I think you give good examplas for fudging dice as well as against it. However I got one imporant advice for intermediate DMs which should be considered in this discussion: You should only roll dice if you are sure that you can live with the outcome of the dice roll. Otherwise simply explain what happens your are the DM you can decide what is the reality in your world. In my game when the players decide to run from an encounter and they are out of ressources and Hitpoints I don't want to kill them. THe simple fact that we stopped rolling dice in a battle shows that they lost. If you have to fudge a die roll you should later reflect on the situation and evaluate if the die roll was neccessary in the situation.
I sometimes roll dice just to make my players think that rolling was necessary, although I'd already decided the outcome of the situation. :D Sometimes I roll to cover time while making up my mind, or just for the sake of rolling, just to have an internal dialog with the die afterwards. Me: "Okay on nat1 - 5% chance someone dies here." Die: nat1 Me: "Hey why'd you do that?!" Die: "Because it's one of my faces and I can." Me: "You're killing one of the characters." Die: "Not my fault you rolled. I'm a die; you knew the risk." Me: "And I'm the DM; I'll leave you on read." Die: _nat1face_
Just make smart choices of when and how dice are used. People fudge dice because they're unhappy with the results... of a roll... that they decided needed to be rolled... but now they wish they hadn't. Just reflect on how you're running and really build the skill of only rolling when it matters and all possible results are acceptable. Also, if you're the kind of DM that finds they are fudging dice here and there and that your players don't notice... well, lets just keep that facade and not talk about it then ;) (nice video btw; thumbs up)
Wow, remember that time ( 3:00 ) when in the video you’re commenting about they said exactly what you said in your comment but better? Ah ah ah what a blast!
@@samchelms It's quite alright.. We can't all follow conversation or read fully. Some of us want to stand out in different ways. In this case, being a bit of an ass to be honest, and not being able to understand the conversation. Since the warning provided in the second portion is not exemplified within the video we can only hope others read it in full and understand the nuance of the message.
The day I went with "All rolls are made in the open" policy is the day I found out how much I loathe that moment when you think if you should fudge or not. By going open it is much MUCH easier to embrace the mindset that you are playing WITH your friends, not against or above them. The only case I deviate from this nowadays is sometimes with knowledge/intuition checks (I give player 3 dice, they roll them all together, but only one is a real result, so they can be super unsure, rather sure or absolutely sure in the result of their checks) The moment when enemy crit hits or crit misses hits so much different when you are not gasping behind DM screen, but observing the die being cast with your players. Honestly, it brings your game to a whole new level. Shout out to Runehammer who found words that convinced me to try this. I urge new DMs to also go open at least as an experiment, you can always go back if you do not like it.
@lyowin Choosing moments to open roll is how I do it. I don't want it to be easy to tell enemy attack bonus off the bat, saving throws, etc. That said, I OFTEN provide the DC of skill checks, and everything the players roll is of course open, so that ends up being about 90% of rolls.
This is how my very first character died! To be fair a level 1 wizard with 11 con should not have been that close to the goblins, but I really wanted to cast thunderwave 😂
@Mystic-Arts-DM "Fudging the dice should be done intentionally in service to the story you and the players are telling." I love that you added the part of 'being in service to the story and players', instead of the whims of the DM (who are also emotionally dependent on shiny math rocks). Great advice as always!
On a side note, I feel the Grognard rolling dice just for the sound is taken out if context. There's a DM tactic for a DM to roll some dice to give the illusion that there's something going on. Like players walk down a hallway and the DM rolls some dice just to get them thinking they might want to be on the lookout for something.
Exactly. I remember rolling dice in a game I was GMing just to ratchet up the tension. The players were sufficiently freaked out: "what was that for?!??". "Oh... No need to worry about that... Yet" You know, the DM is a player, too, and gets to have some fun just like the PCs.
Your reference to players rolling dice being a radical idea reminded me of a recent Matt Colville video where he discussed some history of D&D where that came up. I love this conversation and I do really love the topic of “where do the dice belong in the game?”
The elusive shift video was really eye opening. Mainly because my friends and I only starting eith 5e and BG3. I hadn't realized how "Unsolved" it as a format was back in the day and even is today. There is truly no optimal way to play and RAW is isn't fun for everyone. Even something like 'Should players roll their own dice?' Was a radical idea once.
Completely agree. Fudging dice should be the absolutely last resort of a situation that has completely gone off course from what you had expected in an extremely negative way for you and the players and the only way to return things into balance is to change things behind the scene. It should be avoided at all cost except in the most extreme scenario
"Surely there's a middle road here" Indeed. It's to only roll dice when all the numbers they could show are acceptable and to not roll them, or pretend to roll them, when that is not the case.
