Mfw DMs covertly break the rules of the game by fudging rolls to keep PCs or NPCs alive when events transpire that...

>mfw DMs covertly break the rules of the game by fudging rolls to keep PCs or NPCs alive when events transpire that should kill them
>mfw DMs deceive players by retroactively changing who the villain or "BBEG" if they figure it out sooner than the DM had hoped
Why don't you let your players win and lose on their own merit?

Sometimes a good adventure is better for it.

In what way?

Threads on Veeky Forums have actually dissuaded me from fudging as much as I used to.
Take the "Cinematic Battle" example:
>Fighter crits the enemy with a climactic critical strike, pulling off an impressive move and bringing it down to 1hp.
>Bard anticlimactically hits it for 3 damage with a slingshot and it dies.
Now, you could make the argument that it would be more cinematic for the impressive blow to finish the enemy off.
However, I consider that a failure of narration:
>Staggering from the fighter’s blow, the enemy wavers, but bears down on the group.
>The bard quips a clever line and shoots straight and true, striking it between the eyes, with an audible crack, it reels from the strike against its skull and collapses.
Unless there’s something like the enemy happened to be the fighter’s personal sworn nemesis that he vowed to slay himself, I see no reason to fudge.

Fudging rolls is like eating fudge.
Eating only fudge all the time is sickening and disgusting.
Eating fudge with every meal is too much is to be avoided.
Declaring that nobody should ever eat fudge for any reason is categorically stupid.
Sometimes fudge is damn tasty and if you add a little, it can make a person’s dessert amazing even if they don’t know it’s there.
Just don’t go putting it the damn tuna casserole.

Because it's not about winning or losing. It isn't a competitive game where I'm aiming for some kind of victory over anyone else.

It's about creating a compelling, engaging experience for me and my group to enjoy. Exactly what kind of experience people want varies massively from group to group. It's purely based on personal taste and preference.

Knowing my players, as a GM I will take any action I think will improve the experience overall, and I am fully within my rights to do so. The rules are a support structure to help me create a fun experience, not shackles that restrict me from doing what I think best.

You've just given a good example of how NOT fudging can be really good, and then said "but it's good sometimes" without giving an example. Mind saying when it's good?
>Because it's not about winning or losing.
D&D is a game to be won or lost.
>It isn't a competitive game where I'm aiming for some kind of victory over anyone else.
This, I agree with. The players are aiming for collective victory and you're aiming to give them a challenge that they may or may not succeed at overcoming.

If you genuinely think there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you tell your player next time you fudge a dice to make things more exciting, and see if they still find that moment as exciting and tell stories about it like they would if the exact same result came up on the dice.

If only one result is acceptable, just don't roll in the first place.

>D&D is a game to be won or lost.

Why? Individual encounters or engagements within the game might be, but the game as a whole isn't. You 'win' if everyone is having fun, you 'lose' if people aren't having fun.

>If you genuinely think there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you tell your player next time you fudge a dice to make things more exciting, and see if they still find that moment as exciting and tell stories about it like they would if the exact same result came up on the dice.

Why would I waste time doing that when combat is already slow and mechanically involved? It's not about truth or lies, it's about not ruining the pace.

>Why? Individual encounters or engagements within the game might be, but the game as a whole isn't. You 'win' if everyone is having fun, you 'lose' if people aren't having fun.
I get what you're saying to an extent, but I think there are two levels on which you can win or lose. You're right that if nobody's having a good time, then you're failing. But at the same time, it's a game where you're presented with challenges to be overcome. If you think there's a very low chance of a certain thing happening because of the rules but the DM thinks it would be cool so there's really a 100% chance of that happening, that's unfair in terms of your ability to know what to do in the game.
>Why would I waste time doing that when combat is already slow and mechanically involved? It's not about truth or lies, it's about not ruining the pace.
So why not tell them after the session, then? Just say, "oh, by the way, according to the dice you would have died, but I decided to keep you alive."

In fact, if you fudge EVER then the dice are really just suggestions. Which means if a player character dies, it isn't because of the game mechanics but because you, as the DM, decided to take that player's character away.

I don't fudge and I don't think anyone else should either.

...

Those two objectives are very different, one IC, one OOC. OOC, the only thing that matters is everyone enjoying themselves. The goals of the player characters is purely an IC concern. How they go about their goals, the difficulties they face on the path is what creates the fun. It doesn't matter OOC if the players win or lose as long as it creates interesting scenarios to explore.

And I have had that kind of conversation with players before, we rotate GMing so we talk about how much you should fudge. In general we agree that the occasional roll is fine but if you're doing it too much you need to rethink things a bit, whether in terms of when you ask for rolls or general encounter design.

