me, but not anymore) that the sheer amount of RAGE this topic seems to induce is common.

And I know that bad DM histories can colour peoples views on this. I've acknowledged it, as have others. But what is starting to annoy me how people on the other side of the argument put exactly 0 effort in understanding what people in favor of the occasional fudge are saying, and why. And why this is a useful tool for a good DM, who wants to enhance the gaming experience for his or her players, and the difference it makes if you know your table. A lot of responses seem to be in bad faith, assuming the worst DM imagineable that wants to mess up his/her players.


Ok... I just re read my posts and I don't see an instance of me calling someone else anything, just judging the action. As I said, I don't judge YOU or any of other people, I judge the action you are defending.

I didn't call you a liar and a cheat! I just said you were lying and cheating. I didn't call you anything! You can hide behind semantics all that you like. If you yourself even don't want to own your claims and insults, why would I bother to respond to it?


The disagreement here (or at least part of the disagreement; can't speak for others), is over how much if at all, it is justified to negate, disregard or completely turn on their head, consequences of the players' actions, so that we dont mess with the direction in which, we as a DM, had envisioned the campaign progressing.

I don't think anybody who is in favor of the occasional fudge argued in favor of negating disregarding or turning around players actions. Saving a party from TPK due to extreme bad luck isn't it, as far as I can see. Nor is adding a few extra HP, to make a boss fight a little more climatic. It would be different of course if a DM turns the 'turn 1 win' not in a 'turn 3 win' but in a turn 2 loss - but that's not what we're talking about So maybe I've missed it, but I don't think the disagreement is about this.



In the end, this is a table thing. I think we all know that the same thing that makes you the greatest DM in history at one table will make you the worst at another. For example, I've enjoyed watching several Mike Coville (or however his name is spelled) videos on how to DM. It's interesting to see a different perspective but frankly I would not be happy as a player at his table. I'm just as certain he'd be unhappy as a player at mine.

Truth.


True but if the players found out they will start to question every roll.

Players will pick up on it and like the OP will look for ways to try to change it within their scope of power which in this case is avoiding ST spell because he/she feels the DM is unjustly hampering them. Is this Dm fudging rolls? Only they know but once the possibility becomes an option I doubt anyone going to let them be the banker in the next Monopoly game.

That's exactly why they shouldn't know. As for the bolded part: people who wouldn't let a friend* be monopoly's banker because of a fudged die as DM have in my opinion a completely flawed understanding of the DM's role. Cause that roles involves fudging the occasional die in favor of the story and everybody having fun. Fudging the die isn't cheating, it is doing your job as DM (if you are doing it well). Even if people disagree with this view (despite that it has solid backing in D&D lore and RAW), it is truely mistrusting and in bad faith if you use this disagreement to see your friend as untrustworthy outside of this DM context. Frankly, it's terrible. *assuming you play with friends, else replace for 'person'.

@Willie the Duck: good description of the issue. That wayback machine is also a way to deal with it, it wouldn't work for my table though.


I love how this started as "DMs fudge rolls, so this is how I try to avoid that"

to a discussion on the morality of fudging

Also it's pretty funny that as the OP I've made about... 5? comments in the string that all keep getting ignored lol

In that case, more related to the OP: I wouldn't choose to avoid these spells, not even with DM's I suspect they do fudge the occasional roll when they deem it neccesary. Because 1) I know thos moments will only be very few, and when you are good with encounter design this problem shouldn't even come up and 2) even if you can't use it in boss fights, casting Banishment, Hold Something or Blindness on a bunch of creatures in a fight that isn't a boss fight, is still worth it. But it really depends on your DM('s) - if you feel this gets shut down all the time, I'd say 1) talk to the DM outside of the game, and if that doesn't work, 2) indeed pick other spells


All in all, the issue here isn't necessarily that the DM is fudging rolls, it's that the DM is actively hindering the party for their own amusement or sense of competition. I'm all for fudging rolls if it adds to the fun of the game. Completely shutting down a character because they use spells that require the DM to roll does not enhance the fun at all, and detracts from it greatly.

+1

[Doug Lampert]

You do understand though that this is a very theoretical problem, right? Yes, we can argue if it's ''good'' or ''bad'' to fudge the rolls without the players knowing, but practically, if no one but the DM knows this, then it's not something that concerns the players or takes away from their enjoyment of the game.

Strangely, there are lots of players with horror stories about a GM who fudges badly and they know it. That's what started this thread, a claim that saving throw spells were not useful because the GM would just have them not work.

Yet I never see a GM who admits to fudging badly and his players knowing it, the fudging GMs all manage to keep it completely secret.

Weird. The first case shouldn't exist unless the second does. Possibly the problem is that the PLAYERS in fact do usually know, and they don't bother to mention it to the GM as he obviously also knows what he's doing. And the one who is fooled is the GM. In which case you shouldn't fudge and assume it is secret.

Or, maybe that's not it. But I'd be wary of someone who's sure their players will never figure it out, if for no other reason than that many players have been trained by now to simply assume in advance that a screen means the GM is fudging. Maybe they really can't catch anyone and it's just confirmation bias that makes the players think they can, but even if that's the case, if the players assume fudging when they see a screen, then the fudging is again not a secret and you should not assume it is secret.

[Rynjin]

If your only argument for something being moral is "well nobody will mind if they don't find out", you've already kind of shot your own argument in the foot.

If people get pissed at you for doing something when they find out about it, clearly it's not something they're okay with, and if you really thought it was such a positive thing, you wouldn't have this need to keep it a secret, would you?

[zinycor]

If your only argument for something being moral is "well nobody will mind if they don't find out", you've already kind of shot your own argument in the foot.

If people get pissed at you for doing something when they find out about it, clearly it's not something they're okay with, and if you really thought it was such a positive thing, you wouldn't have this need to keep it a secret, would you?

Very well said

[Corran]

If your only argument for something being moral is "well nobody will mind if they don't find out", you've already kind of shot your own argument in the foot.

If people get pissed at you for doing something when they find out about it, clearly it's not something they're okay with, and if you really thought it was such a positive thing, you wouldn't have this need to keep it a secret, would you?
The argument about it being moral or not is inconsequential though. It's an interesting enough exchange of opinion to read, but it wont make anyone wiser nor will it solve any issues that may come up when actually playing the game.

It's about entertainment. Not about being fooled/manipulated/lied to/etc.



I don't think anybody who is in favor of the occasional fudge argued in favor of negating disregarding or turning around players actions. Saving a party from TPK due to extreme bad luck isn't it, as far as I can see. Nor is adding a few extra HP, to make a boss fight a little more climatic. It would be different of course if a DM turns the 'turn 1 win' not in a 'turn 3 win' but in a turn 2 loss - but that's not what we're talking about So maybe I've missed it, but I don't think the disagreement is about this.
This goes back to how each of us likes to play the game. I wont claim that I like TPK's, but I would certainly prefer to play in a game where a TPK is possible (even due to what you call bad luck) than in a game where it isn't. About climactic fights, well, I am not so fond of them to be honest, and I don't say that lightly. I would certainly not appreciate knowing that my DM adjusts the difficulty of the fights on the fly so that they become ''suspenseful'', because that takes away from me every incentive of doing stuff that could affect the fight before it actually happens.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll Say this: Fudging is Cheating since it breaks the fundamental mechanics and understanding present at the game and betrays the trust of the players by lying to them. I suggest that you go back to 3.x.

If you are playing with middle school aged children, who are inexperienced players, in a low level campaign, who are extremely attached to their characters, just tell them when you start: if you fail 3 death saves, you will be knocked out for the rest of the fight. You will have to take a short rest to recover, during which you can spend HD as normal. Good technique.

Mind you, this was all a lot easier in OSR play when a disastrous defeat could be fixed with, "cool, hand me 3D6. I'll have a new guy up and running in 5 minutes." Yep, sure was.

One of the themes of 5e, which is what this sub forum discusses, is that the rules serve the game, the players, and the DM, not that the DM serves the rules.

More guidelines than computer code.

But I'll go back to a point I made earlier: dice fudging (if one engages in it) ought to be rare, an exception. If one is fudging the dice a lot then one is rolling the dice when one need not to. The video Zhorn linked was a nice take on that.

For zinycor: Tastes differ on this, and I find that your absolutist stance does not fit with 5e design philosophy very well. But if what you so adamantly go on about works for your table, then by all means proceed forth and have fun. If that is the way that your rotating GM table needs it to be for all of you gamers to enjoy yourselves, use that tool - but stop trying to tell people who don't play at your table that they are wrong. It harms an otherwise interesting point about how your table adapts to the situation you are all in

[zinycor]

I suggest that you go back to 3.x.
Good technique.
Yep, sure was.

One of the themes of 5e, which is what this sub forum discusses, is that the rules serve the game, the players, and the DM, not that the DM serves the rules.

More guidelines than computer code.

But I'll go back to a point I made earlier: dice fudging (if one engages in it) ought to be rare, an exception. If one is fudging the dice a lot then one is rolling the dice when one need not to. The video Zhorn linked was a nice take on that.

Tastes differ on this, and I find that your absolutist stance does not fit with 5e design philosophy very well. But if it works for your table, then by all means proceed forth and have fun. If that is the way that your rotating GM table needs it to be for all of you gamers to enjoy yourselves, use that tool but stop trying to tell people who don't play at your table that they are wrong. It harms an otherwise interesting point about how your table adapts to the situation you are all in

Never played 3.X

[KorvinStarmast]

Never played 3.5 Interesting.

[Trickery]

I love how this started as "DMs fudge rolls, so this is how I try to avoid that"

to a discussion on the morality of fudging

Also it's pretty funny that as the OP I've made about... 5? comments in the string that all keep getting ignored lol

Just want you to know that you're not alone. What you're talking about in the OP is something people talk about indirectly quite often. I call it DM Meta.

DM Meta: making decisions based on your DM's style. I know my DM does X, so I'm going to do Y and am going to avoid Z.

DM Meta is a big deal. Character decisions made with the DM in mind are often the best decisions you can make, right up there with choosing a character that fits well with your group.

I've seen this discussed in various forms before, usually starting with someone saying their DM does X so they do Y or don't recommend Z. It often devolves into this kind of discussion:

DMs who do X are bad. Find a new table.
X isn't so bad. You'd do it too if you were a DM.
You're just complaining about your DM.

Happens every time. These kinds of comments aren't very helpful.


So my big issue here isn't that it happens, but that with about 60% of the DMs I've been with it tends to happen.... way to much when things don't go their way.

Agreed. Responding to this with specific choices is not the same as complaining about your DM. It just means that you're building a better character.

This kind of thing is why, sooner or later, the Nuclear Wizard or some high-damage character like that will come out on top for strongest build. The DM can't argue with damage. He can say the creature survives, but the players know something is up once a suitable amount of damage has been done.

