I used to think fudging Vs not fudging was a stylistic decision, but as I’ve played more I feel it’s a system issue. If you feel a need to fudge rolls, either to raise or lower the stakes, to force desired plot points or avoid unnarrative deaths, or to fix broken challenge ratings, you’re probably using the wrong system for you and your group.
Think about what issues you’re actually trying to avoid by fudging, and then look for systems that are structured to avoid those issues. If the rolls get in the way of your narrative, switch to a more narrative system. If you’re fighting against the system to build satisfying combat encounters, switch to something more tactical.It’ll always take a couple of sessions to get used to a new system, but learning one is always a lot faster than continuing to waste time trying to force a system to do things it wasn’t made for.
Roll in the open, fuck narrative first gameplay, it’s a game.
This+rescale the dice rolls so they make sense. A 20 for them does not have to mean they crushed the challenge. They might just have gave it their all, had brief hope, and narrowly avoided death, or not.
I’m a first time DM and I struggle with this a lot haha. There are times where I feel a roll is appropriate, so I do it, and whatever is supposed to happen fails, then I realize… “what the hell is supposed to happen if that doesn’t work?” so it just kinda happens anyways… IDK if my players have caught on…
I learned in my first adventure that what I’ve prepared to happen might just be stupid and unrealistic, so I’m never too attached to it. If the dice say it doesn’t happen, they know better than me, so I just toss it. If I lie about the dice to make it happen anyway, I’m making a worse experience for everyone.
If a failure means a path is unavailable, see if you can open up a different path. If there are no other paths, just let them have this one for free.
You could just skip the roll, because if failure is unacceptable then it isn’t appropriate.
That’s where my problem comes from. I’m not experienced enough to know immediately where failure is acceptable or not; rather, I don’t always have backup plans or ideas for when things that should be able to fail, fail. So I roll, and it fails, and it should fail, but I’ve got no idea what happens when it does. So it doesn’t fail.
I think I’m getting better at improv-ing events and making backup plans. It’s still difficult for me to find the balance between the story I want to tell/ have prepared vs the story that my players wind up creating, but checking in with my party here and there tells me everyone’s having fun and only rarely does anyone feel gipped or abused by dice rolls.
Prior to rolling, think about what will happen if the roll fails or succeeds. If you are worried about failure at all, that is a good sign that failing is probably not an option. Basically, if you are able to make the decision to fudge it when it happens you had the same time frame to decide notnto risk that need to fudge in the first place.
Over time with more experience you will find ways to make failure a bump in the road to fun tims.
if you don’t even roll, then you’re robbing your players from the feeling of a near miss
also taken to its extreme, your players will probably just work out that they aren’t going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn’t
and yeah, at that point you can punish them, but you’ve been responsible for them getting to that state in the first place, so you’re essentially punishing them for your own mistakes
There are more better ways to make a player fear for their character other than death.
Like killing a beloved NPC, making the situation much worse, taking away their valuables, making their god angry, being hunted by assassins, making them wanted across the kingdom.
Death isn’t the only punishment a GM/DM has at their disposal.
This is another thing I fear, that causes me to do probably unnecessary rolls. I want the story/ gameplay to have at least some semblance of believability, so I don’t want everyone risking their life on a curiosity because they know I won’t kill them, but I also don’t want to “punish” players every time they take a step off the walking path.
I’ll admit it right here: sometimes I roll the dice just to give the illusion of risk, when in reality I’m buying time to make up the results of what someone just did.
I occasionally roll dice as theatre myself. In my last session, I had a troupe of traveling performers that I rolled for on each act to see if they did well or not, with each roll hidden from the players, and I would then describe the outcome to them. Most of the rolls were real, but some performers I had already decided would fail from the beginning, because they were plants for the enemy faction and had a plan going on in the background that depended on their failure at the act. But of course I still had to roll to not set off any alarms. Going to be fun when my players later piece together “oh, that hypnotist didn’t actually fail, they just used mass suggestion to make everybody believe they did so they don’t come under scrutiny.” If a player catches on - one actually did pretty quick - then great, let them have the victory, but in general it’s one of the ways I like to create expectations so I can subvert them or use them to sneak things by. The enemy faction is very guerilla-oriented, so it fits their MO pretty well.
