I try not to fudge the dice, but there are incidence where I believe its necessary. Had a new player who, on session one, walked in to an encounter alone. I rolled two nat 20's in a row and didn't feel like killing them in their first session so just ignored the crit rules. Ultimately dnd even states that the entire system is essentially optional
I was playing a 3.5 game once, and had grown really attached to a character. human rogue, but fun roleplay stuff. The DM had our camp attacked by dwarven barbarians in the middle of the night, and our sentry failed his spot check. He rolled, and three of the dwarves attacked my rogue while he was still asleep. Two of them rolled crits, and the third hit. My character died in his bedroll before his first turn in the combat, because... greataxe crits. That was many years ago, and I'm still upset about it. I really enjoyed that character, and player death is a real thing, sure, but not like that. That's the story the dice told. And it was a terrible story.
I’m sorry you went through that, losing characters in ignominious ways sucks. What if, however, your DM had not let dice decide the targets? Or had the dwarven barbarians charge out, using their surprise round to position themselves optimally for the straight up fight to take place on round 1… The dice may have told a story there, but it was a story your DM could have averted without resorting to fudging, because dice shouldn’t make tactical decisions, only resolve outcomes. Of course, this whole vid is just my opinion, and I fully expect disagreement! :)
The DM, in my opinion, handled the spot check incorrectly. In such a situation the roll isn't to see whether the sentry spots the attackers, it's how close they get before they're spotted. Roll a 20+ and they're spotted at least a couple of rounds away (enough time to quietly wake the party and have them roll into the initiative order), roll a natural one and the sentry spots them just far enough away that they can yell to wake the party and they respond after the surprise round.
@@fred_derf Cool. So how is that not "fudging" the roll? Suppose the sentry rolls low... his perception is a 5. The bad guys roll a 13, but the DM says "They rolled a 4, you see them." How is what you propose any different than my fudge scenario? I contend that it isn't.
I think one point for fudging is it can, help with unbalanced encounters, especially as an inexperienced dm, but it is also important to use sparingly, maybe even only adjusting a roll down or up a couple of numbers, like you say you would do with adjusting HP. Rolling behind a screen can create tension, I have even heard people rolling blank dice to make things sound worse than they are. I personally prefer rolling behind the screen, and keeping the players guessing.
I very rarely adjust HP mid-fight, unless its the last foe and the fight is statistically over (3 people's turn and 2hp left? we can give it to the guy who dropped a nuke). That said, I hear the counterpoint. I definitely disagree about hidden rolling (not the tension part of random dice in the background, that's totally true) but open rolls for open actions creates such a trust and tension around the dice that I'd never give it up again.
I don't know if this is necessarily dice fudging, but sometimes I like to roll different color dice behind the screen in order to make it sound like more dice are hitting the table than I need. I use dramatic pauses as I count but really I'm only counting a couple of dice. I like doing this because it sort of psychologically makes the players more invested when I'm rolling damage, they're not really sure how big the number is going to be or how powerful the spell or strike was. I also personally roll death saves behind the screen for players, I do this to add tension mostly because I usually only let the player who's dying know how close they are. But I've also had situations where I'll fudge a success from a failure so people don't just lose their character because I happened to roll really well with some giant wasps one time. I think my opinion is fudging is a tool, I personally don't feel the need to do it most of the time, but like any other tool in my arsenal it's always there at the ready if I feel like it's appropriate. I've done an actual fudge of dice maybe like... Once in fifty sessions maybe. It really only comes up in very very niche cases.
||"Why do you roll?" Sometimes, the player describes some action in a way that goes above and beyond. The action in question won't decide the entire combat, but it would make for a particilary neat moment. I want that moment to happen, and I want to make it so the player gets the credit, so I fudge and give it to them. I could just say "I like that, it just happens" and this response is good for out of combat scenarios so I use it often. But for combat situations, where usually things are more rules heavy and the stakes are higher, this presents the problem of precedent, where in another cool description, a player may feel like they deserve a "just works" resolution. So, to avoid that, I feel it's worth to fudge. From my side, I know the rulng was "just works", but from the other side, the outcome was "hell, yeah, the dice are in my side". It's important to not fudge in very important rolls. If the roll is determining something huge, I may even roll in the open, with the "special metal dice" and make it epic in that way. But for some mid tier outcomes that would benefit from an extra bit of help from me, I'll consider it. Most important of all, everything I just said, my players know it, and there has to be that mutual trust that I don't fudge at every opportunity. In any given combat, I fudge 0-1 times, maybe two in a long encounter and if the moment seems worth it. At the end of the day, this should be a fun hobby that we share and the excuse to get together and eat some pizza. The players suspend their disbelief to enter the fantasy, I just ask then to trust me, suspend their disbelief a bit more and not try to decipher which rolls are fudge, even though we all agreed that some are. It's up to the DM not to abuse this in search of the "perfect story" like you said. And it should only be used to enhance player driven moments, where they would feel extra awesome, not to ensure that my plans come through as I expected. Adjusting, the HP of monsters, the amount of enemies, or any other alternative is part of the control the DM. If you are changing things on the fly, then you are already forcing some aspects of the combat to go the way you want them because you sincerely think it would make for a better experience. Fudging rolls is exactly the same, it's just another tool. The issue is not the tool itself but the need for it. As DMs, the goal is always to craft an encounter that is "just right" for the moment we hoped to create, and sometimes that happens. More experienced DMs will hit that goal more often, but saying "I do use this tool from time to time" should not make your games less fun, as long as there's trust at the table.
