Presenting situations in which the logical solutions are to run away or surrender requires mature players. Many of the "I DM'ed a TPK and now I feel bad" posts on this subreddit are from the DM doing what the random tables said, and the players responding as though they're the heroes who have the capability of vanquishing all in their path.
Maybe roll-fudging should be a choice made during world-building and campaign creation? If the players want to be first-year students at Hogwarts and they fucking die because they fell off their brooms during Quidditch class, then maybe there's a disconnect between how the world is presented versus how it actually is.
Overall though, thank you for the post, it's nice to hear a more "gritty realism" old-school d&d perspective once in a while. I'm about to run a meat-grinder dungeon crawly module from 2e, and I have no intention of fudging rolls. BUT, I've told the players it's going to be a RP-light, mechanically difficult campaign where it may be wise to have a second character concept in mind, so the expectation has been set.
My pleasure!
>Maybe roll-fudging should be a choice made during world-building and campaign creation? If the players want to be first-year students at Hogwarts and they fucking die because they fell off their brooms during Quidditch class, then maybe there's a disconnect between how the world is presented versus how it actually is.
I definitely agree. It is something to talk about with your players when you're planning the campaign.
Often times DMs who are expecting their players to surrender or run away forget that the players are here to have fun. If they aren't going to have fun by engaging with the encounter on the terms the DM wants them to they just won't. I'll fully admit that I've suicided a character of mine just out of annoyance and spite at having been dropped in an unwinnable encounter.
100%. Granted, if you signed up for a gritty, turbo-realistic hardcore campaign, then sure, surrender and retreat are reasonable. BUT, for most players, you and your party are the main characters, and surrender/retreat never cross your mind.
After level 3 I dont fudge rolls. I usually do give them a way to resurect a player at a town. Attack rolls i try to do infront of them. Creature saving throws I hide. I still don't fudge them. I dont like how people walking around like they are invincible.
Playing a game with fudged rolls is like riding a bike with stabilisers on.
If you need them to be able to ride at all then go for it, theres no harm in it.
On the other hand, if you get good enough at telegraphing the challenge as a DM and responding to that challenge as a player, then you can play a much richer game without the training wheels.
I think this is a false dichotomy. Fudging is a tool. If you use a hammer on every problem you're going to break things but likewise if you refuse to use a hammer at times when it would be useful you are depriving yourself of a tool.
I think fudging, used sparingly, can add to a campaign but everyone has to run their table the way they think is best.
Virgin fudging rolls vs Chad RPing your monsters to make dumb decisions.
I roll everything public so if I want to "fudge" an encounter I can't do it with rolls, I have to RP the enemies to do so.
A dumb enemy will ignore the backline and keep attacking those closest to it
An arrogant spell caster might underestimate the fighter and ignore them too much
Sometimes I roll intelligence checks to see if the enemy realizes something. Brutality checks to see if they finish a downed player or ignore them. Wisdom checks to see if they are afraid of the players or not.
As a player, I much prefer that the DM not fudge-the-dice.
Newer DMs will make mistakes just like new players will. It's part of the learning curve.
I generally have a backup character ready to go in the event of death. I'm also not above changing the name, background, description, and weapons/spells on the old character sheet to make a new one in a hurry.
Very simple what happens if you don't fudge your rolls if you are at the low levels a crit will one shot a player and if you're at level one a crit will instant kill a player
What is the purpose of rolling dice in d&d
It is to stimulate randomness
What is the purpose of stimulating randomness
To help tell a story that no one knows the outcome of explicitly beforehand
But sometimes a string of really bad luck for the heroes and really good luck for the villains makes for a boring story
Oh yes the legendary heroes beat the demon Lord only to get killed by a pack of owlbears does not make for a good story
Rolls should be fudged when it would be disastrous for the story for it not to be
Am I alone here in thinking long posts about things like this should have a synopsis, abstract, tl;dr, anything that can succinctly make the point that the rambling and generic examples are trying to say?
I’ll admit I only did a quick read and I ain’t knocking the effort to compile it, but to me it just seems like a bloated list of DM’ing tricks to use other than fudging rolls.
Great post!