On a more general scale, when it comes to hidden rolls, if I really need something to succeed, I’ll make the roll not a matter of whether they succeed, but who succeeds. Keeps the story moving if I realize too late that that roll shouldn’t have happened because a failure brings the game to a halt.
I really like the “who succeeds” idea. In events where I roll a fail and have no idea what to do with it, I can just have the outcome only happen for certain characters, or tweak the “success” so that it isn’t quite so successful. Haha.
You can roll some dice but it doesn’t need to be a skill check (or whatever the naming is in your system of choice). When I don’t know what should happen, I may roll a die. If it’s high then it should be something good and if low, maybe it will give me inspiration to think about some new lurking danger. But I may discard the result and go with the gut feeling. Whatever, it was an “oracle roll” as I like to call it. Not tied to anyone’s statistics.
I like to use a deck of cards as well. In Savage Worlds, it is used to determine a random encounter. Clubs indicate an enemy, hearts a friebd, diamonds some good omen and spades obstacles. I like to draw a card so it inspires me on what should happen next (of course as long as it makes sense with the world)
I may discard the result and go with the gut feeling
this is fudging rolls
RPGs depend on mutual respect. If you think your players will metagame you and you need to punish them then it stops being a collaborative roleplaying game.
okay then, for you the game ends here:
your players will probably just work out that they aren’t going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn’t
you can’t just not metagame
if you know a choice will result in a certain outcome, you can no longer make that decision neutrally
you literally can’t take a risk if you know what the outcome of a potentially risky choice will be
not even bothering to roll is barely a step removed from just telling your players “i’m not going to make the enemy roll to hit you because then you might die and you haven’t found your long lost brother yet”, and if you can’t see that that’s a garbage scenario for roleplaying i don’t know what to tell you
I’m all for rolls that make sense. If it’s an encounter, of course you should always roll. I roll in the open and players know what hit them and whatnot. The consequence is damage and/or death. But if you’re a thief and want to open a simple lock and nobody’s is trying to defenestrate you at the moment? No need to roll, failure is meaningless. You just killed a dragon? No need to persuade the king to help you. That’s a reward for doing something beforehand. But oh my if an orc swings at you with his axe I’m gonna roll the dice right in front of you so you know that critical was not fudged.
I skip rolls if players are either super prepared or their failure will not mean anything. But as I said earlier, it needs trust between players and the GM - I don’t make their lives harder as a punishment, I do that for the storytelling. And they don’t try to work around me because we skipped a roll for athletics when they had a full day to climb a tree.
Oh but that reminds me. I was metagamed recently. When the team tried to decide what to do with a defeated enemy one of them said “let him live, he will come back as a sidequest. When we kill him then that plotline is dead as well”.
Well he was not wrong but that needn’t to be said.
Thanks for spelling it out like this. I think I’ve been too focused on “doing something” and keeping the game going, that I don’t stop to think before doing some things. Ie rolling before I know what will happen with a failure. I’ll try to take more quick pauses to think things through, and worry about smoothness of play later.
It might be a little bumpy at first, but should speed up with a bit of practice and the practice of thinking about failure will happen more often!. Plus the more you think about it the better you will get at coming uo with ideas for failure and that will let you being back the random rolls!
Fudging a roll is for when I, the DM, realise I made a mistake. No, I didn’t realise this creature got a sneak attack until after I rolled that 20!
i love how these threads are just people discovering the principles of game design on their own lmao
I just like the sound they make. Low key asmr
Answer: to give the players the illusion of fairness while I reach behind me to grab the plot gaf.
Rules are important, but they aren’t the most important thing as a GM.
The 2 things that are more important are: pacing and fun.
Not fudging dice is important, but if it is in the way of fun, then I either just not roll or only pretend to roll.
Same with pacing, if a roll is going to bog down the games pacing, making everything take longer for no reason other than the roll, then that roll does not matter.
I agree with this. I’ve always seen the rules as a framework to assist in collaborative story telling and keep things impartial and surprising. At any point where they begin to do more harm than good, we can change them.
I got down voted for saying this elsewhere, but to my mind there’s a huge difference between the GM unilaterally changing the rules, and the group deciding.
Scenario: the goblin rolls a crit that’ll kill the wizard. This is the first scene of the night.