Just to address fudging the dice, I'm 100% against it. DMs fudge the dice to force a particular outcome. That's why it's done. And it corrupts the spirit of the game.

We, the DMs, are not in control of the game. Nobody is. If someone was in control, then it wouldn't be a game; it would be a story. And we aren't here to write stories. We're here to play games.

[NaughtyTiger]

The whole video is worth watching, but point #3 (time stamp 5m28s) is pretty on topic.

holy cow, it feels like Seth was quoting me in this thread... it was entertaining... i like it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just to address fudging the dice, I'm 100% against it. Then don't do it.

DMs fudge the dice to force a particular outcome.
Nope. Sometimes DMs fudge the dice to let play continue (See the video Zhorn shared with us. )
That's why it's done. And it corrupts the spirit of the game.
Your absolutist statement is false as soon as a single different reason can be shown. So no, that is not correct. With that objection raised, the OP makes IMO and IME a valid point: if you keep fudging the dice, and it becomes a habit, why are you even rolling the dice?

We, the DMs, are not in control of the game. Nobody is. If someone was in control, then it wouldn't be a game; it would be a story. And we aren't here to write stories. We're here to play games. The only true sentence in there is the last one. However, I prefer DM's who don't try to control a game, and when I DM I don't want all of the extra work that trying to control a game would lay on me.

I want the vast majority of choices and cool actions to be made by the players. That's fun for me, players driving the action.

All the dice do is determine success or failure when the outcome of a choice or a decision is in doubt.

And I've got a tool for you that is 5e specific: the advantage or disadvantage rule. By the Rules as Written, the DM can determine that, for a given roll, (that is ANY roll made at all) can be subject to advantage or a disadvantage based on the situation/circumstances directly related to that roll.

That is the rules as written.

So use that. There may be situations where it seems to you as DEM that there's a plausible reason for the outcome to be more likely to go in one direction than another, so roll the dice with advantage, or disadvantage, but please decide ahead of time.

The players have to decide to burn their Inspiration dice before they roll (Inspiration provides a player with advantage on a roll) so it's only fair for the DM to, when applying advantage or disadvantage to a roll in such a case, to make that call before the dice fall.

Advantage and Disadvantage (Introduction)

Sometimes an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw is modified by special situations called advantage and disadvantage. Advantage reflects the positive circumstances surrounding a d20 roll, while disadvantage reflects the opposite.The rules then point the reader to chapter 7.
We find in Chapter 7

You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration can also give a character advantage (as explained in chapter 4, “Personality and Background”). The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage
as a result. Rules As Written.

[Trickery]

Nope. Sometimes DMs fudge the dice to let play continue (See the video Zhorn shared with us. )


That's forcing an outcome. Fudging the dice isn't always done against the players. I'm sure it's usually done to save them from an attack that would wipe the party. I used to do that sort of thing before I matured and realized that it cheapens the game.

Watch Zhorn's video again. Seth literally says that the reason why he fudges the dice sometimes is because "the dice are not storytellers." See 8:29.

The DM isn't a storyteller, either. That's not why we're here. The DM doesn't get to decide what happens. The DM is there to present the setting, the creatures, the items, and so on. No part of that involves making sure specific things do or don't happen - which is what a storyteller would do.

Newsflash: most DMs are horrible storytellers. The players are much better at creating a story together, regardless of whether anything goes according to plan.

For the record, it's funny how I addressed that part of the video with my first post before I even watched the video.

Edit: reread your own quote. "The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result." There's a big difference between influencing rolls and simply deciding what the roll is.

We've all been there when success or failure are virtually guaranteed but then don't happen anyway because of something dumb. And it's great. We've also seen bosses get one shot mid-monologue, or players waltz into a dungeon only to all die to the first trap. Those are the stories players remember, the ones nobody planned and nobody wanted to happen. Don't take that away from people.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's forcing an outcome.
No, it isn't, but I think we may be disagreeing on the connotation of that term.

the dice are not storytellers
I completely a gree and never said otherwise.

The DM isn't a storyteller, either. The story is the collective narrative of what the characters did, and how it went, when they were faced with X. And Y. And Z, and so on ad infinitum.

But let me remind you: the DM is a narrator by the Rules as Written.

Not sure what you mean by "story teller" and I am pretty sure that term is used formally in other game systems.

How to play the game.

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Note: the dice are only rolled when the outcome is in doubt. (See chapter 7 also)

I suspect that you and I are in about 95% agreement, actually. I only find bizarre the desire to die on a hill and go on and on about the occasional fudge of the dice - occasional as in an act that rarely if ever happens. (I don't think I've actually done that even once in the past two years, come to think of it).

So really, I am not sure what you are arguing with me about, other than your own preference not to fudge the dice.

Fine, then don't. I'd rather not, as a general practice. I like to be surprised by unexpected outcomes.

Editing in an example for your consideration.

I was playing a low level sorcerer, and we were on the cusp of an encounter going from "not quite combat" to "roll for initiative" as we tried to prevent one of our party members from being dragged off into a temple. We were up on a balcony, and the other characters had failed to manage to shove or grapple or argue or anything to get the people dragging this PC's progress stopped. (He was grappled and being dragged by three guards). So I stepped forward and shoved one of the guards who was obstructing us from getting at our party member.

I had a strength of 9, but proficiency in Athletics due to Sailor background. (Pirate campaign) So +1 on the shove, wheeeeeeeee!

I roll a 16.
The guard rolls a 9, gets a +5 IIRC and ends up with a 14.

I, and the DM, and all of the other players are a bit surprised that I successfully shoved a big strong guard out of the way as a weak little sorcerer.
Smiles and chuckles folowed.

So I had shoved him away from our guy (10'). Opens up some room for our monk to ... do whatever our monk was going to do.

The DM, without rolling a single die, narrates the following:

You shove him, and he goes back 10'. (pause) The railing isn't that high (pauses) not quite up to his mid thigh ... he goes over the railing and falls off the balcony thanks to your vigorous shove.

My eyes got bigger, I think.

DM thinks for a second.
That's about 30' up.
Looks at me.
Roll me 3d6 for his falling damage.
At this point the monk and the warlock start reaching for their dice
I rolled 13 points of damage.

The DM pauses for a minute. And grins at us.

Roll for initiative.

Monk growls at me: "Nice job, starting a fist fight you can't finish ..."

[Knaight]

One of the themes of 5e, which is what this sub forum discusses, is that the rules serve the game, the players, and the DM, not that the DM serves the rules.

More guidelines than computer code.

But I'll go back to a point I made earlier: dice fudging (if one engages in it) ought to be rare, an exception. If one is fudging the dice a lot then one is rolling the dice when one need not to. The video Zhorn linked was a nice take on that.

I'm honestly not particularly against fudging, but I do want to point out that rules as guidelines doesn't necessitate it in any way. Fudging involves pretending you rolled something you didn't, whereas you can toss rules results in a very open way. Usually that takes the form of something like "Wait, that's the result outputted by the rules? That's stupid, we're not doing that." done entirely in the open.

There's also the matter of how these sort of input mechanics are a solved problem, and one already present in D&D on the player side (Inspiration). It's not exactly hard to give the GM a small budget for rerolls and the like.

[Nagog]

Just to address fudging the dice, I'm 100% against it. DMs fudge the dice to force a particular outcome. That's why it's done. And it corrupts the spirit of the game.

We, the DMs, are not in control of the game. Nobody is. If someone was in control, then it wouldn't be a game; it would be a story. And we aren't here to write stories. We're here to play games.

I must say I disagree. The story is the why we do what we do, the game is how we do what we do. A game without story is pointless. I use D&D as an outlet for my storytelling, but that doesn't mean it's not fun for the players. The storytelling isn't the issue at all, the issue is the DM needs to understand that while they control the overall flow of the story, the details of the story are shared between the players and the DM. If the Player oversteps their authority and is actively attempting to derail the story, it isn't fun for anybody. If the DM railroads the story and the combats, it also isn't fun for anybody. The part of D&D that makes it fun for a group to play together is sharing the control of the story. If you're just here to play a game, there are plenty of multiplayer video games with a fantasy setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fudging involves pretending you rolled something you didn't, whereas you can toss rules results in a very open way. Usually that takes the form of something like "Wait, that's the result outputted by the rules? That's stupid, we're not doing that." done entirely in the open. Great point, and that's how one of our DM's does it on Roll 20 where all dice are in the open in the chat room.

[zinycor]

I'm honestly not particularly against fudging, but I do want to point out that rules as guidelines doesn't necessitate it in any way. Fudging involves pretending you rolled something you didn't, whereas you can toss rules results in a very open way. Usually that takes the form of something like "Wait, that's the result outputted by the rules? That's stupid, we're not doing that." done entirely in the open.

There's also the matter of how these sort of input mechanics are a solved problem, and one already present in D&D on the player side (Inspiration). It's not exactly hard to give the GM a small budget for rerolls and the like.

And that is a healthy, open and easy way to handle these problems.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"Wait, that's the result outputted by the rules? That's stupid, we're not doing that."
I sympathize with this point of view much more than the "secret DM who rules the universe" point of view.

I've recently started running a handful of games for new players and some of the modules I've been doing have some pretty crazy DC's set. Rolling everything in the open, I can tell that the party had a less than 30% chance of opening a door so instead of keeping them at the door for an hour in game while the enemies prepped lazily behind it I knew it wouldn't be fun to roll strength checks all night so they made it at a lower DC.

Rolling in the open also made a combat situation (which I hinted heavily that they would probably need to flee from) clear that it was beyond their scope without making me seem like I was trying to intentionally prevent them from moving forward (I hope, everyone seemed okay with how it went). Several of the players believed they were up to the challenge, and they might have been with some luck, but none of them thought it was particularly unfair.

[Mitsu]

I am all for not rolling if DM think narrative option is better then dice. For example if I say "I run and shove enemy who stand near window" and DM decides to go with narrative and enemy fall through window - it's ok. Same is "You wake up tied up. Somehow you and your party were captured at night during your rest". We weren't allow any rolls, perception etc. But DM also did not roll. It's narrative part of adventure.

However if Boss uses his X action on me and I need to pass DC 20 and I do pass DC 20, using also my resource for it (that boost saves) and then I cast Hold Monster and DM rolled 2 behind screen but cheat and says "pass" that is what I don't want to see.

While RPG is story driven game, it is still a game. And games need rules otherwise it wouldn't be a game. So DM should be bind by roll results same as player is. If player need to live with consequences of his roll, so should NPCs.

DM is not some sort of higher tier player at table. He is also a player. With a different roll mind you, but he is part of table game and so he also needs to be fair if he requires from players to be fair.

