I've seen a lot about fudging die rolls lately and a lot of hate on dms that do this...

I've seen a lot about fudging die rolls lately and a lot of hate on dms that do this. The dm then says that they change numbers to make encounters more fun, dramatic or to end a long winded encounter thats unfun.

As a dm I don't condone fudging die rolls because theres an easy way to make in game changes... By gameplay. It's as simple as when a player hits a monster saying that your attack broke a chunk of his armor. Now you can lower that monsters ac without just fudging numbers.
I also believe this allows for players to make more immersive decisions, for example, asking if they can tear off more armor with a successful grapple check or a stab through the open space.

As players and Dm's on this board, do you think my method of slightly changing things is okay?

Most of the time you shouldn't NEED to fudge rolls.
It's only usually necessary in situations like if you miscalculated the challenge of whatever the players were fighting. Of course if the players knowingly go fight something super dangerous like an old dragon at a low level it's their own fault.

But sometimes luck can fuck things up like a shitty goblin getting full rolls on everything and killing a level 1 adventurer from full health with a critical hit.
The player may have been invested in its creation and having it die doing fucking nothing can be super annoying. So i don't know, fudging the dice here might have been better overall.

...

One problem with making changes that the players notice (fudging dice, breaking armor, etc) is one of consistency. If you do them too much, players will come to expect them. Especially if the changes are in their favour.

Then you reach a point where you decide not to tweak things. Or worse, you tweak things in the other direction. Then they will be annoyed about the game mechanics being inconsistent.

Fudging dice, or other changes, also mess with the idea of combat being a risk. While I don't want PCs to die, I want them to be in danger any time combat happens. I don't view my players as being stupid enough to fall for apparent risk, so I need to put their characters in actual risk. Which means that PC deaths are possible, depending on how the dice fall.

Tweaking things to prevent PC death reduces the risk.


If anything, breaking armor when it's not included in the RAW might be worse than fudging dice, because it's far easier for players to notice.

>But sometimes luck can fuck things up like a shitty goblin getting full rolls on everything and killing a level 1 adventurer from full health with a critical hit.
>The player may have been invested in its creation and having it die doing fucking nothing can be super annoying. So i don't know, fudging the dice here might have been better overall.

If that is really a problem for you, you have two choices:
- Start PCs at a higher level where that problem doesn't exist.
- Play a different system. One where that isn't a risk.

Fudging dice is an admission that the system you've chosen doesn't fit the tone of the campaign you want to play.

While I understand this I made a mistake in getting specific with my initial post. It's a way to end encounters quicker and with more action / thinking by players instead of fudging (I don't think fudging is good). This isn't just a tweek systen when I need it. Its a game wide system that can even happen to players. Getting hit may mess up one side of their armor. I was just kinda offering a suggestion to dms who think fudging is fine.

My thread starter wasn't that great lol

there are options other than having the characters die or fudging though
firstly, the players could come up with something like fleeing or bargaining with the goblins
if that fails, as the GM you could continue the story by having them captured as prisoners or put into an arena for the goblins enjoyment, even if this eventually ends in the death of the party it would be more dramatic
lastly, they could take the death of these characters as an experience and the next party will be more cautious, not taking goblins lightly

a better GM will be able to come up with more awesome stuff then them just being prisoners, slaves, or gladiators, but fudging is if you aren't okay with the story going off the rails

as for your example, i'm not sure how players would react, it's definitely fine if it's a monster that is rare or you made up

It's not worth it to change your game system or adventure type because of a problem that will happen 3% of the time.

>can even happen to players
That's only going to make your players complain more.


A fight doesn't have to last till everyone is dead. NPCs are allowed to run away, surrender or even just freeze up if the battle is going badly for them. Remember that NPCs are still characters with their own personalities. Or, if you're at a point where everyone can see that the PCs are going to win this, with no possibility of anything interesting happening, just skip the remaining few rounds and tell the players that they killed everyone.

Or it could be a sign that a dm is willing to make changes to a system to fit the players need. While you shouldn't minimalize player risk it's important that many of them are here to play and have fun. Being a good dm should mean everyone leaves excited about what happened and looking forward to the next session. (that could include making a new character after the previous got 1 shotted by a goblin.)

And demolishing your player's trust in your impartiality is?

I understand your point. My group loves the system though and haven't complained. so its really up to who you play with in the end. It was just an idea for other dms who are looking for an alternative to fudging their rolls.

If the players understand your reasons it's hardly demolishing anything.

I just don't do it.
I roll openly for everyone to see.
I even use multiple d20, so I can keep rolling when theres some more stuff happening - it is imho important for a dice to just roll, fall down, and sit.