This is the way. Only use RNG when you are willing to accept the results of RNG. If you attempt to have your cake and eat it, too... the consequences tend to be undesired.
@@Hikikodere Pretending to roll is the same as fudging. Let's be real, if the die result is what you wanted, you keep that roll every time and announce it accurately. If it's not, THEN you fudge it. You're saying the same thing as the OP.
@@MrDavidKord Yeah, that's not what @Hikikodere is saying here. They're saying to simply *not* roll the dice when the outcome *could* be something so undesirable that it would cause you to fudge. If you only roll when all results of that roll would be acceptable, there is never a reason to fudge anything. I go one step further, and suggest you sure up all of your edge cases with the rules - so that everyone (GM and player alike) know where they stand and can accurately assess the *real* risks at hand. This basically means that any *rule* interaction that can cause something so undesirable as to elicit a fudge should be altered to alike with where you *actually* want the goal posts set - rather than moving them by fiat when those statistically unlikely odds eventually show their face and "force" you to fudge. Don't want a boss to die in one round of combat? Make damage per round on Boss mobs cap at a percentage of their total HP. (Or give resistance to crits, or second wind abilities, or epic resistance, or whatever rule you think befits the issue you have with that scenario) Don't want PCs killed off by mooks within the first few sessions? Grant immunity to death for x sessions - you can only go down, not out. Or say that death by the hands of minion grade mobs doesn't stick so long as the PCs win the fight (anyone who dies to unforeseen crit turns out to just need some first aid once their allies check on them after the dust settles). Etc etc. Basically - if there is an instance where you feel you "ought to" fudge - either don't roll the dice that would make it happen, or better yet, don't let the rules allow that situation to occur in the first place. Then - if it *does* still somehow happen? *Let it.*
One of few channels that I watch every video as soon as it comes out. As a 15 year DM, even the beginner focused sections are nice to remind us we are on the right path and to provide thoughtful opinions on the basics. Please keep it up!
I think there is always an exception to the rule, but the rule definitely should be "never fudge the dice roll". Then again, the game should also bring joy to the players and you as a DM. And some outcomes just don't spark joy, yet you can't always Marie Kondo those outcomes out of the game. So sometimes the most responsible choice is to make the outcome spark joy, however that might be for the group of players you're with.
In my opinion, the core of the issue is this; if you're fudging dice roll to 'beat' your players, that sucks. If you're fudging dice roll to increase your player's enjoyment, then I'm all for it. That includes potentially keeping a boss alive, or even killing a player character, if it will increase the stakes and/or serve the story. There's no wholesale 'yes to fudging' or 'no to fudging' answer, but as long as its coming from a place of increasing enjoyment, then it's okay in my books. Like with anything else, DMs will make mistakes fudging dice rolls, but those can be learned from - don't write it off because it went badly a couple times. It's a tool to be employed at the DMs discretion, just like any other DMing skill.
I totally understand this argument however as a DM I always roll completely openly. (I've only played on vvt so it's easy to show everyone the rolls). I just feel that this really helps to create a sense of trust between me and my players. I don't believe there is a 'right' way of managing your rolls, it's just what works best for you as a DM. :o)
Definitely. The goal with this video is not to convince people to change up their tactics, it's just food for thought. Rolling in the open is completely respectable! - AB
I roll openly after playing in a game where the monsters almost never missed an attack, critted with every fifth one and succeeded every single saving throw.
I don't think all rolls should be open, though. In particular, opposed NPC social rolls involving insight on either side should be secret, so that the player can't use metaknowledge of the dice to gauge whether they succeeded or failed. For that matter, I wouldn't even let the player roll their own dice for knowledge checks, I'd roll them secretly so that the player doesn't know whether the info I give them is accurate due to a high roll or outright incorrect due to a nat 1. If the players can't trust me to be honest when it matters, then I don't want to play D&D with them to begin with.
@Mystic-Arts-DM oh yeah. Absolutely. :-) hence why I said there's no 'right' way. I could see fudging being something for more experienced DMs. I think as a beginner, it can potentially set the wrong kind of precedent.