As for player character death, we tend to play very character focused games with the sort of metagame resources/mechanics that ensure characters tend to only really die at plot important moments.

>Mind saying when it's good?
Well, if the enemy happened to be the firghter's sworn nemesis that he vowed to slay himself and at the end of a tremendous battle, the enemy's defenses are weakened and the fighter recklessly charges forward to deliver the killing blow, but the speedy archer wins initiative and his readied arrow flies, hits, and takes the enemy's last hp before the fighter can reach his nemesis.
Then you might fudge that the arrow just strikes his sword arm, or something.

Also, there was the time a very good squad did everything right, but just all rolled low to detect the snipers and the snipers all had critical successes.
I could have begun the session by informing them all that unseen snipers had killed all their characters, their mission failed, and everyone had to stop and reroll.
Instead, I had an NPC stupidly break formation and get headshot.
The TPK would've been fair and sucked, but have been accepted.
But it would have been less fun and would've wasted time and killed the flow of the session.
These are non-zero factors to consider.

>D&D is a game to be won or lost.
What are the "win conditions" of a session of D&D again?
Of a campaign?

>i would appreciate fudging to prevent kill steals of important characters
i think such a kill steal would actually help story building. from RP PoV, wouldn't it create tension between the archer and the fighter?

Because we all had a lot of fun in the end.

>Those two objectives are very different, one IC, one OOC. OOC, the only thing that matters is everyone enjoying themselves. The goals of the player characters is purely an IC concern.
Purely? Are you telling me players OOC are 100% indifferent to whether the PCs succeed or fail at their mission, in literally all cases?

>How they go about their goals, the difficulties they face on the path is what creates the fun.
Right. Difficulties that the players, acting as the characters, are attempting to overcome.

>It doesn't matter OOC if the players win or lose as long as it creates interesting scenarios to explore.
Being dead or incapacitated isn't exactly an interesting scenario.
>As for player character death, we tend to play very character focused games with the sort of metagame resources/mechanics that ensure characters tend to only really die at plot important moments.
Then why the hell are you playing D&D and not something designed specifically with that in mind?

>Well, if the enemy happened to be the firghter's sworn nemesis that he vowed to slay himself and at the end of a tremendous battle, the enemy's defenses are weakened and the fighter recklessly charges forward to deliver the killing blow, but the speedy archer wins initiative and his readied arrow flies, hits, and takes the enemy's last hp before the fighter can reach his nemesis.
I actually think the fighter having to deal with this having happened would be far more interesting than yet another "the valiant hero kills his sworn foe" story.
>Also, there was the time a very good squad did everything right, but just all rolled low to detect the snipers and the snipers all had critical successes.
This is actually one case where I can see your point. I still think there's probably a way things could have been planned so that a TPK without the players having any say wouldn't have been possible in the first place, though.
>What are the "win conditions" of a session of D&D again?
Not dying. Getting away with some amount of treasure. Players do set the goals and attempt to achieve them. Winning = achieving your goals and not dying.

When did I ever say I was playing D&D? Although the OP used that as a picture and said GM, it's a pretty universally applicable statement. And we still do play D&D from time to time, it's a flawed but fun game.

And it might just be different attitudes. Of course people are invested in their characters success or failure, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy losing. When you're reading a book, you empathise with and root for the protagonist, but the story doesn't stop being interesting just because they lose and things take a downturn. For the player characters it might be an awful, terrible situation, but my group tends to get really excited in those moments, planning and figuring out how they're going to break through the despair and get back on track.

Also, on the >Being dead or incapacitated isn't exactly an interesting scenario.

I entirely agree, which is why I tend to fudge away from those when it'd be boring or inappropriate.

That's one way of looking at it, but depending on your group it could do the opposite, that's kind of the point of the argument, that it's all case by case. If you're confident that your group would be cool with progressing a story that way, go for it. It just might also happen that other players might not enjoy doing things that way.

Because we like fun

its important people should deal with the cons of their actions. a good dm doesn't protect them from it. people who sommun an avalance on a mountain deserve to get a chance to be buried in it so next time they would think twice.

Oh, I'm another whiny ass player that won't get off my ass to DM but I'll bitch about the person who actually puts time in for me to have an enjoyable experience.

Bitch, please....

>
>

But that's the problem, your group's goals might be to get treasure, which is fine and admittedly appropriate for a more rules centric approach. However, there are a lot of groups that use the mechanics to act out narrative more than to actually "conquer" the system. So, for them it might be better to fudge to get proper satisfaction using the system

It's basically the same bullshit you see in many different flavours on Veeky Forums. People assuming their personal preference for something is actually objectively superior for some random reason.