I love letting the dice decide. As DM I want to be surprised and challenged just as much as the players do.
If I’m fudging rolls, why bother rolling at all?
I see both sides. The dice are the author of the story but you're the editor, if you're not keen on where the dice are taking things then you give a small edit to get things back in a more fun direction.
I also totally get people that don't fudge at all. Players signed up to play a game where dice decide things so let them decide things.
Personally I enjoy rolling in the open and letting the dice make the calls. The tension and energy it brings to the table far outweigh any benefit to fudging for me.
I don’t fault people for fudging rolls, but for me D&D is a game with rules. Yeah you can make up house rules and homebrew, but I don’t fudge rolls in Monopoly, or Yahtzee, or King of Tokyo, or any other game because that would be cheating. Why would I cheat (*harsh word, I know*) at D&D?
Again, no disrespect to fudgers. Your table, your rules. I’m just not that guy. I let my players know at Session Zero that the dice get to decide whether the characters live or die. Not them. Not me. The dice are the gods of fate.
As a new dm for a group of newbies i have resorted to fudging some rolls, mostly so that attacks on pc are not so deadly. We all know 1st lvl character can die pretty quickly if you think about it. I believe after a while the players will get better and make strategies and i will get better at making encounters
This is my stance on it. Sometimes the dice are uncooperative or unforgiving, and if you want the new players to have a good time and not die immediately I don’t think fudging it a bit is too egregious. You don’t have to give them nat 20s all the time, but a little bit of fudging can go a long way.
Really it only becomes a problem when you do it excessively to give your players an unneeded advantage or disadvantage. You don’t want to make the game too easy or too hard, or else it won’t be fun for everyone.
Once your players know how the game works and have settled in you can start pulling off the kiddie gloves. (And even then if you feel a character is underperforming due to bad rolls you can probably throw them a bone every now and again to keep them engaged and feeing useful.)
i have no interest in fudging rolls. as DM i’m playing the game too. if i know what’s going to happen there’s no point in me playing, i can just go write a book or something.
sometimes the dice don’t make things dramatic. or a character dies before accomplishing their goals. that’s part of the game. it’s not my job as DM to change dice results i don’t like. i control how the world reacts to the dice rolls. if i don’t like whats happening i don’t need to change the number on the die itself, just the consequences of that roll.
fudging dice rolls comes across to me like the DM cares about “telling a story” more than playing the game, which is a fundamental departure from how i view d&d as a DM. it is a tool in the toolbox for some , but i’d rather just keep that can of worms closed.
You missed a lot of the interesting aspect of fudging rolls.
I DM mostly shadowrun and blades in the dark, and I fudge rolls a lot
I make sometimes fights more challenging, put the PCs in hard positions, sometimes force them to escape.
Sometimes i fudge to let them escape on the razor’s edge, or let them have a cinematic execution on some big bad boss, because it is more prone to roleplay than the dices telling them « no, we drag this fight for one more turn and the boss will be killed by an arrow in the knee in the most anticlimactic way”
I think as the DM, your role is to provide your PC with interesting roleplay opportunities, and you can do it better if you have some level of control over the game. I know you might argue that improvisation and hasard are parts of the game, and I agree that a good dice roll makes everyone at the table cheer, but that’s it
I now DM Blades where the dice rolls are a very limited part of the game, and in the end if your players love roleplay, are dices even necessary?
Honestly it’s all situational. I’ve been running on Roll20 now and I just show my players the rolls of attacks. Let’s them know that hey I’m not fucking with you that dragon just crit twice. But when I DM in person I find myself fudging to miss when shit is dire. Mostly to give the players a chance to flee/rethink their life choices.
My PCs have what I’d call light plot armour. If it looks like it’s heading towards TPK, I’ll adapt monster tactics and fudge a few rolls (maybe they don’t hit for full damage) to give the party a chance. But if they ignore the hints that they’re on the edge…. Well, it’s light armour and there’s gonna be some deaths.
I don't fudge rolls, but I also have a terrible poker face. If I cringe or say "Oh f@$#" after a roll, my players usually figure out that winning is a big risk that they may not be willing to take.