It's the same in Wargaming. I always have an excess of dice, so I don't hurridly pick up dice ( which I personally detest on people, who roll fast, pick up their stuff so fast I almost can't see it, and keep rolling on ).

Whatever is rolled is rolled.

:)

Your reasoning is that you don't want a crit to kill PCs early on.

The problems start at higher levels when a PC dies to a crit. Do you also fudge that crit ?
After all, if they were to invested in their character at low levels to kill it, they will only be more invested in it now. And they remember how you fudge dice to protect low level characters.
Especially if you fudged dice to protect on PC, but won't do so to protect another.

The premise of fudging dice is doing so secretly. Are you telling me you're being open about it?

>fight doesn't need to last until everyones dead.

Of course it doesn't. If you slaughter 30 bandits the remaining 5 will probably scurry the fuck away or what not.

I think my wording is bad but I agree 110% with you. I'm saying that fudging isn't needed because gameplay can cover any possible problem if you're a good dm, no matter the system used.

Op here agreeing with you. All my die are rolled openly as well. I meant that fudging isn't needed because a Dm's gameplay should be able to cover any problems that arise, one way or the other :)
First post was just bad wording lol

>The problems start at higher levels when a PC dies to a crit. Do you also fudge that crit
Higher level PCs are much harder to kill in one hit like that, so no

Not explicitly. Well, depends.

This. It's a simple and obvious slippery slope.

If you weren't okay with letting the dice fall where they may now, why would you be later?

>Higher level PCs are much harder to kill in one hit like that, so no
You're dodging the question. Assume that it does. PC gets crit and gets 1-shot. Do you fudge that crit?

>Not explicitly. Well, depends.
Weasel words. Either you're telling them and being open about your fudging, or you aren't. The only thing it could "depend" on is whether you think they'll be mad with the result of your fudging, or pleased.

You're probably just seeing one guy complaining over and over in different threads, the number and form of complaints is much too regular.

Do what YOU think is right, user.

I have been in one game where the GM was fuding away PC deaths. The difference is that he had decided that he would do it 3 times for each PC. No more.

He told it when one PC had used up his last 'life' and the rest of us hadn't needed to use any. The stupidity that caused said PC to lose his lives didn't stop, and ended up killing the PC in the end.

I've also been in plenty of games where there was a mechanic specifically to prevent PCs dying to one unlucky hit. Things like fate points in 40KRPGs.

>Higher level PCs are much harder to kill in one hit like that, so no

It doesn't need to be a PC that dies in one hit. Just A PC where the final blow was a crit when other PCs in the party have been saved from death by you fudging away previous crits.

Where do you draw the line ?
When do you tell your players about the line ?

If you want your players to believe that you are being fair, you need to have a very definite line that they know about before they cross it.

Say you fudge dice to protect one PC, but don't fudge them to protect mine because I'm lucky enough to not need it. We cross the line without you saying anything. Then you refuse to fudge the dice when my PC dies.

You're going to have to work hard to convince me that you're treating all the PCs fairly when you protected one and refused to protect another with a reason you didn't mention until your refusal to protect the second.

>You're going to have to work hard to convince me that you're treating all the PCs fairly when you protected one and refused to protect another with a reason you didn't mention until your refusal to protect the second.

Fool! Don't you know that I just don't have to tell you anything, and keep my fudging a perfect secret, which always works and players never catch onto?

I am a GENIUS!

Here's a question that I'm not sure has been asked before in these threads

Do systems that have bennies/mulligans/fate points (which allow a player to reroll a bad roll), have a lower incidence of GM fudging?
Furthermore, is this a more acceptable solution that GM fudging

I know all evidence given will be anecdotal, but I'd like to hear it anyway

I already told you where the line is drawn.
A single critical can make low level players die in a stroke of bad luck. This is a rare thing and in higher levels it doesn't happen.

If they ask me if i fudged a roll i just tell them.

>A single critical can make low level players die in a stroke of bad luck.

What happens when one PC has enough HP to survive a crit but another doesn't ?

Fudging is needed when you choose wrong system instruments, I.e. force a check where PCs are to succeed anyway or using high - lethal system in a long campaign with lots of player's investment in characters.

In 5th edition, I made the mistake of allowing my players to apply inspiration retroactively. The main mistake was that I give out inspiration like its candy on the day after halloween.

Honestly, rerolling takes a lot of potential tension out of the scene, so I changed it that they had to announce BEFORE rolling if they were using it or not, because there were one too many times of "Oh shit, I rolled bad. Hey, give me your inspiration!"

Both live, unless they were already engaged in combat and took some hits or something, in which case one lives and the other doesn't.
Why are you asking this?