Roleplaying games are more art than science, and a lot of it is knowing who you're playing with and how to best create a fun experience with the people in your group.

That's true if that's why you're playing the game. I think there's a lot of satisfying mechanics in ttrpgs so I understand how having that very grounded approach to decision making can be fun, but other groups might be using the system for a different, less consequence focused purpose. Think of it more of a mechanical reinforcement for a somewhat planned narrative.

I'm not DMing now but I ran a game every week for almost a year ending about six months ago, and I intend to start again probably in early summer when shit in my life settles down again.

Nice try, though.
I honestly think a different system would be better, then.

Though I don't mean 3.5-style "overcoming the system" either. I'm talking about a game where you're attempting to create a consistent world where players' decisions have probabilistic outcomes (which may or may not be entirely transparent to them, sure) such that over time they can learn what is and isn't a good idea in a way that allows them to think in-character about problems and roleplay as someone who has stake in, and can succeed or fail at, doing something challenging and dangerous.

>In fact, if you fudge EVER then the dice are really just suggestions. Which means if a player character dies, it isn't because of the game mechanics but because you, as the DM, decided to take that player's character away.
THIS.

OP, find something actually objectionable and complain about it on another board. Like how the American education system is broken.

Why would the dice ever be anything more than a suggestion?

>some people play rpg because they can't bother playing such games on the PC/PS/XBOX/WII
why, they don't know good games?

I have over ten years of DMing experience across half a dozen systems, and I don't fudge.

But I don't pretend I know or understand the ultimate truth about whether it helps or not so well that I'd discourage someone else from fudging.

I do think it's reasonably safe to say that it's best to keep it to a minimum.

There's not really any videogame that allows you the sheer creative freedom that D&D gives you.

agreed. once you start, who knows where youll stop.
do you know what differs tbrg from normal children 'lets pretend'? RULES. the understanding you can't just do everything.

Because the dice are there to keep you honest; to help you distance yourself from your subjectivity in a way that makes it easier to represent a world that feels alive, not planned.

>I actually think the fighter having to deal with this having happened would be far more interesting
I agree completely. However, notice that the fighter failing to do this doesn't bring a campaign to a screeching halt.

Having a party wipe on a bunch of mooks because of rolls is shitty, and ultimately, yes, the players are just gonna have to deal with it, but it doesnt stop it from sucking. Unless they all have setting appropriate characters already lined up in case of death, this will quickly stop things as everyone stops playing for a bit.
Losing to a BBEG/nemesis in a climactic finale can lead to new storytelling opportunities where everyone can enjoy the new outcome, regardless of what had to happen. Youre right, not everyone has to succeed, but there are times when its appropriate for them to do so.

If you make a commitment to actually consistently follow through with what the rules (yes, including house rules) dictate should happen in response to a roll, then anything that happens is a consequence of choosing to actually follow the rules to which everyone has agreed.

If you don't, then the rolls are literally a waste of time and you should just decide what happens, maybe rolling if you're having trouble deciding something but otherwise just making declarations based on personal preference.

In the former case, an enemy rolls really well on an attack and a PC dies: "Damn, that sucks."

In the latter, an enemy rolls really well on an attack and a PC dies: "Wait, why did you decide my character died this time but save Steve's character before?"

whats the point in creative freedom for people who don't like their actions to have consequances? if all you are doing is gaining skils and killing monsters, why should i bother coming up with a campaign?

But that's only relevant for a certain style of GMing. Some groups don't care about that, so fudging is clearly something that varies from group to group.

If you're fudging rolls to make something seem more like a story, all you're doing is forcing something inherently chaotic and interesting to conform to clichés that everyone has seen a hundred thousand times already.

What's more interesting?
- "Wait, what just happened!?"
- "Oh, it's another one of these."

>losing to mooks
thats GREAT story. have the mooks upgraded to midbosses at later points of the adventure.

if the players have any brain, they would run away anyway.

see the last line of >If only one result is acceptable, just don't roll in the first place.

>D&D is a game to be won or lost.
No it's not. There are not end conditions, no objectives, no goals, no direction, no board, no final square.

I generally agree, but sometimes rolling will give you a good idea. Why should you be locked out of it? It's like flipping a coin. As soon as you flip it, you realise which result you actually wanted in the first place.

Nobody has said 'To make it more like a story'. It's about making it more fun for the group of people you're playing with, which inherently relies on understanding what they enjoy.