[Nagog]

I am all for not rolling if DM think narrative option is better then dice. For example if I say "I run and shove enemy who stand near window" and DM decides to go with narrative and enemy fall through window - it's ok. Same is "You wake up tied up. Somehow you and your party were captured at night during your rest". We weren't allow any rolls, perception etc. But DM also did not roll. It's narrative part of adventure.

However if Boss uses his X action on me and I need to pass DC 20 and I do pass DC 20, using also my resource for it (that boost saves) and then I cast Hold Monster and DM rolled 2 behind screen but cheat and says "pass" that is what I don't want to see.

While RPG is story driven game, it is still a game. And games need rules otherwise it wouldn't be a game. So DM should be bind by roll results same as player is. If player need to live with consequences of his roll, so should NPCs.

DM is not some sort of higher tier player at table. He is also a player. With a different roll mind you, but he is part of table game and so he also needs to be fair if he requires from players to be fair.

While I agree the DM must be fair, the point of D&D is to have fun. Fudging dice rolls can both enhance and detract from the fun. For example, one of my players made a makeshift bomb with a bag of gunpowder and some string. They dropped it from their makeshift aircraft onto some Hill Giants on a mountainside below. I rolled the first of many d6s for the bomb, and the (metal) dice bounced and landed wedged in the corner of my rolling tray on a perfect corner (between 3 sides, not just 2). I ruled that the bomb killed both giants instantly in a landslide. That creates a fun narrative and is a story the players have recounted time and time again because it was funny and entertaining. In another campaign where I was a player (and the DM was the player with the bomb in the previous story), I polymorphed into a T-Rex and launched out Fighter (in heavy armor) up to the boss, a flying Genie (for those interested, I was a bard and it only worked because we both rolled Natural 20s on our respective rolls). After hanging on to him and attacking a few times, the Genie hit him twice at point blank with fireballs. The first one fainted him (causing him to fall), the second one made him fail 2 death saves. Fall damage would have killed him outright. we spent a good 10 minutes freaking out about what to do, what we could do, to save him. Eventually, our ranger managed to get under him and cast Cure Wounds as he fell past him, reviving him just in time to hit the ground and fall unconscious again. At that point we got a second healing and he was back on his feet. All in all, we had a blast and the fight was so great, and I've told the story plenty of times to my friends because it was an awesome feat of DMing. If I were to be told that those two fireballs were fudged rolls, I wouldn't mind. In fact, I'd be grateful, because it made the combat and the overall experience more fun and more challenging.
And I doubt you need an example of when fudging rolls detracts from the fun of the game, as that isn't hard at all.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I am all for not rolling if DM think narrative option is better then dice. For example if I say "I run and shove enemy who stand near window" and DM decides to go with narrative and enemy fall through window - it's ok. Same is "You wake up tied up. Somehow you and your party were captured at night during your rest". We weren't allow any rolls, perception etc. But DM also did not roll. It's narrative part of adventure.

This is a red flag to be honest. Any Elf (or Warforged) in the party should be screaming in frustration if this happens. A player who has taken Alert or Aspect of the Moon should also take issue with it. If your game has a player who has gone with an Alert Elf there's absolutely no way it should have just worked.

I don't like the idea of "scripted" moments that the players have no choice but to accept, especially when they might invalidate certain character creation choices a player made. I also don't like the idea (again) that this is going to be the DM deciding, without player input, that the narrative they're building is more important than your actions.

This example, could have just as easily moved the plot forward if the party had had the chance to wake up to the ambush, stopped it, and found that whatever ringleader had orchestrated it was a bit foolish and hadn't disposed of the missive they had the kidnap the party for [insert BBEG here]. They could also just flatout kill the ambushers, leave without investigating and find out in another way what storyline was supposed to come of that.

[Trickery]

I don't like the idea of "scripted" moments that the players have no choice but to accept, especially when they might invalidate certain character creation choices a player made. I also don't like the idea (again) that this is going to be the DM deciding, without player input, that the narrative they're building is more important than your actions.

Agreed. Scripted moments are bad enough in video games where they're the result of development constraints. We shouldn't deal with that in D&D.

The DM doesn't need to direct the narrative. It's much better to lay out the world and let your players direct the narrative. Your players should have just as much control over what happens as you do, and nobody should be controlling what the dice do.

That doesn't mean everything needs to be a dice roll. Part of the DM's job is to determine when a dice roll is needed. However, what it does mean is that, when dice are rolled, the outcome is no longer under anyone's control.

[Knaight]

This is a red flag to be honest. Any Elf (or Warforged) in the party should be screaming in frustration if this happens. A player who has taken Alert or Aspect of the Moon should also take issue with it. If your game has a player who has gone with an Alert Elf there's absolutely no way it should have just worked.

I don't like the idea of "scripted" moments that the players have no choice but to accept, especially when they might invalidate certain character creation choices a player made. I also don't like the idea (again) that this is going to be the DM deciding, without player input, that the narrative they're building is more important than your actions.

This example, could have just as easily moved the plot forward if the party had had the chance to wake up to the ambush, stopped it, and found that whatever ringleader had orchestrated it was a bit foolish and hadn't disposed of the missive they had the kidnap the party for [insert BBEG here]. They could also just flatout kill the ambushers, leave without investigating and find out in another way what storyline was supposed to come of that.

A lot of this comes down to structure. If you're running something in pretty continuous form, then yeah, that probably won't go over well. If it's a bit more staccato, jumping from adventure to adventure with downtime glossed over then there's a lot more leeway for how you start. If the concept you've sold the group on is a series of adventures started once the action is in motion you can totally start a session with something like that. If it's conventional campaign play? Less so.

Or, more pithily - it's the difference between moving the plot forward and starting the adventure. You just happen to be starting the adventure with characters you've played before.

[Nagog]

This is a red flag to be honest. Any Elf (or Warforged) in the party should be screaming in frustration if this happens. A player who has taken Alert or Aspect of the Moon should also take issue with it. If your game has a player who has gone with an Alert Elf there's absolutely no way it should have just worked.

I don't like the idea of "scripted" moments that the players have no choice but to accept, especially when they might invalidate certain character creation choices a player made. I also don't like the idea (again) that this is going to be the DM deciding, without player input, that the narrative they're building is more important than your actions.

This example, could have just as easily moved the plot forward if the party had had the chance to wake up to the ambush, stopped it, and found that whatever ringleader had orchestrated it was a bit foolish and hadn't disposed of the missive they had the kidnap the party for [insert BBEG here]. They could also just flatout kill the ambushers, leave without investigating and find out in another way what storyline was supposed to come of that.

While I agree that the narrative is shaped by what actions the characters make, as a DM that tries to avoid railroading at any cost, you'd be surprised at how many players (more particularly new players, b ut it's by no means exclusive) will do nothing unless acted upon and thrust into such situations. The trick (for me at least) is to know your players well enough to know whether they'll follow up on things like that, or if you need to railroad a little bit to get them moving in the right direction. As a DM, I only have so much time to invest in planning my campaigns. While I like to think I'm pretty good at Improv (despite the fact that Jack Black has made a good deal more appearances in my games than in others), I plan an adventure. If i have planned for the party to investigate an abandoned castle in the forest not far from town, and they decide instead they want to locate the local thieves guild and start beef with them, then all the time and effort I've put into planning goes out the window. Similar to if your DM decided they were going to rewrite your backstory because it didn't fit the narrative they wanted to set. If, after I've let the party know through strategically placed plot hooks that they should investigate the castle, and they still decide to go start beef with the mafia, so be it. That session is going to be rocky and a bit disjointed because I didn't have the time to plan it out, but so be it. If the party is particularly dense and I don't think they'll pick up on even the most obvious of plot hooks, I may use a situation like the aforementioned kidnapping.

[JNAProductions]

The only time I'm okay with scripted events is as an intro. If the DM says, session zero, "I want y'all to start imprisoned," I'm okay with us having gotten there even if it doesn't make sense for normal activities from our PCs.

Once the adventure gets rolling, the script stops and the openness begins.

[Corran]

If i have planned for the party to investigate an abandoned castle in the forest not far from town, and they decide instead they want to locate the local thieves guild and start beef with them, then all the time and effort I've put into planning goes out the window.
Nothing you plan is wasted. You keep it on the side and you throw it some time in the future, or use it in the next campaign even.

[Sigreid]

While I agree that the narrative is shaped by what actions the characters make, as a DM that tries to avoid railroading at any cost, you'd be surprised at how many players (more particularly new players, b ut it's by no means exclusive) will do nothing unless acted upon and thrust into such situations. The trick (for me at least) is to know your players well enough to know whether they'll follow up on things like that, or if you need to railroad a little bit to get them moving in the right direction. As a DM, I only have so much time to invest in planning my campaigns. While I like to think I'm pretty good at Improv (despite the fact that Jack Black has made a good deal more appearances in my games than in others), I plan an adventure. If i have planned for the party to investigate an abandoned castle in the forest not far from town, and they decide instead they want to locate the local thieves guild and start beef with them, then all the time and effort I've put into planning goes out the window. Similar to if your DM decided they were going to rewrite your backstory because it didn't fit the narrative they wanted to set. If, after I've let the party know through strategically placed plot hooks that they should investigate the castle, and they still decide to go start beef with the mafia, so be it. That session is going to be rocky and a bit disjointed because I didn't have the time to plan it out, but so be it. If the party is particularly dense and I don't think they'll pick up on even the most obvious of plot hooks, I may use a situation like the aforementioned kidnapping.

I agree with much of this. Some groups do need an obvious trail to follow or they won't know what to do. I sometimes set some criteria for back story, usually you need to have lived here for at least x number of years, but it can sometimes be more.

My current group is pretty self motivated, as I am when I play. I have 2 main tricks for dealing with this. First one is I tend to plan a session ahead, simply asking at the end of a session what they wanted to poke into next session. Second, I buy some modules never intending to use them as is, but to have components I can draw on when I need something quick.

[Reynaert]

I may have missed it in the seven pages, but I haven't seen this question asked or answered:

What's the difference between fudging a dice roll and retroactively changing the bonus for that roll? (Except for crit attack rolls, obviously).
Or retroactively giving a boss NPC legendary saves?

[Sigreid]

I may have missed it in the seven pages, but I haven't seen this question asked or answered:

What's the difference between fudging a dice roll and retroactively changing the bonus for that roll? (Except for crit attack rolls, obviously).
Or retroactively giving a boss NPC legendary saves?

Nothing really.

I'll also fess up that I have changed an occasional encounter after the fight started, but only when I clearly screwed up on my end and I'm up front with the party about my changing things.

[zinycor]

Nothing really.

I'll also fess up that I have changed an occasional encounter after the fight started, but only when I clearly screwed up on my end and I'm up front with the party about my changing things.