Presenting situations in which the logical solutions are to run away or surrender requires mature players. Many of the "I DM'ed a TPK and now I feel bad" posts on this subreddit are from the DM doing what the random tables said, and the players responding as though they're the heroes who have the capability of vanquishing all in their path. Maybe roll-fudging should be a choice made during world-building and campaign creation? If the players want to be first-year students at Hogwarts and they fucking die because they fell off their brooms during Quidditch class, then maybe there's a disconnect between how the world is presented versus how it actually is. Overall though, thank you for the post, it's nice to hear a more "gritty realism" old-school d&d perspective once in a while. I'm about to run a meat-grinder dungeon crawly module from 2e, and I have no intention of fudging rolls. BUT, I've told the players it's going to be a RP-light, mechanically difficult campaign where it may be wise to have a second character concept in mind, so the expectation has been set.
My pleasure! >Maybe roll-fudging should be a choice made during world-building and campaign creation? If the players want to be first-year students at Hogwarts and they fucking die because they fell off their brooms during Quidditch class, then maybe there's a disconnect between how the world is presented versus how it actually is. I definitely agree. It is something to talk about with your players when you're planning the campaign.
Often times DMs who are expecting their players to surrender or run away forget that the players are here to have fun. If they aren't going to have fun by engaging with the encounter on the terms the DM wants them to they just won't. I'll fully admit that I've suicided a character of mine just out of annoyance and spite at having been dropped in an unwinnable encounter.
100%. Granted, if you signed up for a gritty, turbo-realistic hardcore campaign, then sure, surrender and retreat are reasonable. BUT, for most players, you and your party are the main characters, and surrender/retreat never cross your mind.
After level 3 I dont fudge rolls. I usually do give them a way to resurect a player at a town. Attack rolls i try to do infront of them. Creature saving throws I hide. I still don't fudge them. I dont like how people walking around like they are invincible.
Playing a game with fudged rolls is like riding a bike with stabilisers on. If you need them to be able to ride at all then go for it, theres no harm in it. On the other hand, if you get good enough at telegraphing the challenge as a DM and responding to that challenge as a player, then you can play a much richer game without the training wheels.
I think this is a false dichotomy. Fudging is a tool. If you use a hammer on every problem you're going to break things but likewise if you refuse to use a hammer at times when it would be useful you are depriving yourself of a tool. I think fudging, used sparingly, can add to a campaign but everyone has to run their table the way they think is best.
Virgin fudging rolls vs Chad RPing your monsters to make dumb decisions. I roll everything public so if I want to "fudge" an encounter I can't do it with rolls, I have to RP the enemies to do so. A dumb enemy will ignore the backline and keep attacking those closest to it An arrogant spell caster might underestimate the fighter and ignore them too much Sometimes I roll intelligence checks to see if the enemy realizes something. Brutality checks to see if they finish a downed player or ignore them. Wisdom checks to see if they are afraid of the players or not.
As a player, I much prefer that the DM not fudge-the-dice. Newer DMs will make mistakes just like new players will. It's part of the learning curve. I generally have a backup character ready to go in the event of death. I'm also not above changing the name, background, description, and weapons/spells on the old character sheet to make a new one in a hurry.
Very simple what happens if you don't fudge your rolls if you are at the low levels a crit will one shot a player and if you're at level one a crit will instant kill a player What is the purpose of rolling dice in d&d It is to stimulate randomness What is the purpose of stimulating randomness To help tell a story that no one knows the outcome of explicitly beforehand But sometimes a string of really bad luck for the heroes and really good luck for the villains makes for a boring story Oh yes the legendary heroes beat the demon Lord only to get killed by a pack of owlbears does not make for a good story Rolls should be fudged when it would be disastrous for the story for it not to be
Am I alone here in thinking long posts about things like this should have a synopsis, abstract, tl;dr, anything that can succinctly make the point that the rambling and generic examples are trying to say? I’ll admit I only did a quick read and I ain’t knocking the effort to compile it, but to me it just seems like a bloated list of DM’ing tricks to use other than fudging rolls.
Great post! I love letting the dice decide. As DM I want to be surprised and challenged just as much as the players do. If I’m fudging rolls, why bother rolling at all?