Well written response, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I concur with much of what you’re saying, though I would personally find it tough not to wonder “did he fudge that” on a DM who openly acknowledges they change results. That’s, to me, the loss of trust that I don’t think is good at the table. But opinions vary and as long as everyone’s happy, I’m happy! :)
Exactly, the first and last thing is for everyone to have fun. I get why you say that you could never shake that feeling, but that's why session zero helped us a lot. At our table, 5 out of the 6 people have DMed for the table and we take turns. This is a conversation we have had and yes, some of us prefer to not fudge, but by discussing the matter, even they have acknowledge that we (the "fudgers") do it sparingly, or at least we have managed to convinced them to trust us. If it's seen as a loss of trust, I agree with you, it's not good for the table. But I really think that it should be seen as an expression of trust. Similar to a DM trusting their players to not cheat. I fully trust my players and never feel the need to check their rolls and make sure they "did the math". By that same logic, they have to trust me not to cheat, but in this case, "not cheat" = "don't go overboard with fudging and encounter adjusting". You, yourself admit to have rolls behind the screen, and assuming you have mature players, they could always doubt your hidden rolls. But I think they are excersing the same level of trust that my players do. Any grown up that sits at your table (specially other DMs or experienced players) will have to trust you, no matter how many times you say you don't fudge rolls. Unless you are rolling 100% in the open, you are entering the "trust zone" xD, and I think that's ok. @@DM-Timothy Still, I play with friends and friends of friends, not running nearly as much games as you do, but my hardest argument here is this: You are playing with the same level of "trust me, bro" than anyone. I have discussed with my players the ocassional fudge, you insist that you don't fudge. Any reasonable player could find motives to doubt any of our rolls. You even mentioned body language, that moment of "deciding the fudge", but when you make an honest roll and take just an extra second to do the math or to think about how to narrate what's next, that second could be interpreted as "oh, he's fudging". There's no way to prove a hidden roll wasn't fudge, not one, not a hundred, but that should not mean a loss of trust, it should mean that you are relying on your player's trust. They are trusting you with the power to run the game, to rule the world, and like uncle Ben once said... xD
@@Federe76 Well, as I often say, there's always another opinion, right? :) Thanks for sharing yours in such a constructive fashion. While neither of us has convinced the other, I hope the conversation (and video) will help other DMs make up their own minds for their tables!
@jamesdeer3129 yikes, an assumption back in 1e? Before my time, I'm afraid. I have grown up on the D&D world in fantasy fiction largely, where PCs are almost always a big fish in a bigger pond. I definitely believe the characters need to be the stars of the story, but they're rarely the most powerful creatures or people in the world.
Definitely depends on the group, i don’t fudge every time only when I think its unfair like for example killing someone early, or if it is cooler for something to happen or not happen. I like to stick to my rolls but sometimes an idea is more appealing than what a dice can show.
I've started playing DnD a few months ago and I've only fudged my dice roll once. It was our first session and the DM made us face a monster that killed 23 out of 24 DMPC guards in a few hits. My friend's characters were both down, and my paladin had one spell slot left for a smite. I decided to use it on my next attack, but it sadly failed. The monster had 23 AC and with my stats, I would need to roll at least 15 to even hit it. When my die rolled a 7, I knew I had to cheat and say that I rolled 15. The attack barely hit, and the monster was killed with divine smite. Later the DM admitted that he didn't know that we would do that badly and had no backup plan. I basically saved the campaign which I prepared for for a few weeks from turning into an oneshot. I didn't tell anyone about it, but I feel like I should
The pressure of that is pretty rough, I'm sorry. One benefit of open rolls for dice (for DMs as well as players) is that it removes the possibility of changing your numbers like that. Unfortunately, it doesn't fix a DM's mistakes in the design/planning stage, and we all make them from time to time. Hopefully, your DM learned from the encounter, regardless.
@@DM-Timothy He did indeed! The single remaining DMPC became a paladin with a homebrew Oath of Dinner and is our companion now. It was a rough introduction to the TTRPG genre, but we still play the same campaign and we love it
Yeah, no, purity of dice rolls ranks WAY below so many other things I'm concerned about. Fudge when necessary, the TTRPG police aren't going to arrest you, it's not a crime. You're telling a collective story together, and the dice offer randomized suggestions for the direction of that story. If those suggestions suck, ignore them.
Many players enjoy making builds and try out new classes and subclasses. If you are fudging you take away the weight of that time they invested. Those decisions in perfecting a build don’t matter as much if the DM fiat can nullify it
Fudging definitely depends. My rule is that I only fudge down, only at really critical moments. I'm fine with the surprise crit at the beginning of the ambush downing a player at the beginning of combat, but not when it outright kills a PC because every single dice rolled max on the crit. Any fudging should be done to speed the end of a fight, like one zombie who keeps making his fort save, and other wise in the player's favor ( Like not one shotting a player in an ambush at the begining of the fight before any PC has even rolled rolled initiative or known there was a fight. In one of the campaigns I play in, the enemy was a basically single use assassin sent after my group. He randomly chose my Monk, his ambush attack hit me. The damn thing crit. So my 47 health monk took 90 damage on 10d10 poison damage. So my DM fudged the magic dagger damage from 4d4 to just a failed death save because other wise it was a guaranteed kill. My monk still rolled a 1 on his next save before anyone could get to him (Yay for magic weapons that disintegrate your body when they kill you to prevent resurrection). He made the fudge because he said it "Seems stupid to instakill a pc at the beginning of a combat before everyone else has even rolled initiative." And I agree with that sentiment.