I agree with this approach so much, it is also what I do.

[Bigmouth]

My thread summary:
So some people fudge, some people don't.
Nobody in the group of fudgers suggests that using it often (like the DM in the OP's original comment) is a good thing.
Everyone agrees that fudging so often that a player changes their playstyle is not just bad, but very bad.
Everyone has fun at their own table except OP.
Most of us have had bad DM experiences.
My takeaways:
People from the fudge camp might find sitting at a fudge-free table less fun with less satisfying stories.
Fudge-free players might find they have less fun at a fudge table with less random, less authentic experiences.
Some fudge-free players are very passionate about the subject and feelings might get hurt.

Also, no one mentions that 'fudging' is incredibly common from players. Really common.

[zinycor]

My thread summary:
So some people fudge, some people don't.
Nobody in the group of fudgers suggests that using it often (like the DM in the OP's original comment) is a good thing.
Everyone agrees that fudging so often that a player changes their playstyle is not just bad, but very bad.
Everyone has fun at their own table except OP.
Most of us have had bad DM experiences.
My takeaways:
People from the fudge camp might find sitting at a fudge-free table less fun with less satisfying stories.
Fudge-free players might find they have less fun at a fudge table with less random, less authentic experiences.
Some fudge-free players are very passionate about the subject and feelings might get hurt.

Also, no one mentions that 'fudging' is incredibly common from players. Really common.

Well, if players fudge, that's frowned upon, isn't it?

[patchyman]

Just want you to know that you're not alone. What you're talking about in the OP is something people talk about indirectly quite often. I call it DM Meta.

DM Meta: making decisions based on your DM's style. I know my DM does X, so I'm going to do Y and am going to avoid Z.

DM Meta is a big deal. Character decisions made with the DM in mind are often the best decisions you can make, right up there with choosing a character that fits well with your group.

I've seen this discussed in various forms before, usually starting with someone saying their DM does X so they do Y or don't recommend Z. It often devolves into this kind of discussion:

DMs who do X are bad. Find a new table.
X isn't so bad. You'd do it too if you were a DM.
You're just complaining about your DM.

Happens every time. These kinds of comments aren't very helpful.


I think this is a very interesting take. I would add that DM Meta threads are very valuable to DMs as well. The nature of DM bias is such that you cannot see your own bias.

But if someone starts a thread about how they feel their archer is being overshadowed by the barbarian because the DM’s encounters all favour the barb’s play style, as a DM, I may ask myself if I’m including enough ranged attackers (or status effect) in my game.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is a red flag to be honest. This is the beginning of the Out of the Abyss published adventure, more or less. :smallwink:

Nothing you plan is wasted. You keep it on the side and you throw it some time in the future, or use it in the next campaign even.
This - a hundred times this. :smallcool:

[Waazraath]

One question for everybody: is 5e really different in this respect, that fudging a dice isn't mentioned explicitly? Or is it heavily enough implied? And if there is a difference with earlier editions, why?

I don't think I got any serious responses to this, and being curious, I dived into the books myself. Short answer: 5e isn't different in this respect, it is the same.

And to be more precise: 5e condones fudging roles, explicitly. Like older editions. DMG, p235, beginning of the 'Master of Rules' part.


Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the reulsts if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second criticl hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls to often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face a ny real risks - or worse, that you play favorite.

Darn. Seems I was mistaken big time after all. All the time, being away from books, I thought there was an ambiguity in 5e and this was a debate about 'is fudging dice Rules As Written'. (RAW). But it aint, fudging dice as DM is RAW, explitly, and all notions on 'cheating' be damned. There are just a few folks with strong opions on how they like to play (which is, again, fine), and try to impose that play style on others is 'wrong' 'cheating' 'immoral' and whatnot.


I suggest that you go back to 3.x.

Even worse. 3.x, the edition that is notorious for being super rules tight, and that had a basic set of rules for character creation that was the same for monsters and NPC's and allowed for maximum transparecy and comparability, had exactly the same clause! Quote DMG 3.5, p18, chapter 1: DM Cheating and player perceptions


... if everyone dies, the campaign might very well end then and there, and that's bad for everyone. Do you stand by and wtch them get slaughtered, or do you "cheat" and have the foes run off, or fudge the die ols so that the PC's still miraculously win in the end? ... Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can't cheat. you're the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it is certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy. ... It's no fun losing a longterm character who gets run over by a cart. A good rule of thump is that a character shouldn't die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice, unless he or she was doing something really stupid. However, ... [you can also go with the dice, always, this is a default if there is one] ... Just as important ... is wether the players realize that you bend the rules. Een if you deceide that sometime it's ok to fudge a little ... so the game can continue,don't let the players in on this decision. [and then some good reasons for this already discussed here

So basicly, all te arguments that have been provided, by Seth on YouTube, and here in this thread by several posters, are literally from the DMG (of this and older editions)

The lesson I think that could be learned from this: before you go all Miko the Self Rightous on folks on the internet Because They Are Cheating, first read the bloody (DM)Guide.


My thread summary:
So some people fudge, some people don't.
Nobody in the group of fudgers suggests that using it often (like the DM in the OP's original comment) is a good thing.
Everyone agrees that fudging so often that a player changes their playstyle is not just bad, but very bad.
Everyone has fun at their own table except OP.
Most of us have had bad DM experiences.
My takeaways:
People from the fudge camp might find sitting at a fudge-free table less fun with less satisfying stories.
Fudge-free players might find they have less fun at a fudge table with less random, less authentic experiences.
Some fudge-free players are very passionate about the subject and feelings might get hurt.

Also, no one mentions that 'fudging' is incredibly common from players. Really common.

Good summary. As for players 'fudging': that's not fudging, that's cheating. I'm sorry to hear its common. I only have 1 person I played with whom I suspect he did this (and he was also the DM who wanted to 'win'). Oh well, if it's a friend, and has other redeeming qualities, also as a DM, you put up with it, I guess, but if it was 'increadibly common' in a group, I'd quit.

[Trickery]

Good summary. As for players 'fudging': that's not fudging, that's cheating. I'm sorry to hear its common. I only have 1 person I played with whom I suspect he did this (and he was also the DM who wanted to 'win'). Oh well, if it's a friend, and has other redeeming qualities, also as a DM, you put up with it, I guess, but if it was 'increadibly common' in a group, I'd quit.

I'd argue that a DM fudging is cheating in the same manner. It's the DM's job to decide when a dice roll is needed. Once the DM decides that a dice roll is needed and rolls the dice, then the outcome should be out of his hands. Every other player follows that rule. It introduces an element of randomness to the game that, arguably, is important for the spirit of D&D.

Besides, as others have said, if the DM wants a particular outcome to happen, then he doesn't need to roll the dice. He can just say that it happens. If the DM thinks that the players won't accept the outcome unless they think the he rolled the dice, then maybe he ought to reconsider the outcome.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nothing you plan is wasted. You keep it on the side and you throw it some time in the future, or use it in the next campaign even.


And to be more precise: 5e condones fudging roles, explicitly. Like older editions. DMG, p235, beginning of the 'Master of Rules' part.
Even worse. 3.x, the edition that is notorious for being super rules tight, and that had a basic set of rules for character creation that was the same for monsters and NPC's and allowed for maximum transparecy and comparability, had exactly the same clause! Quote DMG 3.5, p18, chapter 1: DM Cheating and player perceptions

The lesson I think that could be learned from this: before you go all Miko the Self Rightous on folks on the internet Because They Are Cheating, first read the bloody (DM)Guide. Great post, and as I am not up on the 3.x DMG, thanks for the education there. :smallsmile:

As to players cheating, my first step it to bring it to their attention. When it happens.

"Wait, what was that die roll?"

And then let the peer group have their say on whether they care or not.

It really depends on the table, the tolerance for players cheating in D&D, though I am very much not a fan of it.
People will sometimes surprise you in their responses to this.

[Waazraath]

I'd argue that a DM fudging is cheating in the same manner. It's the DM's job to decide when a dice roll is needed. Once the DM decides that a dice roll is needed and rolls the dice, then the outcome should be out of his hands. Every other player follows that rule. It introduces an element of randomness to the game that, arguably, is important for the spirit of D&D.

Besides, as others have said, if the DM wants a particular outcome to happen, then he doesn't need to roll the dice. He can just say that it happens. If the DM thinks that the players won't accept the outcome unless they think the he rolled the dice, then maybe he ought to reconsider the outcome.

.... :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

ok... then plz refer me to the pages of the PHB on where it says that players can fudge, and why, and in what circumstances...

Regarding the 'as others have said' part: yes, they have, and the arguments contra that are in the DMG, and in older DMG's, and in Seth's video, and in numerous posts in this thread. It's ok to agree to disagree on the strength of arguments in favor and against. What flabbergasts me is that people still cling to the notion of 'cheating' when the rulebook says it is't.


Great post, and as I am not up on the 3.x DMG, thanks for the education there. :smallsmile:

As to players cheating, my first step it to bring it to their attention. When it happens.

"Wait, what was that die roll?"

And then let the peer group have their say on whether they care or not.

It really depends on the table, the tolerance for players cheating in D&D, though I am very much not a fan of it.
People will sometimes surprise you in their responses to this.

Thanks. And yeah, peer group works, 1 person notices, next times other people are more attentive, up to the point where the culprit gets so annoyed with it that he plays by the books - mostly.

[Trickery]

.... :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

ok... then plz refer me to the pages of the PHB on where it says that players can fudge, and why, and in what circumstances...

I think you misunderstood. I was saying that players can't fudge because that's cheating. In my opinion, the DM should not fudge either. The DM decides when a roll is needed. That's more than enough. Once the dice are rolled, the outcome is out of anyone's hands.

I've read the arguments for, and I believe I've rebutted every one of them. Fudging of dice are meant to force an outcome. Forcing an outcome in this way is deceptive; there are better ways to do it that don't rely on lying to your players. You may not agree with my rebuttals, and you don't have to.

[Waazraath]

I think you misunderstood. I was saying that players can't fudge because that's cheating. In my opinion, the DM should not fudge either. The DM decides when a roll is needed. That's more than enough. Once the dice are rolled, the outcome is out of anyone's hands.

You can have this opinion, but it is not RAW.


I've read the arguments for, and I believe I've rebutted every one of them. Fudging of dice are meant to force an outcome. Forcing an outcome in this way is deceptive; there are better ways to do it that don't rely on lying to your players. You may not agree with my rebuttals, and you don't have to.

I'm sure you think you have rebutted them, but I think not. I think they stand as a tall fortress with a strong foundation. But that's the thing with agreeing to disagree. But while we can disagree on if a DM shoud and if so, when it is acceptable, it should imo no longer be in dispute wether he could. Yes, he can, by RAW, based on the letters in the DMG, and he isn't 'cheating' when he's doing it.