Like everything in TTPGs, this really comes down to what you are looking for in your game. I do not like fudging dice. I used to do it as a GM but ultimately I found that it took away from my enjoyment of the game as a DM because i also like to be surprised by the outcomes at the table. I also don't hide my die rolls when I am playing at a table. I roll in the open, so the players can see the drama unfold as the dice weave the strands of fate into the game. I also don't think that PC death or bad outcomes run the fun or create bad games. Much to the contrary, it has been my experience that the low points in the game are often what create some of the best opportunities for story and drama. If a PC is cut down early, then perhaps the rest of the party now needs to go on a side quest to return their friend from the dead and who knows what all that entails. This is why I am often left, feeling a little bleh by how deathproof 5E characters seem to be. I don't think you ruin games by not fudging dice and leaving things to fate. It's a style of play that can be as rewarding as heavily "managed" games. I have heard it referred to as emergent storytelling and it is the one sort of storytelling that can be as fun, with all the twists and turns, for the DM as it is for the players.
For me the paradigm shift was understanding that dice are essentially an improv randomizer, functionally similar to an audience member at an improv show yelling out a suggestion. So if you’re fighting the dice in order to tell a story a specific way, you might as well fudge. But sometimes if the big villain rolls three 1s in a row, maybe the dice are the improv audience yelling out a suggestion that will spin the story off into an unexpected and interesting direction, as long as you’re quick enough to pick up on it. So that’s what I’ve been trying to work on with my DMing recently, to try to work _with_ the dice rather than fighting against them.
@@RobertWSquirrel this is merely one way of viewing dice. Dice in an OSR game represent the latent uncertainty in a real world. Some things in life have uncertain results. You have unclear information or you're under pressure of some kind.
Not if your into the game aspect, the dice give you real feeling of success, the moment I know fudging is happening, that agency is gone, and I wont be able to have fun at that table.
Fudging is not about removing latent uncertainty (which is what the dice have always represented in every game ever) but rather embracing that latent uncertainty while also retaining edit rights on the scenario in case you need them, which is a GM's prerogative and just one more way that the simulationist model does not fully account for the presence of an 'author' figure in the scenario. And I believe the art of "good GMing" is balancing all these things, and making good calls on when to intervene or exert pressure on that narrational reality, and when to let things unfold following a natural (and idiosyncratic) chain of events. I believe that OSR operates on certain dictums, which some groups may swear to... but most gamers aren't ideologues, and OSR precepts can be just another tool in the toolbox. Of course, I say most gamers aren't ideologues, but most groups have a range of player types, so the expectations in a game are usually subject to a consensual understanding of 'reality' and best practices. An alternative would maybe be a strict simulationist model, though I guess following that path too far just brings us back to video games and (maybe) AI DMs.
@tmonkeyking2424 fudging is an admission that your sense of what the story "should be" matters more than the verisimilitude of the game world and the choices players have chosen to make within that world. That's a fine choice to make, but you are not so far from removing all sense of "game" at all and instead embracing group storytelling. In short, why roll dice if the result doesn't matter? I don't find "oh don't worry, it *mostly* matters except when it doesn't" particularly satisfying. But hey, we're all just playing elfgames here. If that's satisfying for your table, more power to you.
"I roll dice with no intention of honouring the dice roll." See, that's the key to me. If you're doing this, why are you rolling? Use the other tool you mentioned instead: just don't roll. If you're not willing to accept all results of a roll, don't.
What if a random group of goblins are about to kill a PC with an epic storyline going on? How do you not throw if you start an encounter expecting an easy random encounter, that suddenly turns into an absolute disaster thanks to a bunch of bad rolls from players and a bunch of high rolls from the random goblins? Will you just cut the combat and say "And the goblins suddenly escaped for some reason"? What if your boss keeps rolling terrible? He used this example in the video. The boss fight turns into an anticlimactic disaster. What do you do then, instead of fudging the dice?
@sajisama24 You might not like this answer but at that point I'd probably kill the players. The way I see it if they're about to be killed by goblins the mistake has already been made. Either I didn't appropriately warn them of the dangers or the players didn't respond to the warnings and leave the encounter instead of fighting. I trust my players to understand this and they know that I'm going to let the dice fall where they may. I also don't really see a scenario where there's an "epic story" going on yet goblins are still an unexpectedly huge threat. Goblins are low level, which means only low level players will be threatened, which means the stakes are lower - losing a level 2 PC doesn't sting quite like losing a level 16 PC. If the players smash through a boss fight easier than intended that honestly doesn't seem like a huge deal. I'll feel like my prep was wasted, sure, but the players still get to have a big win.