>you genuinely think there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you tell your player next time you fudge a dice to make things more exciting,

I actually do this.
It worked fine. Turns out, not all people are you.

if they don't have fun from the challange, just forgo dice and let everyone do what they wish.

This is the fundamental thing that almost anyone who makes 'objective' statements about roleplaying games fails to understand. It's kinda sad, really.

But that doesn't logically follow at all.

Because most enjoy succeeding.

why not? why CAN'T everyone do what they want if doing what they want is what fun for them in playing dnds? have everyone do what they want and thats it.

its like kids playing pretend, but hey, as long as people are having fun. its not like the possibility of losing could add fun to the game.

>There are not end conditions
Party wipe. Want to play again?
>no objectives, no goals, no direction
So when you play, the DM doesn't come up with objectives for the players, nor do the players decide to pursue specific objectives themselves, but instead it's just eternal, aimless wandering?
>no board, no final square.
I mean, you can do battle maps, but I accept this without seeing how it's relevant.
>I actually do this.
Did you take it to its logical conclusion? "I just basically decide what happens. We're playing pretend and I'm God, so don't worry about dice or stats anymore. Tell me what you want to do and I'll decide whether you succeed based on my own whims. I know you made your character to be better at certain things than others, and that there are rules for simulating that, but I genuinely don't care."
If there's no challenge, success is just having a thing. Making a sandwich and ending up with one is succeeding, and you have something more tangible than some treasure written on a character sheet or the DM saying "your character succeeded," too.

With no real chance of failure, it isn't even success.

>from RP PoV, wouldn't it create tension between the archer and the fighter?
It absolutely would, but nobody (in my hypothetical situation) wanted that and the fighter definitely wanted another outcome.
It is letting the initiative die roll dictate that the ending that the player worked hard for, and roleplayed towards, and was anticipating, gets denied because of random chance and with the only benefit being an adherence to RAW.

>i think such a kill steal would actually help story building.
>I actually think the fighter having to deal with this having happened would be far more interesting than yet another "the valiant hero kills his sworn foe" story.
And that is a valid opinion.
But the fighter player’s opinion is the one that matters here.
Denying a player from achieving their hard won character goal because you feel something else would be more interesting is actually worse than obeying the quiet whispering commands of the initiative dice.
Well, that’s my opinion, anyway.

> I still think there's probably a way things could have been planned so that a TPK without the players having any say wouldn't have been possible in the first place, though.
Oh, 100%. I totally agree.
If a GM is fudging, it is because they made some error somewhere.
But fudging is the “in the moment” correction of that error.
Sometimes, the error could be left and everyone could see what comes of the consequences.
Sometimes, the error could ruin everyone’s fun and the only reason not to fudge to correct it is an autistic adherence to RAW or GM notes.

When I pitted a Golem against the party, I didn’t anticipate the whole party getting knocked unconscious except the rogue, but it was a possibility I could have accounted for.
As a result, the rogue could barely damage the golem and the golem could almost never hit the rogue.
After everyone watching us roll dice uselessly at each other for several minutes, I fudged the golem hitting the wall, knocking a rock loose, giving the rogue the idea to repeat that until a rock slide took out the Golem when it really shouldn’t have.
And then fun followed.
Fudging wasn’t the only option or solution, but it got everyone back playing and having fun sooner.
Again, time usage and flow of the session are non-zero factors to consider.

I more meant that your initial statement felt like a non-sequitur. I don't see how it relates to the discussion at large. Fudging the occasional roll for the enjoyment of the group doesn't mean that the group doesn't enjoy challenge. It's a nonsensical statement.

>Did you take it to its logical conclusion? "I just basically decide what happens. We're playing pretend and I'm God, so don't worry about dice or stats anymore. Tell me what you want to do and I'll decide whether you succeed based on my own whims. I know you made your character to be better at certain things than others, and that there are rules for simulating that, but I genuinely don't care."

Not him, but that is an utterly illogical conclusion that entirely misses the point.

>random chance
It's actually probabilistic, not random. The fighter's player knows he has a chance of succeeding or failing at his goal, and has accepted that by choosing to play a game and not just write a story about it.
>If a GM is fudging, it is because they made some error somewhere.
I'm actually okay with fudging very rarely to fix an error you made, as long as it leads to considering what made it necessary and making a real effort to fix it.
>the dice don't actually matter; I decide what happens
>an utterly illogical conclusion when someone disregards the dice and just decides what happens
Okay.

Yes? Because it's taking the statement completely out of context and entirely ignoring intent.

'I will occasionally ignore the result of a diceroll if I judge that doing so will improve the game'.