[Trickery]

You can have this opinion, but it is not RAW.



I'm sure you think you have rebutted them, but I think not. I think they stand as a tall fortress with a strong foundation. But that's the thing with agreeing to disagree. But while we can disagree on if a DM shoud and if so, when it is acceptable, it should imo no longer be in dispute wether he could. Yes, he can, by RAW, based on the letters in the DMG, and he isn't 'cheating' when he's doing it.

I don't remember stating that a DM can't fudge the dice. All of my posts make the argument that the DM shouldn't. It's kind of like saying that a DM can demand that the players bring pizza or he'll refuse to run the campaign. Yes, a DM can do that. That doesn't mean he should.

There are certain things a DM should not do if he wants to run a campaign. One of them is lying to the players. It should not be encouraged in any form. That's a wide net, but I've yet to see it cast over any healthy behavior.

As I've said, the DM does not need to fudge dice rolls to merely state that an outcome happens. The DM can just say, "the dice say X but I don't think that's good for the campaign." Many have made this same point. I think it's healthier for the table, including the DM.

Deception leads to the dark side. I don't recommend it.

[Sigreid]

You can have this opinion, but it is not RAW.



I'm sure you think you have rebutted them, but I think not. I think they stand as a tall fortress with a strong foundation. But that's the thing with agreeing to disagree. But while we can disagree on if a DM shoud and if so, when it is acceptable, it should imo no longer be in dispute wether he could. Yes, he can, by RAW, based on the letters in the DMG, and he isn't 'cheating' when he's doing it.

Yes, just as the DM can, by raw, have an ogre appear in your underwear with you. 😁😜

I hope the sarcasm came across.

[Waazraath]

As I've said, the DM does not need to fudge dice rolls to merely state that an outcome happens. The DM can just say, "the dice say X but I don't think that's good for the campaign." Many have made this same point. I think it's healthier for the table, including the DM.

No, for many tables it is not, because it takes fun away, makes the story less 'real' (by lack of better words), because if this 'power' of the DM is out in the open it may lead to discussions on the metagam ("why did you prevent X from dying when attacked by wolves and not me in the current situatin"), because it distracts from the game...



Deception leads to the dark side. I don't recommend it.

Oh please...

It is not deception. If you play poker, you also pretend to have better cards then you reall have. In any 'trade' game you make your own advantage in a deal seem smaller than it really is. That's not lying, deceiving, or cheating, that's the game.

In real life, I'm 100% in agreement, but if it is in the rules of the game that you can, or sometimes even should, it's an entire diffent topic. A lot of this seems to come from denial of the fact that DM's play a different game than the rest of the table. Their role sometimes encourages them to cheat, for the benefit of the group, when needed.

Som last examples, cause I think I'm slowly getting done with this discussion, as most points have been made. An occasion where I often fudged dice, was in 3.x with random tresure tables, random monster tables, and 'yes or no random encounter' (for example, every hour during night on a roll of 19 and 20).
- If my party just defeated an epic boss in a memorable fight, and the dice say they earn a Scroll of Bloody Useless Spell, I just pick something fun. Yes, I roll first, cause maybe something cool turns up that I wouldn't have thought about. But if it is something sucky, I just pick something better. Who gets better from me, then declaring to the table: "boys and girls, I just rolled the Scroll of Suck, but cool DM that I am, you get a immovable rod.". It distracts from the story, distracts from the illusion of everything being random, I don't see any positive point here. And I don't want cool-points for it, it is doing my job, entertainign people.
- same for random monsters: if I roll one that really doesn't fit, I pick another, but again, I do roll first, to see if something cool turns up. Why bother my players with this knowledge?
- same for random encounters. If I feel that the group wants a fight after a few hours of RP, I'll give 'em at least 1, no matter what the dice say. And if the dice say I have 4 random monsters turning up in a night, bugger it, they'll get 2 or 3 (though maybe I could have rolled a d4 just as well - but even that would be deviating from the RAW as described in many modules, and 'cheating'). And again: why bother anybody with this stuff. They want a DM to take care of the pacing, and play the game. Not have discussions on whether or not they could have had another encounter before breaking verisimilitude - because at that point, I have broken it with this very discussion.

According to the super hardliners here, all of this must have constituted as 'cheating'. But it made for a better game. And for those who don't believe it, or can't imagine this: oh well.

[Waazraath]

Yes, just as the DM can, by raw, have an ogre appear in your underwear with you. 😁😜

I hope the sarcasm came across.


But without the sarcasm: he can, and should, if it makes for a fun experience for the entire group. This is exactly the point. (it also would be a good idea at some tables, and a terrible at a lot of others - so I think it's quite a good example :smallbiggrin:)

[Trickery]

No, for many tables it is not, because it takes fun away, makes the story less 'real' (by lack of better words), because if this 'power' of the DM is out in the open it may lead to discussions on the metagam ("why did you prevent X from dying when attacked by wolves and not me in the current situatin"), because it distracts from the game...

What's wrong with just saying something like this? "The creature, through sheer force of will or some sort of otherwordly influence, ignores its grievous injuries and keeps fighting."

We all know what's going on. The boss is dead but still fighting. And a willing suspension of disbelief (to some degree) is necessary for the game to happen at all. Besides, I'd much rather hear that than, "Nope, he cast Super-Shield and you missed," or "he fai...passed his saving throw. Yep, totally passed it, just like the last three times."

[Rynjin]

{Scrubbed}

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let's expand on the random loot/random encounter examples:

How do people feel about the following case:

You have a random table that, for the general case, is good. You're happy with it, and don't want to change it globally. However, for this specific case, due to in-game events one or two of the entries is impossible or implausible in the extreme. For example, you're in an area that is blessed so there are no undead there. Yet just outside, there's a reasonable chance of there being undead.

Do you
a) not roll, despite that being the obvious, normal thing to do in the current situation and there being 19 other valid results on the table?
b) roll and accept the absurdity of the impossible result (because the dice must have their say)?
c) roll and ignore those impossible results (thus "fudging" the dice)?
d) something else?

I'm voting for C, because that's the quickest, easiest way to do things with minimum disturbance. That's the "that result makes no sense in this case" idea--the DM is the master, not the dice. Dice exist to help the DM resolve uncertainty, they are not in charge in any way.

---------
I'm in the "fudging is a sign something's gone wrong already" camp, personally, and I only fudge dice results (changing the number shown) in extremis, partially because I only ever roll in the open. Instead I'll change some other variable--an attack bonus, an AC, hit points, etc. And once I do so, that's a fixed result. Every other attack will use those same parameters. I have been known to let someone roll when they shouldn't have--just the other day I let a player roll a save to end a fear effect that did not have that clause. Because his dice were hating him that day and he was visibly not having fun at being totally ineffective through no fault of his own. That same combat, I edited a monster ability on the fly, because I was using 3pp stuff and it had a decent monster with one screwed up ability. Other times I've "forgotten" (transparently) a result and asked the player to re-roll the check/attacks/save.

My basic policy is that nothing is real until it is said at the table. My notes? They're just predictions, one path through the chaotic future. Once it's said at the table, it's fixed and immutable. Nothing in the books is real until it shows up. And monsters aren't uniform (especially with regards to HP).

[Trickery]

It's quite interesting that the denizens of the 5e forum are so frequently scornful of RAW arguments and even basic attempts at optimization, unless of course the RAW justifies their own poor behavior, apparently.

Off-topic, but that's not unique to this forum.

High-level: Everyone has their own idea of what D&D is supposed to be like. When something doesn't agree with that idea, it makes the person upset. This is normal. It's a bit like walking into your house and realizing some things have been moved. Things are not as they should be.

Mid-level: so-called optimizers are the target of scorn in many games, especially tabletop games. There are many reasons for this. An optimizer might make a task easier than the DM intended. If an optimizer is playing the same type of character as you, and you aren't an optimizer, then the optimizer is likely to make you feel weak by comparison. Optimizers often solve a disproportionate number of problems and encounters. Optimizers make some people feel like the optimizer is a roll-player and not a role-player, whether it's true or not. Some people feel that optimizers break unspoken rules of the game, regardless of what those unspoken rules are.

Low-level: this is a thread about a DM doing something questionable and what the player does to cope. Whether you're a player or a DM, nobody wants to see a DM do something that upsets the players or forces players to play around the DM in an un-fun way. This led to a debate as to whether the DM should be doing what he's doing.

There's nothing out-of-the-ordinary going on here.


Let's expand on the random loot/random encounter examples:

How do people feel about the following case:

You have a random table that, for the general case, is good. You're happy with it, and don't want to change it globally. However, for this specific case, due to in-game events one or two of the entries is impossible or implausible in the extreme. For example, you're in an area that is blessed so there are no undead there. Yet just outside, there's a reasonable chance of there being undead.

Do you
a) not roll, despite that being the obvious, normal thing to do in the current situation and there being 19 other valid results on the table?
b) roll and accept the absurdity of the impossible result (because the dice must have their say)?
c) roll and ignore those impossible results (thus "fudging" the dice)?
d) something else?

I'm voting for C, because that's the quickest, easiest way to do things with minimum disturbance. That's the "that result makes no sense in this case" idea--the DM is the master, not the dice. Dice exist to help the DM resolve uncertainty, they are not in charge in any way.

I don't think that fits the standard definition of fudging. It sounds like what you're doing is perfectly reasonable and good by anyone's standards.

[Waazraath]

We all know what's going on. The boss is dead but still fighting. And a willing suspension of disbelief (to some degree) is necessary for the game to happen at all.

But seriously, why add to it, when its not needed?



Besides, I'd much rather hear that than, "Nope, he cast Super-Shield and you missed," or "he fai...passed his saving throw. Yep, totally passed it, just like the last three times."

But you'd never hear that at any of the tables I played (as a DM and player), cause competence. This is exactly the negative attitude towards DM's that has shown its head earlier in this discussion. We're not talking about 'just like the last 3 times', cause everybody agrees that's bad DM'ing, even those in favour of fudging. You'd hear something like "wow, that was a mighty hit, he's shaking on its many legs, almost falling, but just not yet" - just the same what you would have heard at any other situation where a monster was almost killed (but without a few extra hp smuggled on to it).

[Trickery]

But you'd never hear that at any of the tables I played (as a DM and player), cause competence. This is exactly the negative attitude towards DM's that has shown its head earlier in this discussion. We're not talking about 'just like the last 3 times', cause everybody agrees that's bad DM'ing, even those in favour of fudging. You'd hear something like "wow, that was a mighty hit, he's shaking on its many legs, almost falling, but just not yet" - just the same what you would have heard at any other situation where a monster was almost killed (but without a few extra hp smuggled on to it).