Option A: GM decides in secret that’s no good and says it’s a regular hit.
Option B: GM says “I think it wouldn’t be fun for the wizard to just die now. How about he’s knocked out instead?”. The players can then decide if they want that or would prefer the death.
Some people might legitimately prefer A, but I don’t really want the GM to just decide stuff like that. I also make decisions based on the rules, and if they just change based on the GM’s whims that’s really frustrating and disorienting.
There’s also option C where this kind of thing is baked into the rules. And/or deciding in session 0 what rules you’re going to change.
I definitely dislike the idea of stopping the action and suggesting a direction. For my games I always try to aim for immersion, and this would really take me out of it.
I think you might have gotten the wrong idea about how I approach it, though. Part of keeping things surprising and impartial is avoiding changing things all the time secretly. That being said, I don’t believe in a hard and fast rule of never fudging anything.
Here’s an example where I would consider it. The players have been trying really hard to overcome an obstacle, and have had many setbacks already. They come up with an exciting and novel solution, but a bad roll happens on my end that would end this great idea in another failure. Because they’ve earned it by this point, and it will make for a more exciting game, I would likely fudge that roll and give it to them. I would do this in secret, because calling attention to it deflates the experience for the players.
I see the GM as a storyteller and entertainer, whose primary goal is to immerse the players into a story, and to create an exciting and unpredictable experience. Not everyone will view things like I do, and that’s fine, but I wanted to clarify what I mean anyway. Hopefully that makes more sense now.
For your example, I’d probably still ask if the players wanted me to let the dice decide or not before rolling. My players once had a clever idea of setting some poison traps and using earthbind to deal with a wyvern. The thing made all of its saves and nothing worked. I could’ve lied, but we’d already agreed to openly roll and abide by it. Would lying have made it better? Maybe. The game carried on and that arc had a thrilling climax later.
Alternatively, if we’d been playing a game that has a “succeed with a cost” / “fail forward” mechanic it could have been satisfying. D&D and close relatives are especially prone to disappointment because of how random and binary they tend to be.
Anyway. All of this I think it reveals a difference in how RPGs are enjoyed by different people.
On one hand, there’s going for immersion. The player wants to be in the world, be in the character, and feel everything there. It’s very zoomed in.
On the other, where I hang out, it’s more like a writer’s room. I’m interested in telling a cool story, but I’m not really pretending to “be” my character. My character doesn’t want a rival wizard to show up, but I as a player think that’s interesting (and maybe want the fate point, too) so I can suggest that my “Rivals in the Academy” trouble kicks in now. I enjoy when I can invoke an aspect and shift the result in my favor, or when I can propose a clever way I can get what I want at a cost.
Neither’s better or worse than the other, so long as everyone’s on the same page. It can be bad if half the table wants to go full immersion and just talk in character for two hours and the other half doesn’t.
I definitely agree that the beauty of ttrpgs is how many different things they can be to different people. We’ve got very different styles, but I think it’s great you’ve found a way to play that works for you and your table!
The GM just rolls dice because they like the sounds they make.
So that my players see me roll the dice. As long as they believe the illusion, the roll is real to them, and so their experience is meaningful and memorable; at the end of the day, that’s what matters most to me as a DM.
Sometimes You roll dice just to make them think something’s up.
DM: Roll a perception check
Player: Nat 20
DM: There’s nothing there.“Oh fuck, that must mean something was there before, keep rolling perception checks, whatever it is must be around here somewhere”
Wait, what took the air away?
Look if someone’s having a bad time, it don’t cost much to throw em a bone. Like sure, that last attack killed them a round early because everyone has had a moment to feel proud today but you. Or like the spellcaster who is feeling a bit shitty because every monster has saved against their spells by some fluke today.
Like if they aren’t having fun, what am I doing here?
Video games do this shit all the time. Famously the first GoW gave new players a small boost in multiplayer. It led to a community and better engagement in the long run because people had more fun. BG3 has that goofy ‘karmic dice’ system, which is on by default. Fire emblem lies. etc etc
the problem with flubbing is the dishonesty and unilateralness. You can play a different system that doesn’t create the situation your players don’t like so easily.