This does not in any way lead to your rather bizarre statement.

> nobody (in my hypothetical situation) wanted that
than why did the archer attack? i know they can't see the enemy hp but can't you describe how te BBEG is nearly dead on low HP?

why some rolls and not all rolls? aen't dice a waste of time if they are marely suggestions?
if you understand the importance of failure, you will understand the fun in critical failures as well.

I'm such a great GM that my players can't tell if I'm fudging or not.

1) You are going to die.
2) There is no way it doesn't happen.
3) You are more likely to suffer than to enjoy the rest of your life.
Thus, the logical conclusion should be "I must kill myself".
Yet barely anyone does.
Why?
>It's actually probabilistic, not random. The fighter's player knows he has a chance of succeeding or failing at his goal, and has accepted that by choosing to play a game and not just write a story about it.

DC to hit this ancient golem is 40.
It's immune to critical hits.
The fighter chose to attack.
He literally has no chance.

>why some rolls and not all rolls? aen't dice a waste of time if they are marely suggestions?

Why are you here?
Is this conversation vital?
If not, why are you here, isn't this a waste of time?

Because they like winning occasionally.

see

>'I will occasionally ignore the result of a diceroll if I judge that doing so will improve the game'.
But that means that in actuality, every time you choose to follow the result of a roll, you are actively choosing to do so because of a variety of factors. In the end, every single thing that happens in the game is just your decision. The dice may be there to inspire those decisions, but they carry no actual weight.
>The fighter chose to attack.
>He literally has no chance.
Should have run away, then, huh?
So design things ahead of time such that success and failure are both possibilities.

Rolled 113 (1d666)

>In fact, if you fudge EVER then the dice are really just suggestions.
>agreed. once you start, who knows where youll stop.
>It's impossible to add a little fudge to something without degenerating to disgustingly covering everything with fudge, even the tuna casserole!
Cautious moderation people.
Fudging is a correction.

Let's try another analogy:
If you are covering your paper in white-out, you'd obviously be better off starting over.
It's obviously best if you never need to use it at all.
But declaring that nobody should ever use it ever is ignoring a number of perfectly valid uses.

In general, if it occurs to a GM to fudge, their response should be: "Do I really *need* to?"
It should not be, "Aw yeah!"
Nor should it be, "Purge me from these unclean thoughts oh Dice Gods!"
Rolling to purge.

Again, you're projecting your goals onto other people's campaigns. Other players and even DM's might have a better time fudging. It seems like you're having trouble wrapping your mind around the idea that people might like something else than you. Nobody is asking you specifically to fudge, or write campaigns based around fudging, and many people that aren't on your side of the debate have even admitted that not fudging totally has merit with the right group.

>But that means that in actuality, every time you choose to follow the result of a roll, you are actively choosing to do so because of a variety of factors. In the end, every single thing that happens in the game is just your decision. The dice may be there to inspire those decisions, but they carry no actual weight.

Yes? That's called 'Being the GM'.

I'm here because its fun.
what about you using dice? are you having fun, even if the results are less than optimal?

if you understand the importance of failure, you will understand the fun in critical failures as well.

see

>Being the DM means the game has no actual rules at all

Yes? Just like every RPG book GMs section tells you. You have guidelines that support you in running a fun game. In a well designed system, those guidelines will be effective and useful a lot of the time, and not get in the way when they're not needed. That's the role they should play, and it's an effective and useful one.

A game without rules isn't a game at all. And in D&D, they exist to be the "physics" of the game world, with which players can interact.

The DM is there to portray NPCs, to apply the rules consistently, and to fill in the gaps in them as consistently as possible when players do awesome creative things.

The GM has final say - not the rules.

The rules are literally there to just be a mechanical representation of what you're doing in game, to see them as anything close to some inherent value is just odd. The advantage to having a DM is that they work as a mediator between cold calculation and free-form storytelling, and I think that part of that is knowing when to borrow from pieces of both.

The handbooks of many games start out saying essentially the exact opposite of what you just said

>I'm here because its fun.
>what about you using dice? are you having fun, even if the results are less than optimal?
>if you understand the importance of failure, you will understand the fun in critical failures as well.
I do.
But I take it as my duty to place fun before the rolls.
Granted, being mauled to death because you went into a bear's cave is fun.