And yet it's exactly what I've heard at tables I've played at, and it sounds like the OP has heard the same.

We all know that bad DMs exist. What behaviors constitute a bad DM? I argue that knowingly lying to the players is one of them. It's not fudging the dice, at least by my definition, if the players know what's going on and are okay with it. There are a lot of ways of handling mistakes that don't require you to pretend you rolled a different number.

I won't get into it any further here, but it sounds like you already agree with me in principle even if my words have given you a different impression than the one I intended. Suffice it to say that I don't have a problem with DMs in general and am not trying to express a "negative attitude towards DMs."

[NaughtyTiger]

But you'd never hear that at any of the tables I played (as a DM and player), cause competence. This is exactly the negative attitude towards DM's that has shown its head earlier in this discussion. We're not talking about 'just like the last 3 times', cause everybody agrees that's bad DM'ing, even those in favour of fudging.

funny how 1 roll keeps getting pushed into a straw man where it is every round of every fight.


What behaviors constitute a bad DM? I argue that knowingly lying to the players is one of them.

i didn't call you a bad DM, i just said you do all the things that a bad DM does.

[zinycor]

Let's expand on the random loot/random encounter examples:

How do people feel about the following case:

You have a random table that, for the general case, is good. You're happy with it, and don't want to change it globally. However, for this specific case, due to in-game events one or two of the entries is impossible or implausible in the extreme. For example, you're in an area that is blessed so there are no undead there. Yet just outside, there's a reasonable chance of there being undead.

Do you
a) not roll, despite that being the obvious, normal thing to do in the current situation and there being 19 other valid results on the table?
b) roll and accept the absurdity of the impossible result (because the dice must have their say)?
c) roll and ignore those impossible results (thus "fudging" the dice)?
d) something else?


C)
You tell your players that you are going to roll on the table, however if the roll ends up on an impossible encounter it will be dismissed. Therefore fudge with consent, which is the only way to do it in my opinion.

[Waazraath]

And yet it's exactly what I've heard at tables I've played at, and it sounds like the OP has heard the same.

We all know that bad DMs exist. What behaviors constitute a bad DM?

ah, but this is an interesting point. Because of course, there are incompetent DM's, plenty of them, who misuse or abuse this tool. But does that make the tool in itself bad? Even though it has been part of the game since its creation 40+ years ago, and helped countless groups have a better gaming experience?

Then we can stop with a lot of things. Using miniatures, cause endless delays due to bad DM'ing. NPC's, stealing the thunder of the party. The whole of D&D, actually, due to sucky boring game evenings with this nerd trying to enforce his power fantasies trough being a DM on his poor, unlucky friends (unlucky without any dice having been rolled, and no fudge that could have saved the evening).

For the rest: it's too late to save me, Luke :smallbiggrin:

I think we are in agreement for quite a lot though. The point where we disagree is that for me, the normal, moral, 'no lie / cheat' codes, aren't there for the DM. In my experience, it makes the game better. And in the rules, explicitly, it is mentioned that it is so, which only strenghtens me in this idea. So it's not a moral question for me, cause the RAW explicitly removes it from this realm ('there is no cheating'). And from experience, it's a good tool.

So even though I think it is a tool that should be used with wisdom, and rarely, I think it's good that it exists, and it is not called 'lying' or 'cheating'. So that last few %, we're not gonna agree, even if we continue posting for 3 more days.

[Waazraath]

funny how 1 roll keeps getting pushed into a straw man where it is every round of every fight.


Yeah, I'm wondering about it through the entire discussion. I think it is cause we're talking about something moral here, at least, for some people. I get thouroughly pissed as well when people lie to me in real life. So for the people who don't see, or don't want to see, that normal rules on 'cheating' and 'lying' aren't applicable in a DM - player relationship (in certain situations of the game, of course), they get really pissed, cause it's not just about the game, but about moral principles being violated. And are more eager to use fallacies in their reasoning, nor read all the arguments that have been made by opponents really good.

But that's just a guess. And I'm biased as hell here, of course.


Let's expand on the random loot/random encounter examples:

How do people feel about the following case:

You have a random table that, for the general case, is good. You're happy with it, and don't want to change it globally. However, for this specific case, due to in-game events one or two of the entries is impossible or implausible in the extreme. For example, you're in an area that is blessed so there are no undead there. Yet just outside, there's a reasonable chance of there being undead.

Do you
a) not roll, despite that being the obvious, normal thing to do in the current situation and there being 19 other valid results on the table?
b) roll and accept the absurdity of the impossible result (because the dice must have their say)?
c) roll and ignore those impossible results (thus "fudging" the dice)?
d) something else?

I'm voting for C, because that's the quickest, easiest way to do things with minimum disturbance. That's the "that result makes no sense in this case" idea--the DM is the master, not the dice. Dice exist to help the DM resolve uncertainty, they are not in charge in any way.

---------
I'm in the "fudging is a sign something's gone wrong already" camp, personally, and I only fudge dice results (changing the number shown) in extremis, partially because I only ever roll in the open. Instead I'll change some other variable--an attack bonus, an AC, hit points, etc. And once I do so, that's a fixed result. Every other attack will use those same parameters. I have been known to let someone roll when they shouldn't have--just the other day I let a player roll a save to end a fear effect that did not have that clause. Because his dice were hating him that day and he was visibly not having fun at being totally ineffective through no fault of his own. That same combat, I edited a monster ability on the fly, because I was using 3pp stuff and it had a decent monster with one screwed up ability. Other times I've "forgotten" (transparently) a result and asked the player to re-roll the check/attacks/save.

My basic policy is that nothing is real until it is said at the table. My notes? They're just predictions, one path through the chaotic future. Once it's said at the table, it's fixed and immutable. Nothing in the books is real until it shows up. And monsters aren't uniform (especially with regards to HP).

c, but that goes without saying.

What your post reminds me off (especially on the 'something has gone wrong already): I might have taken a different stance a decade ago. I might have made customized random monster tables, or long before the session deceided on all the treasure, picking it by hand, or rolled an unlogical monster and spend hours before the game to make it a 'special attraction', with a cool story on how it got there.

But my life really doesn't work like that anymore. Young kids, serious job, external PhD in the evening hours - I'm glad with every few hours of D&D I can squeeze out of a month. So if I DM (my friends are just as busy), there's little preperation, I go with the flow, I improvize, and when things really go the wrong way and I'm to tired to improvize, I fudge. My friends alike, they want the 3 hours we have (unless the baby wakes up) spend as good as possible, hitting monsters, and telling a story. And nobody wants to rewind a combat, or have a introspection on wether or not a monster was too strong and should be downsized. Somebody mentioned 'maturing' as a reason for not fudging dice anymore. Well, for me the opposite.

So yeah, a lot 'goes wrong', in game sense, at least more then 10 years ago when I was still studying and had all the time in the world (even though it didn't feel like it). But also: nothing goes wrong, cause we get together, and have fun, and that was the whole point of the game.

[NaughtyTiger]

What's wrong with just saying something like this? "The creature, through sheer force of will or some sort of otherwordly influence, ignores its grievous injuries and keeps fighting." We all know what's going on. The boss is dead but still fighting."

for Trickery:
if you do it like this (ie, the players know you are artificially extending it):

is the creature able to still change the outcome/kill the players?
can the players just not fight and still win?
do the players get a say in how much tougher to make it?

[Rynjin]

Not sure if 5e has this, but in previous Editions that was just a monster with Ferocity (they can keep acting normally below 0 HP until they are actually killed, but lose 1 HP per turn if they perform strenuous action). Basically the same effects as the Die Hard Feat, a player option.

That wouldn't really qualify as fudging-adjacent, since it's a valid monster ability.

[Trickery]

for Trickery:
if you do it like this (ie, the players know you are artificially extending it):

is the creature able to still change the outcome/kill the players?
can the players just not fight and still win?
do the players get a say in how much tougher to make it?

Yes, possibly, and always. I pay attention to the players when I DM, so I'm not in full control of the game. I think that's normal.

[Willie the Duck]

Not sure if 5e has this, but in previous Editions that was just a monster with Ferocity (they can keep acting normally below 0 HP until they are actually killed, but lose 1 HP per turn if they perform strenuous action). Basically the same effects as the Die Hard Feat, a player option.

That wouldn't really qualify as fudging-adjacent, since it's a valid monster ability.

Not exactly, but zombies and the like have an effect where, if they are at 1 hp and take damage, they can make a save (DC = damage taken) to remain at 1 hp instead of dropping.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes, possibly, and always. I pay attention to the players when I DM, so I'm not in full control of the game. I think that's normal.

i interpreted your response as:

yes - the monster can kill the players
yes - the players can not actually fight back and still win
yes - the players can choose to make it an auto-win encounter.

i think i misunderstood you

paying attention and catering to them are different. it sounds like you give them more control than i would.

[Trickery]

i interpreted your response as:

yes - the monster can kill the players
yes - the players can not actually fight back and still win
yes - the players can choose to make it an auto-win encounter.

i think i misunderstood you

paying attention and catering to them are different. it sounds like you give them more control than i would.

Ah, possible misinterpretation. The players can fight back or flee at any time. It's up to them how they want to handle an encounter. I give them control in the sense that I'm not going to pursue something if I can tell they aren't having a good time.

[Sigreid]

Let's expand on the random loot/random encounter examples:

How do people feel about the following case:

You have a random table that, for the general case, is good. You're happy with it, and don't want to change it globally. However, for this specific case, due to in-game events one or two of the entries is impossible or implausible in the extreme. For example, you're in an area that is blessed so there are no undead there. Yet just outside, there's a reasonable chance of there being undead.

Do you
a) not roll, despite that being the obvious, normal thing to do in the current situation and there being 19 other valid results on the table?
b) roll and accept the absurdity of the impossible result (because the dice must have their say)?
c) roll and ignore those impossible results (thus "fudging" the dice)?
d) something else?

I'm voting for C, because that's the quickest, easiest way to do things with minimum disturbance. That's the "that result makes no sense in this case" idea--the DM is the master, not the dice. Dice exist to help the DM resolve uncertainty, they are not in charge in any way.

---------
I'm in the "fudging is a sign something's gone wrong already" camp, personally, and I only fudge dice results (changing the number shown) in extremis, partially because I only ever roll in the open. Instead I'll change some other variable--an attack bonus, an AC, hit points, etc. And once I do so, that's a fixed result. Every other attack will use those same parameters. I have been known to let someone roll when they shouldn't have--just the other day I let a player roll a save to end a fear effect that did not have that clause. Because his dice were hating him that day and he was visibly not having fun at being totally ineffective through no fault of his own. That same combat, I edited a monster ability on the fly, because I was using 3pp stuff and it had a decent monster with one screwed up ability. Other times I've "forgotten" (transparently) a result and asked the player to re-roll the check/attacks/save.