I don’t disagree with your DM there. Instead of fudging, I look at avoiding putting monsters that can double the HP of my party in a single hit on the field of battle without mad foreshadowing. Sorry you went through that!
@@DM-Timothy Quite fun actually. I'm not the most attached to my characters, I actually had to mute myself since i was howling with laughter. In an oneshot I'm playing in next month I made a -2 con wizard, with 18 health at level 7. Which I suppose is an excellent segue into another reason I sometimes fudge rolls to avoid a pc death. Several players in my games will take a couple of weeks to come up with a character idea they like. So replacing a dead character means a reduced party for at least two sessions.
I think that is valid. Most of us are not professional DMs and we don't playtest our encounters. I am simply not perfect, so I will somethimes employ methods like fudging a dice to keep the story interesting. I think lying about dice rolls is on the exact same level as changing the bosses HP or mechanics according on how the fight is going. The actually important thing is to not do it in a power rush, but to help out the story. (Of course some games have other mechanics to help with that and re-roll, but that is still just a chance and I would prefer not to kill my players with a stray bullet on an unassuming mission to just get a hard drive out of a satelite. It really sucked dying like this.
I wholeheartedly agree, I never fudge the dice. If I am going to tweak something to help steer the narrative in the direction of more fun, I will change DCs, monster hit points or damage, make monsters act in less optimal ways or a myriad of other options at my disposal. As the DM, I have so much control over the entire world and what happens, that I can affect whatever I need to without changing the number on the dice. An important lesson I had to learn is don’t ask for rolls when the outcome isn’t uncertain, and don’t gate critical information or whatnot behind a single die roll or a very specific action the characters must take and be successful at. If you don’t design your adventures in ways that put your back against the wall, then you won’t find yourself in situations you can only get out of by fudging dice.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Why are you comfortable changing monster HP, but not comfortable fudging Dice rolls? Either way, you're arbitrarily changing a number.
So for starters, I agree you’re right, it doesn’t actually matter how you do it, if you’re gonna change an encounter you’re gonna change an encounter. All I’m saying is that I think there are more fun and exciting ways to do it than fudging dice rolls. I like to roll out in the open for my players to see so they know I’m not secretly pulling my punches or making stuff up. For an example, let’s say one night I can’t roll for crap, instead of fudging the dice to roll better, I might give my guys pack tactics, or a rage mechanic at half health, or have my boss monster use legendary actions to allow rerolls, have my monsters use abilities that force saving throws from the party. If one night I can’t stop rolling crits, I might allow a big hit from one of my players to sever a limb from my monster thus limiting its effectiveness in combat or intentionally attack characters with high AC or spread my attacks out amongst the players. I might have my boss monster spend its next turn gloating or have one of my monsters run away after it’s taken a bunch of damage or have my guys give up their tactical position to press the attack. I just think these things make for a more fun play experience.
@@nathanaelthomas9243 Why does suddenly adding entire abilities feel acceptable but fudging even a single dice roll feel unacceptable? You're changing something either way, so effectively it's the same. Why are dice special in your mind?
I think the biggest problem with fudging is that if the players realize you are cheating, it removes all the tension in the game and then it isn't going to be fun anymore. Also some people think the DM can do whatever they want, but it is a cooperative game. The DM really can't, nor shouldn't, have the only say in things. So a DM can cheat.
Good heavens. Please remember that you should always make sure that your players are comfortable with all elements of your running style during Session Zero. This includes your stance on fudging, whether you do it or not. This is definitely not the kind of thing you want a player to find out mid-game. There should never be an issue of your players "catching you cheating" -- if they do not want you to fudge and you are still fudging, you have failed to properly communicate the style of the campaign. By the same token, if they expect you to be fudging and you don't, you have likewise failed to communicate. Please also note: fudging die rolls is RAW, by the text of most Dungeon Master Guides (pp.235 & 237, in 5th Edition). Not-fudging is the house rule. Either way, you should be clear about it up front, but you should be especially clear about a hardline stance against fudging. A dungeon master can't cheat, not because they are entitled in any way, but because everyone at the table should have agreed beforehand on the limits of the dungeon master's control. The limits are important, but so is the control.
@lilitha11 I agree that the loss of tension from fudging isn't worth it. Also, any DM who feels all powerful and lords it, is a DM worth avoiding. In my opinion, of course.
@@jzoshak9571 I absolutely disagree - your players should never know your stance on fudging dice. If you admit to your players that you are prepared to fudge the dice, no matter how rarely you do it in practice, you are calling into doubt the validity of every dice roll you make. As far as my players are know, I never fudge dice - I've never discussed it in the first place and I certainly would never admit to doing it. However, it is a tool in my toolbox that I am prepared to use - especially if my dice are victimizing a particular player or are stripping all the tension from a climatic scene by making by BBEG suck at everything.
@@mattbowden4996 You haven't asked for my advice, so I won't give it, but I do hope that a short description of my experiences encourages you to open up to your players about your style more: I've always been comfortable with my players knowing any given die roll could be fudged. As near as I can tell, until fairly recently, the idea of dungeon masters fudging was not at all controversial; it was simply viewed as another element of DM fiat. I didn't used to include my stance on fudging in my Sessions Zero for exactly this reason. Since I started doing so around 2016 (after encountering increasing disagreement in online discussion), every single player I have run for, online and tableside, has expected their dungeon master to fudge regardless of their players' opinions. I get playfully accused of pulling my punches every few sessions, but honestly I don't remember the last time I fudged a roll in any of my campaigns, and I am honest about that with my players, too. They keep coming back, they keep thanking me, and they keep talking about their characters' accomplishments like they matter to them. I'm satisfied.