Me having accounted for everyone showing up and not adjusting the number of foes and leaving the party surrounded by goblins was, thanks to two fudged dice, a fun struggle in which the bard and artificer ended like a pair of bloody rags instead of dead/saved by obvious deus ex machina.
>Should have run away, then, huh?
The golem may have 30ft speed, or 90ft.
It may even have just a damn cannon.
He just doesn't know.
The inner workings are for the DM's eyes only.
Be it quantum ogres, all roads leading to rome, or just knowing how hard do you need to look at a carpet to know how many vampires passed.
The player believes he has a chance. It may be true, it may be not. Who knows.

Personally, I "fix" values in combat.
If a foe is too strong/weak for what it 'should' be, I fix it just once.
As far as the players knew, that goblin always had that AC+1 amulet beneath his rags.

>its important people should deal with the consequences of their actions
I agree with this.
I also think that most times that GMs fudge, they could have easily just dealt with the consequences of the situation instead.
I also think that it is occasionally perfectly fine to fudge.

>DC to hit this ancient golem
First of all, it's impressive that you can type that out without realizing it's an extremely contrived example without much merit. That situation isn't going to occur very often during gameplay, and most games (for example 5th edition D&D) are designed in a way that makes that situation practically never happen.

But even then, it doesn't matter. Because the stats and the mechanics of the gameplay are representing something that's actually happening in the fiction of the game: The golem has a high AC and immunity to crits like that because it's practically indestructible and most weapons could never hope to pierce the magically-reinforced solid granite it's made out of.

And just like in any fantasy story where someone comes upon something like that, the correct response is to get the absolute fuck out of dodge.

It presents no issue with gameplay, no issue with storytelling, and no issue with player decision making unless the golem also deals like infinite infinities damage.
In fact, realizing you must retreat is a very difficult and interesting decision for many players; if somewhat demoralizing.

>complains that others doing a slippery slope
>doing it himself
instead of giving an example why slippery slope in general is bad, explain why its wrong in THIS case.

as was said, anything that happens in the game is no longer the results of rules, luck, your campaign and the players decisions but solely your fault for allowing/not allowing breech of rules to protect the players from their own actions, luck, and the horrible unfair rules.

>projecting your goals
first off, calm down. we are trying to have a civilised discussion here, no need to get offended just because everyone here thinks your approach is wrong.
second, if you don't like the freedom in tbrpgs, why not just play video games? you still haven't answered that question.

>The handbooks of many games start out saying essentially the exact opposite of what you just said
This thread has been specifically about D&D from the very beginning. So let's stick to that.

I'm sure some editions do say the exact opposite of what I said. Probably primarily the WotC editions. I haven't played 4e, but 3.5 doesn't even seem to HAVE any internally consistent design philosophy, and 5e is a streamlined 3.5.

Nonetheless, D&D has, from its inception, been about crawling into holes with scary-ass monsters to steal their shit. Other stuff was added, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

Trying to shoehorn everything into some story in your own head (whether you've written it down ahead of time or are making it up as you go) removes player agency.

If I kick open the door, it's because I want to face the consequences of kicking open the door. If I choose to stand and fight instead of running away, I want to face the consequences of that. I don't want the DM to render player skill and luck irrelevant.
>if somewhat demoralizing
In most cases, retreat doesn't even have to be demoralizing. Assuming a less extreme instance than the ancient golem, it usually leads to, "Okay, let's get some supplies from town and brainstorm how we're going to get past this owlbear/bandit camp/ogre/whatever." It leads to increased creativity rather than hoping the monsters don't count as big enough bosses for the DM to decide a player death is "dramatically appropriate."

>being mauled to death because you went into a bear's cave is fun.
in case you ware being sarcastic, stupid actions that nets the acter painfull results ARE fun. thats what roleplaying is about. if you don't like the roleplaying part of rp and decided to alter it, don't call it rp anymore.
there is a difference between fdging roles and changing scenerios on the last minute (but before those scenerios are excuted)

>fudged dice
you mean, spot checks? well, those things happen. its part of the game. critical failures are also fun, because they are rare enough to not be a serious problem.

You're a bad troll breh, you went str8 to 10 in that post. Tbh if I had to guess you might actually hold the same opinion as me and are literally just looking for a rise for the keks so imma go to bed.
>gif is me reading your post

Just so you know, you've been arguing with multiple people in this thread. I'm OP, and I'm not

>>random chance
>It's actually probabilistic, not random. The fighter's player knows he has a chance of succeeding or failing at his goal, and has accepted that by choosing to play a game and not just write a story about it.
And why does that mean that it is preferable to enable an unforeseen outcome that literally nobody involved wants and actively want something else?