@@sajisama24 Just as I don't roll dice if I can't accept all possible outcomes of the roll, I trust my players not to enter combat if they can't accept all possible outcomes of the combat. If an encounter is going south, a mistake has already been made: either I didn't properly communicate the danger of the encounter to the players, or they didn't heed the warning signs. Either way, if they're in a spot where a bad dice roll will kill them? Then yeah, they might die. Or they could run, or they could avoid combat in the first place. There is a risk of death in my games, my players know this. No, I won't suddenly cut the combat and decide the goblins escaped (in fact the goblins are only likely to attempt escape if THEY are losing) - but while you're using that as an example of what not to do, it's worth pointing out that deciding "the goblins inexplicably miss every attack so that you can win" isn't any better, even if you're pretending that isn't what's happening. As for the boss fight? If the players get an easy win, they get an easy win. Maybe it'll fall flat, maybe they'll be elated that they broke the system and smashed what was supposed to be a challenge. My prep is wasted but that's fine - most of my prep is going to end up being extraneous anyway. Maybe these things aren't actually a problem as long as people accept that they're a possibility.
@TwoEcksKay that's okay if that's the style of game you run. Feels like a more numbers, rolls and stats focused game and that's alright. Our games are much more roleplay focused. There is a whole lot of talking rather than rolling.
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case either - my players usually jump at the opportunity to talk their way out of encounters. Goblins, demons, statues, totally inanimate doors... you name it, they'll try to roleplay with it lmao. If anything I find that risk assists roleplay. They've got to take it a bit more seriously if there are likely to be real consequences. There's no more numbers involved, I'm just not ignoring the numbers when they're there. Creating that uncertainty is why we put numbers and dice there to begin with, why do that if I'm going to ignore it?
Agreed. I generally don’t fudge-but I do sometimes refrain from rolling dice in the first place (Judge’s prerogative). If a “random table” behind my screen has something on it that I’m just dying to bring into play, I cue it up at will (Judge’s prerogative). It doesn’t make sense to keep sending Dire Wolves at the players just because that’s the recurring die result-especially if your brain has already started rehearsing the verbal outbursts you’ll make for that Apoplectic Leprechaun you just can’t wait to play.
Fudging stuff like HP and stuff is useful. Once, a paladin-warlock scored a crit on my BBEG round 1 and obviously used the divine-eldritch smite, basically esting 90% of the boss's HP. I fudged him to have more HP, BUT I also said that that the paladin cut his staff-holding arm off. Imho it still made the crit matter (bbeg lost access to powerful spells) while also not robbing the rest of the table of their cool fight.
Learning when to roll is truly an intermediate DM skill and one of the cornerstones that show you're developing into more than just a mediocre or ok dm and moving into a great dm. a lot of times, like you mentioned about having an outcome predetermined, I'll call for a roll or roll myself for degree of success or failure. Like, nat 1 included, you're going to succeed, let's just see how much of a resounding success it was or if it was lukewarm. my mind kind of thinks of it like crit fishing in combat. when you forgot you had advantage but it's already been confirmed you hit, so you roll again to see if you roll a crit or not. I also use this a ton when a player does something convincingly at the table, like word for word explaining their side of the argument before rolling their persuasion, but they're actually making some really good points that resonate with the npc. I'll still call for the roll, and because of that my players think all that talking beforehand doesn't matter, but really their roll is for degree of success, not fail or succeed (I just don't like invalidating skill monkeys, cause otherwise, when are you going to get to roll your expertise persuasion skill?)
Maybe it was just my tables, but I've been playing since white box in the late 70's and I don't recall the DM rolling for players...at least not often. Also, at least for me, the DM screen was to hide the map of the dungeon I was running for than anything else.
At one point, a fight was getting same-y and boring but the enemy was only at half hit points. So I decided to have him undergo a spontaneous transformation sequence (and erupt into flames), and gained new attacks and a fly speed. The players thought it was awesome and had no idea that wasn't intended from the start :P Not exactly on topic, but sometimes random chance gets a bit uncanny. I've watched my husband roll five natural 1s in a row. Three consecutive rolls during two combat turns, a fourth just to see what would happen, and then the fifth when he tossed the die aside and it landed next to another player. That player picked it up, claimed it needed to be purged with holy water, and dropped it into a cup of Mountain Dew (which he'd brought along as a joke). It's been the "Black Die of Dew Not" ever since.
People act like it's some kind of huge sin, but it's really no different than deciding what an encounter will be instead of rolling on a random encounter table. People who have started relatively recently just don't have the perspective to understand how far the game has shifted away from where it started. And that's not a bad thing. In my opinion if you stare at a roll and you think, if this goes this certain way, this is going to be really boring and anti-climactic for everybody, fudge the roll. Or don't! It's up to you.