My basic policy is that nothing is real until it is said at the table. My notes? They're just predictions, one path through the chaotic future. Once it's said at the table, it's fixed and immutable. Nothing in the books is real until it shows up. And monsters aren't uniform (especially with regards to HP).

D, the roll on the table isn't an attack or challenge for the party but simply a tool for taking the burden off the DM of creating or picking a challenge so I'd just pick something appropriate or ignore an inappropriate result and nothing happens. Die roll fudging is only of import to me if it dictates a success or failure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

D, the roll on the table isn't an attack or challenge for the party but simply a tool for taking the burden off the DM of creating or picking a challenge so I'd just pick something appropriate or ignore an inappropriate result and nothing happens. Die roll fudging is only of import to me if it dictates a success or failure.

Honestly--an attack roll is also simply a tool for taking the burden off the DM. The default is free-form, after all. The most basic rule says that the DM decides what happens, possibly using a rule or mechanic.

That's my sticking point in all of this. RPG rules are not the same as board-game rules. They're either meta rules (rules about who can make the decisions) or mechanical aids for resolving uncertainty. Specifically, they're a default set of tools, calibrated for what the developers believe is a good "neutral" setting. They are designed to be adjusted for each and every table, frequently on the fly.

For example, if you're attacking a bound, helpless, unarmored, unaware person and have tons of time to line up your shot, you will hit. Critically, in fact. No dice roll needed. The dice are subordinate to the shared narrative. Not my narrative as DM (in part because I don't have one, but also because that's obnoxious), but to the established facts on the ground. Heck, I'll narrate whole combats that, in my judgement, pose no threat worth breaking out the initiative mechanics for. A party of high T2 players vs two skeletons? Narrate the steamroller. I won't do the opposite (simply narrate the player characters being overwhelmed by a superior force) unless the players agree. But I have the power to do so should I choose. Doing so would be un-fun for my groups, so I won't.

No amount of rules will constrain a willfully-bad DM. They're not paying attention to the rules anyway. And the rules say they don't have to. D&D's meta rules are that the DM has all decision-making power by default. Nothing happens until and unless the DM says it does, books notwithstanding. The DM cannot cheat, because the DM's rules are "whatever the DM says, goes*" (* unless the players leave). The DM absolutely should not use this power capriciously, and should be very restrained. But he doesn't have to be. It's a heavy burden, but one that simplifies the game tremendously (and for the better IMO). As long as both sides trust each other to be acting in the best interests of the group as a whole, not selfishly.

With trust, any rules (or no rules) work. It's just a matter of finding ones that everyone likes and that meet the needs of the situation. This doesn't even have to be time-consistent. Without trust, and a willingness to accept compromise, no rules would work, no matter how detailed.

[NaughtyTiger]

Ah, possible misinterpretation. The players can fight back or flee at any time. It's up to them how they want to handle an encounter. I give them control in the sense that I'm not going to pursue something if I can tell they aren't having a good time.

i knew it had to be a miscommunication. in my mind, i was posing extreme/contradicting/strawman questions, expecting a nuanced answer to counter that. upon rereading, i actually asked reasonable questions, so yes/yes/yes were reasonable answers.

[stoutstien]

With trust, any rules (or no rules) work. It's just a matter of finding ones that everyone likes and that meet the needs of the situation. This doesn't even have to be time-consistent. Without trust, and a willingness to accept compromise, no rules would work, no matter how detailed.

Which is why I think if a DM is going to use rerolls the table should be aware from the beginning. I'm not saying they should declare it every time they need to use it but if it's never brought up no one can have a baseline on how each individual person feels about it.
Going free form is fine and personally I avoid dice rolls aa much as possible so players know that every roll is meaningful. This is why I think moving results after the roll bugs me so much. If the DM thinks one or more outcome should not be a valid option why hide it behind the false pretenses of the only mechanic that determines randomness?

Side note -i have found rolling for random loot tables bog down the game right after big fights which take alot out of the moment. I started prerolling results when I set up the encounter to keep the session going.

[NaughtyTiger]

he most basic rule says that the DM decides what happens, possibly using a rule or mechanic...For example, if you're attacking a bound, helpless, unarmored, unaware person and have tons of time to line up your shot, you will hit. Critically, in fact. No dice roll needed. The dice are subordinate to the shared narrative. Not my narrative as DM (in part because I don't have one, but also because that's obnoxious), but to the established facts on the ground.

given how often your example (usually, slitting a throat with 1d4 dagger can't kill someone argument.) comes up on this board, i am surprised i haven't seen this answer yet.

[PhoenixPhyre]

given how often your example (usually, slitting a throat with 1d4 dagger can't kill someone argument.) comes up on this board, i am surprised i haven't seen this answer yet.

It's a tightly-connected corollary to the idea that you should only invoke mechanics when the outcome is uncertain.

Now, I wouldn't let you automatically kill someone in those circumstances, because my setting holds pretty fast to the HP = meat (more specifically a pool of fast-healing energy in the soul of each person) concept. You'd critically hit automatically, but damage vs HP would be done as normal. But that's a setting-specific factor, not a rules-based factor.

[zinycor]

With trust, any rules (or no rules) work. It's just a matter of finding ones that everyone likes and that meet the needs of the situation. This doesn't even have to be time-consistent. Without trust, and a willingness to accept compromise, no rules would work, no matter how detailed.

Very well said, that's indeed the whole situation, and the whole problem with fudging (since it betrays trust).

Excellent point and expertly said.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Very well said, that's indeed the whole situation, and the whole problem with fudging (since it betrays trust).

Excellent point and expertly said.

It's odd how people can read the same words and get very different messages. Because when I wrote that, I was intending the exact opposite.

For me, "fudging" isn't a betrayal of trust at all. If I trust the person to be acting in what they consider the best interests of the table as a whole, then they're fudging the dice for that reason.

Since the DM has no rules, there's nothing really wrong with them "fudging" unless the rest of the players believe there is and have expressed that desire. And even then, it's wrong by going against their expressed wishes, not because it's a fundamental violation of the rules.

I'm looking for reasons to have fun. I'm not looking for ways the other people are "breaking the rules" or "betraying my trust". Even considering "are they cheating?" is a sign that trust is lacking already. People who are fully trusting don't analyze situations that way in the first place, just like honest, rule-following people don't go looking for loopholes in the rules and laws.

[Sigreid]

Honestly--an attack roll is also simply a tool for taking the burden off the DM. The default is free-form, after all. The most basic rule says that the DM decides what happens, possibly using a rule or mechanic.

That's my sticking point in all of this. RPG rules are not the same as board-game rules. They're either meta rules (rules about who can make the decisions) or mechanical aids for resolving uncertainty. Specifically, they're a default set of tools, calibrated for what the developers believe is a good "neutral" setting. They are designed to be adjusted for each and every table, frequently on the fly.

For example, if you're attacking a bound, helpless, unarmored, unaware person and have tons of time to line up your shot, you will hit. Critically, in fact. No dice roll needed. The dice are subordinate to the shared narrative. Not my narrative as DM (in part because I don't have one, but also because that's obnoxious), but to the established facts on the ground. Heck, I'll narrate whole combats that, in my judgement, pose no threat worth breaking out the initiative mechanics for. A party of high T2 players vs two skeletons? Narrate the steamroller. I won't do the opposite (simply narrate the player characters being overwhelmed by a superior force) unless the players agree. But I have the power to do so should I choose. Doing so would be un-fun for my groups, so I won't.

No amount of rules will constrain a willfully-bad DM. They're not paying attention to the rules anyway. And the rules say they don't have to. D&D's meta rules are that the DM has all decision-making power by default. Nothing happens until and unless the DM says it does, books notwithstanding. The DM cannot cheat, because the DM's rules are "whatever the DM says, goes*" (* unless the players leave). The DM absolutely should not use this power capriciously, and should be very restrained. But he doesn't have to be. It's a heavy burden, but one that simplifies the game tremendously (and for the better IMO). As long as both sides trust each other to be acting in the best interests of the group as a whole, not selfishly.

With trust, any rules (or no rules) work. It's just a matter of finding ones that everyone likes and that meet the needs of the situation. This doesn't even have to be time-consistent. Without trust, and a willingness to accept compromise, no rules would work, no matter how detailed.

I disagree that the attack, save and ability check rolls are just a tool to relieve burden from the DM, and it's fine that we disagree. To me, they are what make it a game where you're taking a risk and not just one person deciding what happens.

[zinycor]

It's odd how people can read the same words and get very different messages. Because when I wrote that, I was intending the exact opposite.

For me, "fudging" isn't a betrayal of trust at all. If I trust the person to be acting in what they consider the best interests of the table as a whole, then they're fudging the dice for that reason.

Since the DM has no rules, there's nothing really wrong with them "fudging" unless the rest of the players believe there is and have expressed that desire. And even then, it's wrong by going against their expressed wishes, not because it's a fundamental violation of the rules.

I'm looking for reasons to have fun. I'm not looking for ways the other people are "breaking the rules" or "betraying my trust". Even considering "are they cheating?" is a sign that trust is lacking already. People who are fully trusting don't analyze situations that way in the first place, just like honest, rule-following people don't go looking for loopholes in the rules and laws.

Are people fully trusting? Should they be? People betray others trust, unknowingly or without malice, I myself have fudged rolls in the past, which has been a horrible thing to do and I have corrected my playing since then.

Like you say, the GM has no rules, but why would the GM roll a die if he doesn't wish to consider it's result, if not for fooling the players into believing the die has a chance for it to influence the events at the table. I believe that if the GM intends to fudge his rolls, while respecting the other people at the table, he should ask wether he is allowed to fudge or not. Not assume that they are.
Otherwise they are lying to players on a game that, on the player side, gives no resourse for it, which is highly different of a game like poker, where the whole game us based on knowing if your opponent is lying, how, and lying yourself.

In the end, I don't believe I would ever play on a game where fudging is allowed, but if others are into that, I believe they should be honest with their players in that regard. Because if one GM I played with did so, I would want to know.

[Zhorn]

In the end, I don't believe I would ever play on a game where fudging is allowed, but if others are into that, I believe they should be honest with their players in that regard. Because if one GM I played with did so, I would want to know.

I'd only want to know that they didn't do it more than 5% of the time (I don't need to know if it is 5% or if it is 0%), but I would NEVER want to know when or what types of rolls they fudged.
I've sat at their table, and so that's me trusting them to DM, and as long as the table is having fun I will continue to trust them to DM.
If I'm a player, I don't want to see behind that DM's curtain.

https://i.redd.it/isphbwk1zla21.jpg

[zinycor]

I'd only want to know that they did it less than 5% of the time, but I would NEVER want to know when or what types of rolls they fudged.
I've sat at their table, and so that's me trusting them to DM.
If I'm a player, I don't want to see behind that DM's curtain.