I think the fact that you are a Professional DM is definitely influencing your argument, which is fine! Every table is going to be different. The issue I have with your movie analogy is that if you aren't creating a movie for profit, but instead for a very very niche audience, then you can tailor it to exactly what that audience would want. I don't run D&D for internet randos. I have seen too much of r/rpghorrorstories and r/dndnext. So, being selective about my players, I am able to control chaos in a way that I know will result in everyone at the table having a good time regardless of how RNGeezus is feeling that night. Everything beyond Rule 0 is are basically guidelines, and while I don't do it anywhere near as often as people in the comments are going to insinuate, Fudging Dice as a DM is a tool in your toolbox and one that I will use and continue to use.
Admittedly, I also don't fudge for my 2 home-games a week, but I hear you! I completely agree that every table is different. Most of my tables consist of players who have been with me for the past two-three years, with a smattering of newer folks and folk who have come and gone over time. I have earned their trust over in some cases hundreds of sessions (I have a few players who have played 3-4 times a week at different points) and still firmly stand by my feelings on the matter. But my feelings are just that, my opinion, and there's ALWAYS another opinion. I'm totally alright with that. I just think the loss of veracity and trust is not worth the gain of things going the way I THINK will be most fun, in most situations.
@@DM-Timothy I suppose you could flat out ask the table what their opinions are on fudging. If they say no fudging then they accepted all the risks, and if they say it is okay to fudge occasionally, then you are not tricking anyone. It is important everyone is on the same page at the start.
Does anyone have advice on what to do when your online games DM allows private player rolls for the sake of using physical dice, but the DMs BF is a mutual player and seems to only ever roll 15 or higher? The DM is also one of the admins of the Discord Server, and I'm afraid to speak up in fear of getting booted for making accusations from the server where 2 of my 3 campaigns are held
Oof. That’s a rough one. Privately bringing the concerns to the DM is probably one of the best options, but I know the potential cost of losing your game time is a big deal. You could consider dropping from that game, of course, but again, cost. Without knowing more details it’s hard to offer much I’m afraid. :/
Right, Timothy totally doesn't fudge their dice roll. Even though there's a ton of good reasons why a dm would fudge a dice roll. A very good reason to not tell your players that he fudges the dice roll (because it would make the epic fight not seem as epic...) Nope! He would never!
I think you are wrong, but it's not having a preference for not-fudging that's wrong -- that's perfectly reasonable -- it's taking an absolute position that I disagree with. Every table has different expectations, even different tables run by the same dungeon master, and I'm honestly a little surprised to see you take this stance so readily, given that you sell your services. What would you do if you were hired by a table that expected you to fudge? That's not rhetorical; if you have the time to answer, I am genuinely curious about your answer. Like a lot of people in the hobby today, you draw a very arbitrary line between fudging a die roll and the use of narrative techniques like failing forward, success with consequences, and degrees of failure to mitigate undesirable outcomes. No matter which you choose, you are still... 'exercising artistic interpretation' (cough, cough) about the number on the die. You are still predicting what your players will find enjoyable. You are still acknowledging that the die has given you an undesirable result that must be processed. You are still softening consequences and losing tension. I have long felt that the primary difference between these tactics is that they each permit the dungeon master to feel superior to dungeon masters who use the other method. Thus, the optimal approach is obviously to use both, and be superior to everyone. ;)
Loved your last line, lol. To your question, I honestly can’t imagine a situation where a table would say: “we would like you to occasionally fudge the dice”. If I did, we would talk it over. The difference between success with consequences (for me at least) is that those consequences can be determined pre-dice. You’re not fudging anything, you’re letting the dice pick between two acceptable outcomes. Failing forward on the other hand, requires acceptance of the situation, and looking for creative ways to “Yes, and” what the dice have decided. If you’ve picked up the dice but don’t like what they tell you and so you ignore them, that’s when I call it fudging.
A: Didn't watch the entire video, so I don't know what else you talk about(stopped watching at about 4 minutes) B: From my experience, the only time a DM has fudged a die roll is to make the die roll LESS than what they rolled, not more. So usually used to let the players get what they wanted out of a contested roll or not cause the players to get absolutely wiped by a poorly timed crit. C: Dude. For the love of god, make a decision on your camera. All this "slow zoom out, jump in, slow zoom out, static, slow zoom in, jump out" bullshit you've got going on with your editing is highly disturbing and irritating. It'd be one thing if you had a purpose to it, but the pattern and the frequency of it tells me that 90% of the zooms and jumps are completely purposeless. It kills the vibe of a video.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
I try not to fudge the dice, but there are incidence where I believe its necessary. Had a new player who, on session one, walked in to an encounter alone. I rolled two nat 20's in a row and didn't feel like killing them in their first session so just ignored the crit rules.
Ultimately dnd even states that the entire system is essentially optional
Thanks for sharing! It is a rough position to be put in, during moments like that.
You should watch Seth Skorkowsky's video on dice fudging. He makes a compelling argument on how it does improve the fun of a game.
I'll check it out! There's always another opinion, after all.
I was playing a 3.5 game once, and had grown really attached to a character. human rogue, but fun roleplay stuff.
The DM had our camp attacked by dwarven barbarians in the middle of the night, and our sentry failed his spot check. He rolled, and three of the dwarves attacked my rogue while he was still asleep. Two of them rolled crits, and the third hit. My character died in his bedroll before his first turn in the combat, because... greataxe crits.