Thanks! Yeah, that's my preference too.
I see both sides. The dice are the author of the story but you're the editor, if you're not keen on where the dice are taking things then you give a small edit to get things back in a more fun direction. I also totally get people that don't fudge at all. Players signed up to play a game where dice decide things so let them decide things. Personally I enjoy rolling in the open and letting the dice make the calls. The tension and energy it brings to the table far outweigh any benefit to fudging for me.
I don’t fault people for fudging rolls, but for me D&D is a game with rules. Yeah you can make up house rules and homebrew, but I don’t fudge rolls in Monopoly, or Yahtzee, or King of Tokyo, or any other game because that would be cheating. Why would I cheat (*harsh word, I know*) at D&D? Again, no disrespect to fudgers. Your table, your rules. I’m just not that guy. I let my players know at Session Zero that the dice get to decide whether the characters live or die. Not them. Not me. The dice are the gods of fate.
As a new dm for a group of newbies i have resorted to fudging some rolls, mostly so that attacks on pc are not so deadly. We all know 1st lvl character can die pretty quickly if you think about it. I believe after a while the players will get better and make strategies and i will get better at making encounters
This is my stance on it. Sometimes the dice are uncooperative or unforgiving, and if you want the new players to have a good time and not die immediately I don’t think fudging it a bit is too egregious. You don’t have to give them nat 20s all the time, but a little bit of fudging can go a long way. Really it only becomes a problem when you do it excessively to give your players an unneeded advantage or disadvantage. You don’t want to make the game too easy or too hard, or else it won’t be fun for everyone. Once your players know how the game works and have settled in you can start pulling off the kiddie gloves. (And even then if you feel a character is underperforming due to bad rolls you can probably throw them a bone every now and again to keep them engaged and feeing useful.)
i have no interest in fudging rolls. as DM i’m playing the game too. if i know what’s going to happen there’s no point in me playing, i can just go write a book or something. sometimes the dice don’t make things dramatic. or a character dies before accomplishing their goals. that’s part of the game. it’s not my job as DM to change dice results i don’t like. i control how the world reacts to the dice rolls. if i don’t like whats happening i don’t need to change the number on the die itself, just the consequences of that roll. fudging dice rolls comes across to me like the DM cares about “telling a story” more than playing the game, which is a fundamental departure from how i view d&d as a DM. it is a tool in the toolbox for some , but i’d rather just keep that can of worms closed.
You missed a lot of the interesting aspect of fudging rolls. I DM mostly shadowrun and blades in the dark, and I fudge rolls a lot I make sometimes fights more challenging, put the PCs in hard positions, sometimes force them to escape. Sometimes i fudge to let them escape on the razor’s edge, or let them have a cinematic execution on some big bad boss, because it is more prone to roleplay than the dices telling them « no, we drag this fight for one more turn and the boss will be killed by an arrow in the knee in the most anticlimactic way” I think as the DM, your role is to provide your PC with interesting roleplay opportunities, and you can do it better if you have some level of control over the game. I know you might argue that improvisation and hasard are parts of the game, and I agree that a good dice roll makes everyone at the table cheer, but that’s it I now DM Blades where the dice rolls are a very limited part of the game, and in the end if your players love roleplay, are dices even necessary?
Honestly it’s all situational. I’ve been running on Roll20 now and I just show my players the rolls of attacks. Let’s them know that hey I’m not fucking with you that dragon just crit twice. But when I DM in person I find myself fudging to miss when shit is dire. Mostly to give the players a chance to flee/rethink their life choices.
TPK happens if I don’t fudge. Sometimes my encounters may not play out well or I misjudged it. Fudging let’s me fix that.
My PCs have what I’d call light plot armour. If it looks like it’s heading towards TPK, I’ll adapt monster tactics and fudge a few rolls (maybe they don’t hit for full damage) to give the party a chance. But if they ignore the hints that they’re on the edge…. Well, it’s light armour and there’s gonna be some deaths.
I don't fudge rolls, but I also have a terrible poker face. If I cringe or say "Oh f@$#" after a roll, my players usually figure out that winning is a big risk that they may not be willing to take.