You want to know why, if everyone wanted the fighter to kill him, did they bother rolling initiative
Because the players didn't know for certain the enemy was one blow away from death, it was habit, it didn't occur to the archer that he might accidentally kill steal, the GM goofed, and any other reasons.
Shit happens.
To keep the shit happening from shitting on your game, you make corrections.
It is not unreasonable to do so.
It is unreasonable to insist that it is never okay to do what is best for the exact situation in your personal game.

>than why did the archer attack? i know they can't see the enemy hp but can't you describe how te BBEG is nearly dead on low HP?
Missed this.
See
>Because the players didn't know for certain the enemy was one blow away from death, it was habit, it didn't occur to the archer that he might accidentally kill steal, the GM goofed, and any other reasons.

Okay, but you're no longer playing a game, then. There are no rules. You're just hanging out and telling stories while rolling funny dice around.

Since you aren't playing a game, it doesn't belong on Veeky Forums.

Are you claiming that all DMs do this all the time?

I fudge things very rarely, only ever when it looks like something is about to seriously affect someone's enjoyment of the game (so far I've done it ... twice?).

I also know some DMs who never do it.

No. I'm saying it's shitty when DMs do it.

The fact that you CAN be mauled to death because you made a bad decision is EXACTLY what makes the game fun. It makes your choices matter.

And there's really no excuse, when stealth (esp. with expertise) is as good as it is, and longbows have like 600ft range. Just have a single stealther scout the fucking cave carefully, and if something goes wrong they can run back out (at enormous speed if they're level 2 rogue) and the party can pepper them with various kinds of ranged attacks until they get within range.

What's the bear gonna do; fire a musket at you?

Every situation can be approached with a strategic mindset. If the game negates that it's a bad game. If the DM negates that, it's a bad DM.

>Dice Rolls
>Probability + Luck
>Merit
Right, and you win Russian Roulette through "Merit" too.

Also, as a player, I would hate figuring out who the BBEG is super early because that means we fight and win or lose earlier than expected, so either we go in unprepared or we win and the campaign's over.

your post indicates you are tired of coming up with arguments. well, me too. good night.

>the archer never heard of critical hits
if he sees the enemy is low on hp, instead doing damaging actions he needs to focus on other actions like:
llook around if enemy mooks are coming or if the enemy as another card up is sleeve (or a second form after being defeated)
sand out a net to ensnare the bbeg or use any other move that will make it easier for him to be killed
watch the fighter back to make sure the fighter can focus on the bbeg
tend to wounded party members
etc...
he couldn't know, yes, but why risk it?

>probability is exactly the same as luck and it is impossible to be better or worse at making decisions based on probability
This is why you have a 50/50 chance at coming out on top in Vegas and there are no professional poker players, right?

Right, and I can count cards on a d20.

It wasn't sarcasm.
A party got half wiped because they decided to hunt a dire bear.
They weren't ready.
Not even close.
The lessons learned were
>Do some research.
>Listen to tne NPCs
>Hopping on your horses and getting out really fast may be the best idea.

I also wanted to reply to the dude saying how unlikely it was for an ancient golem lile that to be encountered at a low level that it doesn't matter.

In the interest of choice, the PCs went into some ruins that should have been left for way later, instead of saying that all roads lead to the place I wanted them to go, making the golem's first attack miss showed them that getting the hell out was the best idea.

They though they had a chance at killing a walking rust hill.

I could have made the ancient rust bucket sound more menacing next time, and I will, but the threat being known is what unleashes the full power of the Dire Bear or Ancient Golem or whatever the players need a hint to realize the pointlessness of their struggle.

There's nothing wrong with the DM using arbitration to change the outcome of a roll for the sake of the story or 'fun' of the session.

Claiming that overriding the dice once means that you might as well never use dice is like saying that overriding or changing a rule once means that you might as well never use rules.

Rules in a tabletop RPG are only as good as they are useful for whatever you are trying to achieve, and the same applies to dice rolls.

Then there's the 'gotcha' command - "Tell your players you fudge dice!" Of course at the core of this argument is that the DM is 'cheating'. This is impossible, as a DM cannot cheat. Furthermore, not every player is seeking a game of risk management and probability manipulation for enjoyment to the detriment of everything else. Especially in a role-playing game, where the dice are meant to represent speciality and differences in characters. The random dice mechanics are substitutes for what cannot be simulated at a table, they are not the end all be all of D&D. A more unsatisifying game for the sake of arbitrary principles with no merit beyond preference is asinine. I have told my players that I occasionally change dice results behind the screen, which is true - and this did nothing negative to their enjoyment of the game - because of course it wouldn't. They understand that implicate nature of a DM as the arbiter of the rules and outcomes, and they have a preference for this style over alternatives. Obviously, this is normal. This isn't really relevant to my argument, but I know getting this out of the way will shut up trolls who won't add anything to the discussion.