That was many years ago, and I'm still upset about it. I really enjoyed that character, and player death is a real thing, sure, but not like that.
That's the story the dice told. And it was a terrible story.
I’m sorry you went through that, losing characters in ignominious ways sucks. What if, however, your DM had not let dice decide the targets? Or had the dwarven barbarians charge out, using their surprise round to position themselves optimally for the straight up fight to take place on round 1… The dice may have told a story there, but it was a story your DM could have averted without resorting to fudging, because dice shouldn’t make tactical decisions, only resolve outcomes. Of course, this whole vid is just my opinion, and I fully expect disagreement! :)
The DM, in my opinion, handled the spot check incorrectly. In such a situation the roll isn't to see whether the sentry spots the attackers, it's how close they get before they're spotted. Roll a 20+ and they're spotted at least a couple of rounds away (enough time to quietly wake the party and have them roll into the initiative order), roll a natural one and the sentry spots them just far enough away that they can yell to wake the party and they respond after the surprise round.
@@fred_derf Cool. So how is that not "fudging" the roll?
Suppose the sentry rolls low... his perception is a 5. The bad guys roll a 13, but the DM says "They rolled a 4, you see them."
How is what you propose any different than my fudge scenario? I contend that it isn't.
I think one point for fudging is it can, help with unbalanced encounters, especially as an inexperienced dm, but it is also important to use sparingly, maybe even only adjusting a roll down or up a couple of numbers, like you say you would do with adjusting HP. Rolling behind a screen can create tension, I have even heard people rolling blank dice to make things sound worse than they are. I personally prefer rolling behind the screen, and keeping the players guessing.
I very rarely adjust HP mid-fight, unless its the last foe and the fight is statistically over (3 people's turn and 2hp left? we can give it to the guy who dropped a nuke). That said, I hear the counterpoint. I definitely disagree about hidden rolling (not the tension part of random dice in the background, that's totally true) but open rolls for open actions creates such a trust and tension around the dice that I'd never give it up again.
I don't know if this is necessarily dice fudging, but sometimes I like to roll different color dice behind the screen in order to make it sound like more dice are hitting the table than I need. I use dramatic pauses as I count but really I'm only counting a couple of dice. I like doing this because it sort of psychologically makes the players more invested when I'm rolling damage, they're not really sure how big the number is going to be or how powerful the spell or strike was.
I also personally roll death saves behind the screen for players, I do this to add tension mostly because I usually only let the player who's dying know how close they are. But I've also had situations where I'll fudge a success from a failure so people don't just lose their character because I happened to roll really well with some giant wasps one time.
I think my opinion is fudging is a tool, I personally don't feel the need to do it most of the time, but like any other tool in my arsenal it's always there at the ready if I feel like it's appropriate. I've done an actual fudge of dice maybe like... Once in fifty sessions maybe. It really only comes up in very very niche cases.
Fair points. Thanks for sharing them!
||"Why do you roll?"
Sometimes, the player describes some action in a way that goes above and beyond. The action in question won't decide the entire combat, but it would make for a particilary neat moment. I want that moment to happen, and I want to make it so the player gets the credit, so I fudge and give it to them.
I could just say "I like that, it just happens" and this response is good for out of combat scenarios so I use it often.
But for combat situations, where usually things are more rules heavy and the stakes are higher, this presents the problem of precedent, where in another cool description, a player may feel like they deserve a "just works" resolution. So, to avoid that, I feel it's worth to fudge.
From my side, I know the rulng was "just works", but from the other side, the outcome was "hell, yeah, the dice are in my side".
It's important to not fudge in very important rolls. If the roll is determining something huge, I may even roll in the open, with the "special metal dice" and make it epic in that way. But for some mid tier outcomes that would benefit from an extra bit of help from me, I'll consider it.
Most important of all, everything I just said, my players know it, and there has to be that mutual trust that I don't fudge at every opportunity. In any given combat, I fudge 0-1 times, maybe two in a long encounter and if the moment seems worth it.
At the end of the day, this should be a fun hobby that we share and the excuse to get together and eat some pizza. The players suspend their disbelief to enter the fantasy, I just ask then to trust me, suspend their disbelief a bit more and not try to decipher which rolls are fudge, even though we all agreed that some are.
It's up to the DM not to abuse this in search of the "perfect story" like you said. And it should only be used to enhance player driven moments, where they would feel extra awesome, not to ensure that my plans come through as I expected.
Adjusting, the HP of monsters, the amount of enemies, or any other alternative is part of the control the DM. If you are changing things on the fly, then you are already forcing some aspects of the combat to go the way you want them because you sincerely think it would make for a better experience. Fudging rolls is exactly the same, it's just another tool.
The issue is not the tool itself but the need for it. As DMs, the goal is always to craft an encounter that is "just right" for the moment we hoped to create, and sometimes that happens. More experienced DMs will hit that goal more often, but saying "I do use this tool from time to time" should not make your games less fun, as long as there's trust at the table.
Well written response, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I concur with much of what you’re saying, though I would personally find it tough not to wonder “did he fudge that” on a DM who openly acknowledges they change results. That’s, to me, the loss of trust that I don’t think is good at the table. But opinions vary and as long as everyone’s happy, I’m happy! :)
Exactly, the first and last thing is for everyone to have fun. I get why you say that you could never shake that feeling, but that's why session zero helped us a lot. At our table, 5 out of the 6 people have DMed for the table and we take turns. This is a conversation we have had and yes, some of us prefer to not fudge, but by discussing the matter, even they have acknowledge that we (the "fudgers") do it sparingly, or at least we have managed to convinced them to trust us. If it's seen as a loss of trust, I agree with you, it's not good for the table. But I really think that it should be seen as an expression of trust.