Quickly becoming the DM I'd like to play with the most in the world. Excellent precision of thought. Your videos always feel unforced, like a conversation all sides enjoy. Kudos for the both of you!
When it comes to Attribute/Skill rolls, there is another option I like: Telling the players outright that they will succeed/fail and then let them roll how well / bad they're doing.
So simple but so smart. Avoids the problem of bad rolls causing characters to fail at stuff they reasonably never would without making the dice irrelevant
@@kylelong8654 Exactly, A critical failure becomes a success with a complication. "You make it over the wall, but you rip your white shirt you put on to later blend in with the catering staff."
I had a dm that ran a campaign where he would fudge dice (sparingly) to make some of the most memorable moments in the campaign. He was running his own custom combat system where he rolls and not the players. You had an action roll, and an attack roll. The action can be used to prep a specific reaction, that can be an attack, but the action itself on your turn can't be an attack. (I hope that made sense) It was a mech dnd where as I stared down the enemy, their minigun spinning up for an attack as their reaction the dm asked me 4 simple words, "What do you do?". I chose to dodge as my action, then to fire down upon my enemy. The DM rolled 2 dice, then described the scene. As the minigun spun up completely, I sprint to the left, bullets whissing right behind me. I raise my gun to fire as time seems to slow. You watch as the fourth bullet you fire flies true going straight down the top barrel of the minigun. A massive explosion insues and as the smoke clears, you see the right arm of your opponent's mech blown apart, completely noncunctional. What were the rolls for such a breathtaking scene? A 12 to hit and a nat 20 to dodge. The opponents AC was 13, so I was 1 face of the dice off from suceeding. The dm decided in that moment that to properly honor the nat 20 to dodge, he would allow the attack roll to also hit to the same extreme. This dm greatly appreceates combat roleplay (describing in depth what you're doing and why) and will give you bonuses when you do. This was my bonus for using combat roleplay to make the most out of a fight with a superior opponent who up to this point had me on the rails.
Okay, first let me say that you've done an excellent job of outlining both the pros and cons of this topic in a nuanced and detailed way. You've not dismissed any side, or landed on a stylistic answer. I also appreciate the acknowledgement of "fudging numbers" being the same as fudging anything else, including dice - they are the same. I especially love the argument you make about setup vs gameplay. However, this is where I feel you've already undermined your own stance of "why you should fudge". Your two main reasons given to fudging are as follows: "Saving the player from unfair deaths" and so the "big bad doesn't suck" in the end showdown. Basically, you've invested a lot of work into something, and don't want the extremes of random chance undermine them. An entirely reasonable stance. However, I just want to quote you a few more times. "meaning comes from the setup" "so if you're engaged in setup, and not gameplay, you can and I think should remove some choices to deliver the premise to your players" "but as long as what you're doing is set up for the game that's to come, and the game itself has meaningful and informed choices, you can remove a bit of choice to make something interesting happen " I agree with all of this! Perfectly said, and entirely true (in my opinion, at any rate) - however I feel this contradicts your stance on fudging. As you say "meaning comes from the setup" so you must ensure your setup is tailored to your desired outcome. I think you're using fudges as a crutch for what you ought to be baking into your setup... but specifically the mechanical setup. To expand on what you've said. It's okay if this removes some choice - OR RANDOMNESS - to make sure something interesting happens. You can easily make a rule that states "If you are struck with a critical hit, and go down because of it, you automatically stabilize" to avoid downing the wizard in a bad way, or "You cannot die to minion grade monster, you still go down and are treated as dead, but after the fight you recover after receiving first aid from an ally" or any number of other rules. The same applies to the boss fight - if they are meant to be tough, make them mechanically tough. Give them the ability to shrug off or halve the damage of any critical hit they take, or give them a protection against crits that slowly diminishes each time they take one. You can bolster any part of their mechanical build to ensure they can't be anti-climatically downed in short order. However, should the unlikely still occur - the boss gets 8 crits on them in a row, or the party launch such an unorthodox style of attack that they're just not setup to avoid being crippled by it... well, then you did you setup, and the players earnt their meaningful outcome from their choices (even if that choice was just to use a weapon with a high crit range, or "be lucky"). The gameplay should still play out fairly, even if unexpectedly. You can fetter fate only so far, and you *should* attempt to do so if certain events are undesirable (that way everyone knows what the odds *actually* are - thus allowing them to assess the risk and reward accurately). However once you're done loading the deck with the setup, then it can be fun to see a house of cards all fall apart because of something unforeseen - even if the unforeseen thing is just a really unlikely statistical fluke. It can give your players an even more entertaining story at the end of the day, even if it was one noone could see coming.