I don't really get this, but if that's your stance, is okay.

[NaughtyTiger]

I'd only want to know that they didn't do it more than 5% of the time (I don't need to know if it is 5% or if it is 0%), but I would NEVER want to know when or what types of rolls they fudged.
I've sat at their table, and so that's me trusting them to DM, and as long as the table is having fun I will continue to trust them to DM.
If I'm a player, I don't want to see behind that DM's curtain.

https://i.redd.it/isphbwk1zla21.jpg

between you and phoenixfyre, i realized it's that we use the word "trust" differently.

the "it's cheating" camp has explicitly stated that the DM cannot decide by herself what the table would enjoy.
i trust her ability to read and adjust the table without asking permission. this is a competence issue.
they trust that she will obey the dice. this is a moral issue, hence the polarizing language: cheating, lying, bad DM, ...

[PhoenixPhyre]

between you and phoenixfyre, i realized it's that we use the word "trust" differently.

the "it's cheating" camp has explicitly stated that the DM cannot decide by herself what the table would enjoy.
i trust her ability to read and adjust the table without asking permission. this is a competence issue.
they trust that she will obey the dice. this is a moral issue, hence the polarizing language: cheating, lying, bad DM, ...

And to me, that latter kind of trust is an unwarranted assumption--that the rules for the DM are the same as the rules for the player. Someone even articulated that upthread--that the Dm is just another player. They're not. Not by RAW, not by history, not by game design. They're explicitly given the power, even the responsibility to deviate from the printed rules as they see fit.

Take these words from the Sage Advice Compendium (emphasis added):


A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions

or the other quotes upthread showing that the developers thought of the "fudging = cheating" case and explicitly gave the DM authority to do so if they saw fit (while warning of some of the consequences).

So while "fudging" may be uncooth, may be a sign of incompetence (because it can be handled better in other ways), or may be distasteful (like poor hygiene), it's not a trust issue. It's just a DM choosing to do something a player doesn't like. A matter of taste, not a matter of rules.

[JNAProductions]

To those who say "Fudging is fine," can we agree that the OP's DM is using fudging poorly? Since the player feels that saving throw spells are completely useless, wouldn't you agree it's reasonable to say "That DM went too far/uses it too much or where it's not needed."

To those who say "Fudging is terrible," can you agree that, even if it's not to your tastes, it's not an immoral or wrong thing? I can agree that the DM is being bad if they say "I play it by the dice 100%," and then fudges, but that's outright lying. A DM who says "I'll stick to the dice for the most part, but I may occasionally ignore them," while not a table you necessarily want to play at, is not a bad person for that style.

[zinycor]

To those who say "Fudging is fine," can we agree that the OP's DM is using fudging poorly? Since the player feels that saving throw spells are completely useless, wouldn't you agree it's reasonable to say "That DM went too far/uses it too much or where it's not needed."

To those who say "Fudging is terrible," can you agree that, even if it's not to your tastes, it's not an immoral or wrong thing? I can agree that the DM is being bad if they say "I play it by the dice 100%," and then fudges, but that's outright lying. A DM who says "I'll stick to the dice for the most part, but I may occasionally ignore them," while not a table you necessarily want to play at, is not a bad person for that style.

I can agree to that

[Trickery]

To those who say "Fudging is fine," can we agree that the OP's DM is using fudging poorly? Since the player feels that saving throw spells are completely useless, wouldn't you agree it's reasonable to say "That DM went too far/uses it too much or where it's not needed."

To those who say "Fudging is terrible," can you agree that, even if it's not to your tastes, it's not an immoral or wrong thing? I can agree that the DM is being bad if they say "I play it by the dice 100%," and then fudges, but that's outright lying. A DM who says "I'll stick to the dice for the most part, but I may occasionally ignore them," while not a table you necessarily want to play at, is not a bad person for that style.

Yep. Honesty with the players is the most important thing. If the players know the DM may fudge on ocassion, I don't see anything wrong with that.

[NaughtyTiger]

To those who say "Fudging is fine," can we agree that the OP's DM is using fudging poorly? Since the player feels that saving throw spells are completely useless, wouldn't you agree it's reasonable to say "That DM went too far/uses it too much or where it's not needed."

we (me, you, waaz,..) have said that on page 2


To those who say "Fudging is terrible," can you agree that, even if it's not to your tastes, it's not an immoral or wrong thing? I can agree that the DM is being bad if they say "I play it by the dice 100%," and then fudges, but that's outright lying. A DM who says "I'll stick to the dice for the most part, but I may occasionally ignore them," while not a table you necessarily want to play at, is not a bad person for that style.

i will agree to that statment as well. if i explicitly say I will do A, and then do the opposite, that is bad.

but your statement ignores the most common case: the DM doesn't make an explicit promise one way or the other.

it is lying/cheating if the DM is following the rules (where secret fudge is acceptable) but doesn't explicitly state at session 0 that she will do that?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can agree to that

Same here.

Edit to NaughtyTiger--

I consider the rules to be the default. If the "fudging = cheating" player is concerned about the application of that rule (just like any other concern about default rules), bring it up. Once the DM says yea or nay, they are justified in holding him to his word (or choosing not to play).

[zinycor]

we (me, you, waaz,..) have said that on page 2

the 2nd half of your statement (to the its cheating camp) is problematic. it ignores the most common case: the DM doesn't make an explicit promise one way or the other.

it is bad if the DM is following the rules (where secret fudge is acceptable) but doesn't explicitly state at session 0 that she will do that?

As I understand it, JNAProductions is looking to find the points where both camps could agree, while the point you are stating is a point of conflict.

[zinycor]

Same here.

Edit to NaughtyTiger--

I consider the rules to be the default. If the "fudging = cheating" player is concerned about the application of that rule (just like any other concern about default rules), bring it up. Once the DM says yea or nay, they are justified in holding him to his word (or choosing not to play).

I can agree with that, in fact I would say to the OP that should make known your feelings and thoughts regarding fudging, then hold him to his word or leave.

[Waazraath]

To those who say "Fudging is fine," can we agree that the OP's DM is using fudging poorly? Since the player feels that saving throw spells are completely useless, wouldn't you agree it's reasonable to say "That DM went too far/uses it too much or where it's not needed."

Yes, of course. I think most folks (or everybody) already did so.


To those who say "Fudging is terrible," can you agree that, even if it's not to your tastes, it's not an immoral or wrong thing? I can agree that the DM is being bad if they say "I play it by the dice 100%," and then fudges, but that's outright lying. A DM who says "I'll stick to the dice for the most part, but I may occasionally ignore them," while not a table you necessarily want to play at, is not a bad person for that style.

But most DM's won't say anything about this to their table. Which is the explicit advise given in a number of DMG's, including the current 5e one. And for which there are many good arguments, that are already discussed extensively.

More or les what NaughtyTiger already said.



Same here.

Edit to NaughtyTiger--

I consider the rules to be the default. If the "fudging = cheating" player is concerned about the application of that rule (just like any other concern about default rules), bring it up. Once the DM says yea or nay, they are justified in holding him to his word (or choosing not to play).

This is an interesting one. For my self, in my current and past campaigns as a player, I would have considered it bad manners to ask this to the DM. Because I know that by the rules of the game they can, I know the (valid) reasons why players shouldn't know this, and I trust them to use this tool, if at all, wisely. If asked by one of my player's, I would deflect the question, with a wink or a joke, and avoid giving an answer I think. But the OP has good reasons to doubt his DM's integrity... in that case, bringing it up might be the best option.


To me, they are what make it a game where you're taking a risk and not just one person deciding what happens.

And I'm rather surprised that, after 9 pages of discussion, this fallacious reasoning still is being used. Nobody advocated a DM style where 'one person deciding what happens'. You're debating yourself. Fighting windmills. A constructed enemy. A big, fat strawman, and you can continue beating the heck out of it, but that doesn't prove a thing. Even the most staunch defenders of the occasional fudge argue that it is a means of last resort, should be used sparingly, prefereably no more than once every so many sessions, etc. etc. This argument, and the variants 'such DM's should write a book" or "why roll at all" are getting tedious.

Why is it so hard to believe that some folks think the current rolling mechanics fine, and succesful 99,9% when having the dice deceiding the outcome of combats and all that, and where risks are very real, but are willing to "not be the slave of the dice" in that 0.1% where the dice result is obvious unfun for the players? Without being an evil puppet master, railroadring horror DM?

[patchyman]

And to me, that latter kind of trust is an unwarranted assumption--that the rules for the DM are the same as the rules for the player. Someone even articulated that upthread--that the Dm is just another player. They're not. Not by RAW, not by history, not by game design. They're explicitly given the power, even the responsibility to deviate from the printed rules as they see fit.

While I agree with your first point I disagree with your second. But that is a discussion that is wider than this thread.

You can accept that the DM is bound by different rules than the players without accepting that no rules bind the DM. But as I said, a discussion of that may be better suited to a different thread.

[Waazraath]

While I agree with your first point I disagree with your second. But that is a discussion that is wider than this thread.

You can accept that the DM is bound by different rules than the players without accepting that no rules bind the DM. But as I said, a discussion of that may be better suited to a different thread.

But this isn't a wider 'rule 0'-debate, where people argue 'the DM can do everything because (s)he's the DM. This is a specific debate about yes or no when fudging roles, and the DMG is very clear there: yes, they can, and no, they shouldn't let the player's know.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I agree with your first point I disagree with your second. But that is a discussion that is wider than this thread.

You can accept that the DM is bound by different rules than the players without accepting that no rules bind the DM. But as I said, a discussion of that may be better suited to a different thread.

I can accept that just fine. There are plenty of games that have binding rules for DMs. It's just a cold hard fact that D&D is not one of those games. D&D DMs are only bound by meta rules constructed by the table and any other rules that they agree to. The printed ones explicitly disclaim any power over DMs.

And it's important to stress that having power is not the same as not being accountable for the use of power. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. The DM can't break the rules, but can make unfun, obnoxious, or otherwise improper decisions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not sure if 5e has this, but in previous Editions that was just a monster with Ferocity (they can keep acting normally below 0 HP until they are actually killed, but lose 1 HP per turn if they perform strenuous action). Basically the same effects as the Die Hard Feat, a player option.

That wouldn't really qualify as fudging-adjacent, since it's a valid monster ability. Zombies can keep getting up after being dropped to 0 HP if they make a con save. I've had a zombie in a level 2 fight get up three times straight. He finally dropped when our cleric hit him with sacred flame for the last bit of damage. Radiant damage negates that ability.
It is called undead fortitude, and it's a pain in the butt for a low level party to deal with.