Similar to a DM trusting their players to not cheat. I fully trust my players and never feel the need to check their rolls and make sure they "did the math". By that same logic, they have to trust me not to cheat, but in this case, "not cheat" = "don't go overboard with fudging and encounter adjusting".
You, yourself admit to have rolls behind the screen, and assuming you have mature players, they could always doubt your hidden rolls. But I think they are excersing the same level of trust that my players do. Any grown up that sits at your table (specially other DMs or experienced players) will have to trust you, no matter how many times you say you don't fudge rolls. Unless you are rolling 100% in the open, you are entering the "trust zone" xD, and I think that's ok. @@DM-Timothy
Still, I play with friends and friends of friends, not running nearly as much games as you do, but my hardest argument here is this:
You are playing with the same level of "trust me, bro" than anyone. I have discussed with my players the ocassional fudge, you insist that you don't fudge. Any reasonable player could find motives to doubt any of our rolls. You even mentioned body language, that moment of "deciding the fudge", but when you make an honest roll and take just an extra second to do the math or to think about how to narrate what's next, that second could be interpreted as "oh, he's fudging".
There's no way to prove a hidden roll wasn't fudge, not one, not a hundred, but that should not mean a loss of trust, it should mean that you are relying on your player's trust. They are trusting you with the power to run the game, to rule the world, and like uncle Ben once said... xD
@jamesdeer3129 Interesting stance! I've never actually been of that opinion, nor seen that in practice. Can you point me to where you read it?
@@Federe76 Well, as I often say, there's always another opinion, right? :) Thanks for sharing yours in such a constructive fashion. While neither of us has convinced the other, I hope the conversation (and video) will help other DMs make up their own minds for their tables!
@jamesdeer3129 yikes, an assumption back in 1e? Before my time, I'm afraid. I have grown up on the D&D world in fantasy fiction largely, where PCs are almost always a big fish in a bigger pond. I definitely believe the characters need to be the stars of the story, but they're rarely the most powerful creatures or people in the world.
Definitely depends on the group, i don’t fudge every time only when I think its unfair like for example killing someone early, or if it is cooler for something to happen or not happen. I like to stick to my rolls but sometimes an idea is more appealing than what a dice can show.
Opinions definitely vary on this one. I usually find other ways to fail forward from unfairness if it is truly needed.
I bet, just like that time they beheaded Asmodeus with a vorpal sword on the first attack. I hated it, but they loved it.
@jamesdeer3129That's literally not how the game works
@jamesdeer3129 No I mean the DM and players don't have to play by the same rules, it's literally part of the game
@jamesdeer3129 That's subjective, the rules serve the DM. What are you basing your strong opinion on?
I've started playing DnD a few months ago and I've only fudged my dice roll once. It was our first session and the DM made us face a monster that killed 23 out of 24 DMPC guards in a few hits. My friend's characters were both down, and my paladin had one spell slot left for a smite. I decided to use it on my next attack, but it sadly failed. The monster had 23 AC and with my stats, I would need to roll at least 15 to even hit it. When my die rolled a 7, I knew I had to cheat and say that I rolled 15. The attack barely hit, and the monster was killed with divine smite. Later the DM admitted that he didn't know that we would do that badly and had no backup plan. I basically saved the campaign which I prepared for for a few weeks from turning into an oneshot. I didn't tell anyone about it, but I feel like I should
The pressure of that is pretty rough, I'm sorry. One benefit of open rolls for dice (for DMs as well as players) is that it removes the possibility of changing your numbers like that. Unfortunately, it doesn't fix a DM's mistakes in the design/planning stage, and we all make them from time to time. Hopefully, your DM learned from the encounter, regardless.
@@DM-Timothy He did indeed! The single remaining DMPC became a paladin with a homebrew Oath of Dinner and is our companion now. It was a rough introduction to the TTRPG genre, but we still play the same campaign and we love it
@@cobaltchromee7533 I do love a happy ending! Thanks for being willing to share your story.
Yeah, no, purity of dice rolls ranks WAY below so many other things I'm concerned about. Fudge when necessary, the TTRPG police aren't going to arrest you, it's not a crime. You're telling a collective story together, and the dice offer randomized suggestions for the direction of that story. If those suggestions suck, ignore them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Many players enjoy making builds and try out new classes and subclasses. If you are fudging you take away the weight of that time they invested. Those decisions in perfecting a build don’t matter as much if the DM fiat can nullify it
Fudging definitely depends. My rule is that I only fudge down, only at really critical moments. I'm fine with the surprise crit at the beginning of the ambush downing a player at the beginning of combat, but not when it outright kills a PC because every single dice rolled max on the crit. Any fudging should be done to speed the end of a fight, like one zombie who keeps making his fort save, and other wise in the player's favor ( Like not one shotting a player in an ambush at the begining of the fight before any PC has even rolled rolled initiative or known there was a fight.
In one of the campaigns I play in, the enemy was a basically single use assassin sent after my group. He randomly chose my Monk, his ambush attack hit me. The damn thing crit. So my 47 health monk took 90 damage on 10d10 poison damage. So my DM fudged the magic dagger damage from 4d4 to just a failed death save because other wise it was a guaranteed kill. My monk still rolled a 1 on his next save before anyone could get to him (Yay for magic weapons that disintegrate your body when they kill you to prevent resurrection). He made the fudge because he said it "Seems stupid to instakill a pc at the beginning of a combat before everyone else has even rolled initiative." And I agree with that sentiment.