You can also just change the rules of your roll. If you have a set outcome in mind, you can stick to that outcome, but still roll and use your role to determine if what happens goes extra well, or has a downside. Basically the "yes and/yes but" concept. You already know you want it to be a yes, so you only use the roll to see if its leaning towards yes and, or just yes, or yes but, and it might give you an idea to add a small consequence or reward on top of your plan. If you already rolled the d20 and then changed your mind, you could use that result for the yesand/yesbut, just split the DC to be something like 7-13 straight yes, higher is and, lower is but. Otherwise, if you think of it ahead of the roll, you can instead grab 3-4 fate dice (+/- dice) or d6's and add up the +'s and -'s, or 6's and 1's (steeper curve with that one). If theres more +'s or 6's its a yes and, if theres more -'s or 1's its yes but. If it cancels out or theres none, just straight yes/your plan without anything extra. Kind of a long winded explanation but TL;DR: instead of fudging, you can change the meaning if the d20 roll or use fate dice to determine yes and/yes but, if youve already decided it should be a yes
Sometimes, when I don't know what I want, I flip a coin. I flip a coin. I look at the result, the result that the coin is telling me to choose... and I do what I want. I didn't know what I wanted until something told me to do something that I didn't really want to do. That is how I treat rolls behind the screen. Sometimes, I don't know what I'm going to do, and I just need something to make a suggestion.
I really look forward to every video on this site. There hasn't been one that's gone by that didn't only present an interesting topic in an understandable and helpful way, but also planted hooks for future potential videos. I'd really love to see one on player agency specifically. I'm a new DM, and I'm really struggling with the idea of wanting to have a overarching story the characters will follow, while giving them lots of choices for things they want to do along the way. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Anyway, keep up the fantastic work. I'll be checking my subscription list daily to see when your next video drops!
@@Arrowintheknee702 You would not be one of my players past session 2 or 3. Your attitude makes it clear you whine and cry a lot. I don't tollerate children in adult cloths in my games.
I think that's kind of the point. The players aren't *suppose* to know a roll was fudged. The role of a DM is that of a story teller. Players say what they want to do or accomplish. A decent DM would be able to figure out how to narrate that and make it a good story/game with or without dice rolls or fudging. If I found out later my DM fudged dice but it never >felt< like they did, then I'd have more trust in them as a DM in doing the right thing for the game and everyone's enjoyment.
@ the DM is not a story teller. The DM is a stage setter and rules arbiter. “Storyteller” defies player agency. If you can just fudge a die roll, then the dice don’t matter. They do matter.
@@Arrowintheknee702 stage setter and rules arbiter, therefore, the story teller. The players say what they wishful their characters to do in the game, the DM arbitrates how that happens with rulings, which may or may not involve dice, all up to the DM's discretion. Regardless that's the DM's job to make the player's choices meaningful in the experience of the game. The DM holds all the cards, which you're not even suppose to know that a die fudge occurred in the first place.
As a little practical tip, also practice fudging discreetly; of course, no-one should admit to fudging and it's relatively easy to fool players who've never sat in the hot-seat and might not even know what fudging is, but what if you are playing with other DMs who know about fudging, or just really suspicious players in general? Don't do that thing where you roll and don't look at the dice before announcing the result; do everything the same as you otherwise would for any dice roll, and substitute the fudged number(s) for the one(s) you actually read on the dice. Similarly, pick a variety of numbers, don't just go 'oh that's a nat 1/20'; throw in some 17s, some 4s, stuff like that, and also describe HOW you are getting the numbers, i.e. 'so he rolled a 14 and has a plus 3 so that's 17', for verisimilitude. I believe some digital tabletops even have a fake dice roll option, so you can punch in a number and then have it "rolled" visually on everyone's screens Sure, you are actively being more deceitful by doing this, but you're doing it to preserve the illusion even for the knowledgable and perceptive players at your table, thereby increasing their immersion and fun. Of course, this advice applies specifically to when you are fudging sensibly and reasonably as the video describes, which should also be in service to fun; remember you can't ACTUALLY know whether the best outcome for the table's fun is the fudged or non-fudged outcome, you can only make an educated guess, so be careful (that's why I personally NEVER fudge, of course)
If you commit to rolling dice, use the result. Don't roll the dice then choose the result you want anyway Lately, I've been declaring a DC for a check before rolls are made, and making my rolls in the open. This signals to players that its their own choices and luck that decides the game- not the whim of the DM. That's how you add real drama, real stakes, and real excitement to the game. The default should be never fudging, and any exception to this rule is because of a mistake on the DM's part
It can also be on the game designers. A lot of systems give inadequate advice or outright bad advice to GMs on how to properly set up encounters, including imbalanced mechanics or enemies, which can result in outcomes that are not reasonable to expect a layman GM to recognize before it happens. D&D CR, for example, is infamously bad. While an adequately skilled GM can redesign around that, that is explicitly a case of the product not working as advertised or intended.