Or honestly just import Fate points and “succeed at a cost” into dnd. The dice system still sucks but that would help tremendously.
Fate points sound cool, ngl
Fudging isn’t unique to DND, though I agree that people would be better off trying anything else.
The system is a means to an end. No system captures its tone perfectly through mechanics.
As long as you’re not going super hardcore, I don’t see the problem with just letting the truth of the dice decide whether a character receives a ‘fatal’ blow, only to find after the combat encounter that the character is barely alive, and the rest of the group needs to focus all their resources on triage and emergency evac.
Getting out of a dangerous place with a barely conscious character can make for a pretty tense situation.
That’s why revivify is for. What you did here is taken away a meaningful moment from a player, just because you wanted them not to make a different PC. If you want that moment, write it into the story with an NPC. Don’t keep someone alive “just because”. Playing “hardcore” has nothing to do with this - that’s about balancing enemy encounters. Don’t throw a dragon at an unprepared party sort of things.
Otherwise people will either be annoyed that a moment was taken away, come to the conclusion that their choices don’t really matter, or they would expect of you that every time a character dies, they become “half concious”. Suddenly you have a “why didn’t my char do that???” moment at the table. It’s the same with fudging dice, but when that happens, you are behind a GM screen so you are less likely to be found out. Still a shitty thing to do though.
It’s all about what sort of group you’re playing with. I run a group for some kids at my school and I know they would be heartbroken if I just straight up killed them.
I’ve only had to do this once though. I made it a lesson about caution. The player was being reckless, and they ‘died’. Seeing how distraught he was, I decided after the encounter, that the other players should roll for a perception check, and noticed the character still breathing slightly. It was nice to see the kid perk up immediately afterwards.
Some games have this built in and you don’t have to fudge it.
Fate, my go to example, has important but simple rules around losing a conflict.
At any point before someone tries to take you out, you can concede. That’s a player action and not a character action. If you concede, you get a say in what happens to your character. That’s where you as a group say “maybe they stab me but leave me for dead in the confusion” or “maybe the orcs take me prisoner so you all can rescue me next week”. Whatever the group decides is cool goes, but you get a say. You make this call before the dice are rolled. You also get one or more fate points, which is nice.
If you instead push your luck and let them roll, and their attack is more than you can take, you’re done. The rest of the table decides what happens but you don’t get a say beyond what was agreed to in session 0.
This would also be pretty easy to import into DND or most other systems.
I don’t fudge rolls, but I do dynamically adjust enemy’s max HP depending on how well my players are doing.
There is a reason why the D&D 5e creatures have their HP written in dice values (4d6+10).
It allows for variation within the stat block. But it also gives a maximum and a minimum HP they can have.
Most of the time you use the average. But if the game is too slow, you can lower it to the minimum HP. And if they are steamrolling an encounter, you can just increase the HP to the maximum.
This makes encounters more dramatic and fun.
Yeah, I’m not big on fudging rolls, but that’s one thing I will do. In my last campaign, I had statted up the first real villain for my players to fight, and they knocked him out in one punch. I would have made him one level higher, but then his own attacks would have been strong enough to one-shot some of the players. Level 1 woes.
I would have made him one level higher, but then his own attacks would have been strong enough to one-shot some of the players
Level 1 woes are real, but remember, NPCs don’t have to follow player character creation rules
Yeah, I learned that too. I had come up with a villain later on who had a very defense/counterattack focused stationary fighting style combined with sundering armor, and I thought I could make him a big threat, but then he ended up completely flopping because there just wasn’t support for building that style and making it strong. Now I’m playing looser, and stealing lair actions from D&D (minus the lair part most of the time) to make my loner villains work.
Legit, I don’t fudge rolls because it’s not fun for me.
If a roll would fuck up the session/adventure/campaign, I just straight up tell the players I’m making a call and override the results. It doesn’t happen often, and it’s really only when rng just screws things, like when you get multiple nat 1s in a session, way out of line with what makes sense without some kind of gymnastics to explain things in game.
That’s exactly what fudging rolls is though… “I’m not fudging, I’m just changing the result of the dice when it isn’t fun”
I think the difference is being transparent about it. This is saying “I know that shouldn’t hit, but I’m saying it hits anyways.” Traditional fudging is “That… hits, yeah, totally.”