I don’t disagree with your DM there. Instead of fudging, I look at avoiding putting monsters that can double the HP of my party in a single hit on the field of battle without mad foreshadowing. Sorry you went through that!
@@DM-Timothy Quite fun actually. I'm not the most attached to my characters, I actually had to mute myself since i was howling with laughter. In an oneshot I'm playing in next month I made a -2 con wizard, with 18 health at level 7.
Which I suppose is an excellent segue into another reason I sometimes fudge rolls to avoid a pc death. Several players in my games will take a couple of weeks to come up with a character idea they like. So replacing a dead character means a reduced party for at least two sessions.
@@unciuncia420 it's definitely a challenge not to let out of game concerns like that change how you play... Thanks for sharing your experience!
I think that is valid.
Most of us are not professional DMs and we don't playtest our encounters.
I am simply not perfect, so I will somethimes employ methods like fudging a dice to keep the story interesting.
I think lying about dice rolls is on the exact same level as changing the bosses HP or mechanics according on how the fight is going.
The actually important thing is to not do it in a power rush, but to help out the story. (Of course some games have other mechanics to help with that and re-roll, but that is still just a chance and I would prefer not to kill my players with a stray bullet on an unassuming mission to just get a hard drive out of a satelite. It really sucked dying like this.
I wholeheartedly agree, I never fudge the dice. If I am going to tweak something to help steer the narrative in the direction of more fun, I will change DCs, monster hit points or damage, make monsters act in less optimal ways or a myriad of other options at my disposal. As the DM, I have so much control over the entire world and what happens, that I can affect whatever I need to without changing the number on the dice. An important lesson I had to learn is don’t ask for rolls when the outcome isn’t uncertain, and don’t gate critical information or whatnot behind a single die roll or a very specific action the characters must take and be successful at. If you don’t design your adventures in ways that put your back against the wall, then you won’t find yourself in situations you can only get out of by fudging dice.
Tools abound! Agreed.
That's a good point.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Why are you comfortable changing monster HP, but not comfortable fudging Dice rolls? Either way, you're arbitrarily changing a number.
So for starters, I agree you’re right, it doesn’t actually matter how you do it, if you’re gonna change an encounter you’re gonna change an encounter. All I’m saying is that I think there are more fun and exciting ways to do it than fudging dice rolls. I like to roll out in the open for my players to see so they know I’m not secretly pulling my punches or making stuff up. For an example, let’s say one night I can’t roll for crap, instead of fudging the dice to roll better, I might give my guys pack tactics, or a rage mechanic at half health, or have my boss monster use legendary actions to allow rerolls, have my monsters use abilities that force saving throws from the party. If one night I can’t stop rolling crits, I might allow a big hit from one of my players to sever a limb from my monster thus limiting its effectiveness in combat or intentionally attack characters with high AC or spread my attacks out amongst the players. I might have my boss monster spend its next turn gloating or have one of my monsters run away after it’s taken a bunch of damage or have my guys give up their tactical position to press the attack. I just think these things make for a more fun play experience.
@@nathanaelthomas9243 Why does suddenly adding entire abilities feel acceptable but fudging even a single dice roll feel unacceptable?
You're changing something either way, so effectively it's the same. Why are dice special in your mind?
I think the biggest problem with fudging is that if the players realize you are cheating, it removes all the tension in the game and then it isn't going to be fun anymore. Also some people think the DM can do whatever they want, but it is a cooperative game. The DM really can't, nor shouldn't, have the only say in things. So a DM can cheat.
Good heavens. Please remember that you should always make sure that your players are comfortable with all elements of your running style during Session Zero. This includes your stance on fudging, whether you do it or not. This is definitely not the kind of thing you want a player to find out mid-game.
There should never be an issue of your players "catching you cheating" -- if they do not want you to fudge and you are still fudging, you have failed to properly communicate the style of the campaign. By the same token, if they expect you to be fudging and you don't, you have likewise failed to communicate.
Please also note: fudging die rolls is RAW, by the text of most Dungeon Master Guides (pp.235 & 237, in 5th Edition). Not-fudging is the house rule. Either way, you should be clear about it up front, but you should be especially clear about a hardline stance against fudging.
A dungeon master can't cheat, not because they are entitled in any way, but because everyone at the table should have agreed beforehand on the limits of the dungeon master's control. The limits are important, but so is the control.
Great response, by and large, despite my disagreements.
@lilitha11 I agree that the loss of tension from fudging isn't worth it. Also, any DM who feels all powerful and lords it, is a DM worth avoiding. In my opinion, of course.
@@jzoshak9571 I absolutely disagree - your players should never know your stance on fudging dice. If you admit to your players that you are prepared to fudge the dice, no matter how rarely you do it in practice, you are calling into doubt the validity of every dice roll you make. As far as my players are know, I never fudge dice - I've never discussed it in the first place and I certainly would never admit to doing it. However, it is a tool in my toolbox that I am prepared to use - especially if my dice are victimizing a particular player or are stripping all the tension from a climatic scene by making by BBEG suck at everything.
@@mattbowden4996
You haven't asked for my advice, so I won't give it, but I do hope that a short description of my experiences encourages you to open up to your players about your style more:
I've always been comfortable with my players knowing any given die roll could be fudged. As near as I can tell, until fairly recently, the idea of dungeon masters fudging was not at all controversial; it was simply viewed as another element of DM fiat.