@NevisYsbryd Ideally, a DM doesn't evaluate their party, then perfectly tune each encounter to be "balanced". The DM should set up NPCs and challenges in the world, some may be trivial, some may be challenging, and some may need to be avoided. That's just my take though And you're exactly right that DND 5e especially doesn't have good support for DMs, and CR isn't reliable. That's why I think DMs should set up encounters that make sense in the world, and let the party deal with them, avoif them, fight them, run away, or negotiate. CR is just a way to get in the right ballpark for challenges a given party might be able to handle
@BenHameen33 That is not the ideal but a very specific game type, and one that a sizeable minority, not the majority, of ttrpg players want. Part of a the issue here is that there is a lot more variance in what people want out of a ttrpg than most players or GMs realize. D&D is certainly one of the worst offenders, though it is hardly unique to it. The issue is that what players want and expect out of a system and modules do not necessarily match what it actually delivers, and insofar as the players calibrated around that mismatch, the results are going to diverge from what they intended. GMing is ultimately acting as a secondary game designer and most GMs do not have the knowledge, tools, or practice to design very well, especially by improvisation. D&D in particular has a much wider variety of encounter design than most systems at a mechanical and mathematical level, so it gets hit especially hard here.
you get it. you really get it. Well done. Second video I've watched. Still good voice, well scripted, to the point, engaging, informative, knowledgeable. Groovy.
Remember: The dice (and game mechanics in general) are just a storytelling tool. If you think the story would turn out better by fudging here and there, do not hesitate.
I only fudge rolls to make things more dramatic or fun for the players. I never go into an encounter planning to kill any characters, I want them to succeed, but sometimes I want them to feel like close calls, or for something fun or memorable to happen during combat.
I am currently running Lost Mine of Phandelver for a group of mostly new players (family). This one time they walked right into Venomfang’s tower and after a brief exchange of dialogue the Paladin attacked. Now Venomfang’s “Poison Breath” would have meant instant death for the player, but luckily its damage roll was very low….
You can fudge the dice... until you are caught or suspected - then the trust is broken and you have damaged your integrity as a DM. It is better to never fudge and just don't roll the die when you want a certain outcome.
This is bananas haha. If you're playing with people who would genuinely think less of you as a person in real actual life because you fudged a few dice rolls to hide the fact that your monsters passed all the saves for all the spells they threw at you... I mean idk, those don't sound like people I'd want to play a game with.
I open roll all of my rolls. Ever seen a table all lean in to see if a player hits or passes a do or die save in a desperate situation? Open rolls create the opposite effect. They need me to miss, the die is cast, they all lean in, the drama, the anticipation, and the suspense plays out in the real time, in the open. I love to let the dice tell the story in dice rolling situations. Let go!
Love the video and totally agree on what is said ! I don't understand how fudging a dice roll to make a scene or a fight more dramatic is considered "removing players agency", when a completely random dice roll (which players have no control on) can dictate the fate of a character. I occasionnally fudge dices at my table when I'm rolling really bad in fights and it's just anticlimatic for the players because there's no challenge when enemies just forgot their glasses that day !
"Why let a random dice roll dictate the fate of a Character." Wow.... So, none of your combats actually have any stakes? If your players knew that their rolls and yours don't matter, I doubt they would return. People want to play a game. Not story time with Max.
It’s removing agency because the decision the player made to accept random chance is being overridden by the GM. The player made a decision, and the decision ultimately didn’t matter at all - hence a removal of agency. Now this isn’t an indictment of fudging. I think a lot of groups prefer if the GM does this, and quite frankly don’t care for “player agency” as much as a reddit hivemind will have you believe. But fudging is by all accounts a removal of agency, and certain types of players will definitely be put off by the implications of fudging. I’m personally not a big fan, but ultimately it’s just about knowing your group.