Rather than trying to degrade or invalidate how other people enjoy the hobby, try reflecting instead on how one's own preferences and desires are not something you can project on everyone else.

It's actually possible to be better or worse at poker without counting cards, but that's a whole different thing.

You can know that you have good or bad odds of success, though, assuming the game's rules are going to be followed. If the DM is prone to arbitrarily decide they don't matter, though, then you have no basis on which to make decisions.

>A party got half wiped because they decided to hunt a dire bear.
well, tough luck
learning from experainces rather than being discouraged by them, you have good players in your group.

I know.

>There's nothing wrong with the DM using arbitration to change the outcome of a roll for the sake of the story
If I wanted to be fed a story with specific outcomes in mind, I'd read a book. I want to CREATE a story.
>Claiming that overriding the dice once means that you might as well never use dice is like saying that overriding or changing a rule once means that you might as well never use rules.
Right. They're both accurate.
>Then there's the 'gotcha' command - "Tell your players you fudge dice!" Of course at the core of this argument is that the DM is 'cheating'. This is impossible, as a DM cannot cheat.
The DM can cheat the players out of actually having agency in the game.
>Furthermore, not every player is seeking a game of risk management and probability manipulation for enjoyment to the detriment of everything else.
I'll ignore "to the detriment of everything else" because I don't think it does hurt everything else. But if you aren't interested in risk management, D&D probably isn't for you.
>Especially in a role-playing game, where the dice are meant to represent speciality and differences in characters.
Except when you ignore them. And there's also that whole "role playing" thing that's in the name. That can come in handy for representing differences in characters.
>The random dice mechanics are substitutes for what cannot be simulated at a table, they are not the end all be all of D&D.
They allow for players to predict what is likely to happen without being certain of what WILL happen. Fudging dice rolls takes away the ability to make decisions in-character, since the DM will be deciding success or failure based on out-of-character concerns like "the narrative." That is, it is bad for roleplaying.

You can't know you're chances without the DC of a task, and even then you also aren't sure of what either outcome will lose/gain your character either, that's two avenues of information that are unavailable to any non meta gaming individual.

Also I would say that giving things purposely low dc's and cr's is mechanically similar to fudging rolls but still follows your dogma, so I feel like your distinction on what constitutes "legitimate gaming" is arbitrary.

>doing it himself
Where did I slippery slope?
I cited extreme examples to illustrate that moderation is important.
Am I missing something? Legitimately asking.

>instead of giving an example why slippery slope in general is bad, explain why its wrong in THIS case.
There are a number of reasonable examples of fudging in this thread.
It is possible to fudge in any of these highly specific and not average play situations and not apply the same level of fudging to average play.
If I fudge to ensure the fighter kills his nemesis, the rogue stops the golem, or the snipers don’t end the session before it starts, then it does not immediately follow that I will start fudging whenever I think my idea of what should happen is more interesting.

>anything that happens in the game is no longer the results of rules, luck, your campaign and the players decisions but solely your fault for allowing/not allowing breech of rules to protect the players from their own actions, luck, and the horrible unfair rules.
That was an obtusely written sentence. Just saying.
If you are asserting that fudging transforms the game from being the results of rules, luck, the GM’s campaign, and the players’ decisions and instead turns the game into GM fiat, subjecting the players to or protecting them from their own actions, luck, and the rules as the GM see fit?
Well, then you are saying that no matter how large pan, can, or vat of white paint you have, the second a drop of black paint falls into it, it becomes grey.
And you’re not wrong.
But actively calling white paint “grey” because there is a pure shade of paint that is whiter makes you look like an extremist, autistic jackass.
>That’s not white! IT’S EGGSHELL!

There’re reasonable people in this thread who only paint with pure white paint & still acknowledge that other shades of white exist before you get grey, & if other GMs want to call them white, even if they’re not pure, that’s fine.
Those guys are cool.

>all these people insisting that fudging is good for roleplaying and if you hate fudging you're some kind of crunch-obsessed powergamer

If I have a general idea that the rules make it so that certain types of choices tend to be safer than others, and the world is designed to reflect a system with those kinds of rules, then I can make decisions entirely from the perspective of my character, including strategies, what kinds of goals are feasible, and so on.

Meanwhile, if the DM is willing to do things like save my character because my death wouldn't be "thematic" enough, or kill my character because he personally thinks a decision I made was stupid, and so on, then I have out-of-character incentives to make certain decisions, which makes it harder for me to be immersed in my character.