I didn't used to include my stance on fudging in my Sessions Zero for exactly this reason. Since I started doing so around 2016 (after encountering increasing disagreement in online discussion), every single player I have run for, online and tableside, has expected their dungeon master to fudge regardless of their players' opinions.
I get playfully accused of pulling my punches every few sessions, but honestly I don't remember the last time I fudged a roll in any of my campaigns, and I am honest about that with my players, too. They keep coming back, they keep thanking me, and they keep talking about their characters' accomplishments like they matter to them. I'm satisfied.
I think the fact that you are a Professional DM is definitely influencing your argument, which is fine! Every table is going to be different. The issue I have with your movie analogy is that if you aren't creating a movie for profit, but instead for a very very niche audience, then you can tailor it to exactly what that audience would want.
I don't run D&D for internet randos. I have seen too much of r/rpghorrorstories and r/dndnext. So, being selective about my players, I am able to control chaos in a way that I know will result in everyone at the table having a good time regardless of how RNGeezus is feeling that night. Everything beyond Rule 0 is are basically guidelines, and while I don't do it anywhere near as often as people in the comments are going to insinuate, Fudging Dice as a DM is a tool in your toolbox and one that I will use and continue to use.
Admittedly, I also don't fudge for my 2 home-games a week, but I hear you! I completely agree that every table is different. Most of my tables consist of players who have been with me for the past two-three years, with a smattering of newer folks and folk who have come and gone over time. I have earned their trust over in some cases hundreds of sessions (I have a few players who have played 3-4 times a week at different points) and still firmly stand by my feelings on the matter. But my feelings are just that, my opinion, and there's ALWAYS another opinion. I'm totally alright with that. I just think the loss of veracity and trust is not worth the gain of things going the way I THINK will be most fun, in most situations.
@@DM-Timothy I suppose you could flat out ask the table what their opinions are on fudging. If they say no fudging then they accepted all the risks, and if they say it is okay to fudge occasionally, then you are not tricking anyone. It is important everyone is on the same page at the start.
@@Lilitha11 You put this much more succinctly than I did above!
@@Lilitha11 open communication solves a multitude of problems, I concur. Great point.
I've always been open to fudging the dice, but I have never felt the need to do so yet. But I'm starting to lean towards not doing it.
I've done it before, and obviously, prefer not to, now. :) I think the benefits of abstaining outweigh any perceived benefits of doing so.
Does anyone have advice on what to do when your online games DM allows private player rolls for the sake of using physical dice, but the DMs BF is a mutual player and seems to only ever roll 15 or higher? The DM is also one of the admins of the Discord Server, and I'm afraid to speak up in fear of getting booted for making accusations from the server where 2 of my 3 campaigns are held
Oof. That’s a rough one. Privately bringing the concerns to the DM is probably one of the best options, but I know the potential cost of losing your game time is a big deal. You could consider dropping from that game, of course, but again, cost. Without knowing more details it’s hard to offer much I’m afraid. :/
Right, Timothy totally doesn't fudge their dice roll.
Even though there's a ton of good reasons why a dm would fudge a dice roll.
A very good reason to not tell your players that he fudges the dice roll (because it would make the epic fight not seem as epic...)
Nope! He would never!
lol, sounds like you disagree with my stance. Thanks for your comment, regardless.
@@DM-Timothy Yep! totally! *wink* *wink*
Completely agree!
I think you are wrong, but it's not having a preference for not-fudging that's wrong -- that's perfectly reasonable -- it's taking an absolute position that I disagree with. Every table has different expectations, even different tables run by the same dungeon master, and I'm honestly a little surprised to see you take this stance so readily, given that you sell your services.
What would you do if you were hired by a table that expected you to fudge? That's not rhetorical; if you have the time to answer, I am genuinely curious about your answer.
Like a lot of people in the hobby today, you draw a very arbitrary line between fudging a die roll and the use of narrative techniques like failing forward, success with consequences, and degrees of failure to mitigate undesirable outcomes. No matter which you choose, you are still... 'exercising artistic interpretation' (cough, cough) about the number on the die.
You are still predicting what your players will find enjoyable. You are still acknowledging that the die has given you an undesirable result that must be processed. You are still softening consequences and losing tension.
I have long felt that the primary difference between these tactics is that they each permit the dungeon master to feel superior to dungeon masters who use the other method.
Thus, the optimal approach is obviously to use both, and be superior to everyone. ;)
Loved your last line, lol.
To your question, I honestly can’t imagine a situation where a table would say: “we would like you to occasionally fudge the dice”. If I did, we would talk it over.
The difference between success with consequences (for me at least) is that those consequences can be determined pre-dice. You’re not fudging anything, you’re letting the dice pick between two acceptable outcomes. Failing forward on the other hand, requires acceptance of the situation, and looking for creative ways to “Yes, and” what the dice have decided. If you’ve picked up the dice but don’t like what they tell you and so you ignore them, that’s when I call it fudging.
A: Didn't watch the entire video, so I don't know what else you talk about(stopped watching at about 4 minutes)
B: From my experience, the only time a DM has fudged a die roll is to make the die roll LESS than what they rolled, not more. So usually used to let the players get what they wanted out of a contested roll or not cause the players to get absolutely wiped by a poorly timed crit.
C: Dude. For the love of god, make a decision on your camera. All this "slow zoom out, jump in, slow zoom out, static, slow zoom in, jump out" bullshit you've got going on with your editing is highly disturbing and irritating. It'd be one thing if you had a purpose to it, but the pattern and the frequency of it tells me that 90% of the zooms and jumps are completely purposeless. It kills the vibe of a video.
Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it!
Bro, why are you being so rude?