Whilst I don't agree with you entirely, I do respect how you have put that across. I personally have no issues with the (un)lucky crits at level 1 or the poor boss battles. Great vid as always.
I understand the concept, and agree that it makes no sense to have characters with huge plots intertwined in the campaing die because you mismanaged the encounter or rolled too many 20... but the cost of the players finding out they cannot trust you is too high.
Players should have agency, but, so should the DM. The DM is not just a guy who wastes hours of his time to entertain you; HE has a role in shaping the world as well. Even amongst players, when presented with some decision to make, the party can discuss and debate on how to proceed and in the end a decision is made that some of the PCs are against doing. Do we give agency to every PC at every moment? No. If we did every PC would simultaneously be the main character going in whatever direction they choose. This would be utter chaos and impossible for a single DM to manage. • Thanks for another great video Daði! (+10 XP for spelling you name correctly?)
"Do we give agency to every PC at every moment? No. If we did every PC would simultaneously be the main character going in whatever direction they choose. This would be utter chaos and impossible for a single DM to manage." It's called a Sandbox and is the best way to play. Let your players actually play and not be stuck on a railroad.
@@SlyBlueDemon I agree, but you can't let 5 PCs each go in their own direction at all times. At some point a consensus must be had among the PCs about what to do. Sometimes the story highlights the Barbarian and the cleric takes a back seat, sometimes the cleric is in the spotlight and the barbarian passively watches on. Imagine playing a Legend of Zelda game with 5 different players all playing their own Link character in the same game and they all split up and do what each wants to do. How does a DM handle this? OK, it's "sandbox" but how interesting is that if you have to wait for hours before the DM gets to your personal story because he has to give the other 4 PCs their personal story some time? TTRPGs beg for the party to stick together and work as a group most of the time.
@@sirhamalot8651 yeah it's kinda built into the social contract (that a lot of creators and now the official books tell you to set up). Whoever your character is, they have to be someone who is willing to A. go on the adventure and B. cooperate with the party. If your character "wouldn't do" one or both of these things, then either tweak them so that they would or make a new one, or just play a solo ttrpg game if you don't care about the other players' time lol these are definitely examples of limiting player agency, in the same way that telling people they can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or make pointed threats to another person, impedes on their right to free speech. But we generally don't see these things as "limits" because they're kind of necessary caveats to even have these spaces in the first place. At the same time, it's a bit of an extreme example in terms of saying "you don't need to give all players agency simultaneously." It's not... wrong, per se. It's just that it makes people think of other scenarios where this would be a toxic thing to do as a dm
I wont sit at a table where dice are being fudged and would actually make me really mad. Their are a lot of people like me, so you need to consider that. It might work at your game but there people like me who would hate it. Its not that your a bad DM, your bad DM for everyone like me.
I'll also say that the answer to this question depends entirely on the kind of players you have. I usually end up with hardcore power gamers (PF1), and they would be furious if I fudged. Should a combat be too hard and they die because of bad encounter design, they want to be able to critique me afterwards 🤣. Also, PF1 players tend to be very weak roleplayers and don't care much about it, so fudging for the sake of narrative doesn't fly for most of them. Keeping them alive would piss them off. I had to flat-out execute an unconcious PC once when it wasn't needed just to make sure the players would take me serious. Overall, I think being brutal every once in a while is good, as it ensures the level of tension is always high, and the combats tend to be more rewarding for them. The minute players think you will routinely go out of your way to keep them alive, they'll lose interest in your game.
Do whatever you want, but, for me, fudging dice rolls violates the social contract of our table. The heroism of the characters is directly proportionate to the challenges they face. DM’s can provide players with enough trust and agency to let them dig their own graves. If a DM is pitting players against challenges the players cannot overcome, outwit, or simply choose to avoid, maybe that DM should reevaluate their approach to the game, as opposed to relying on deception.
@@ISpiers I don't fudge dice rolls. If I make a combat too easy, I'll either add more enemies I have prepped in advance, or I'll string another combat encounter to deplete them more in the future. If it is too hard, I usually make fleeing a reasonable option, which is built into the encounter design. If all else fails, they simply die and need a rasie dead if they want their char back. I've never had a tpk, but come very close a few times, and I've killed a lot of PCs.
Hidden "Death Saving Throws" , where even the player doesn't know what they've rolled, are super fun. And keep them rolling, even if the character has died. The party only know when they check the body!
I like using dice to throw a bit of randomness into the mix. It can be a mess to deal with at times, but it often ups the drama of the moment and allows for just enough chaos for the campaign world to feel more real. I tend to fudge stats (HP, AC, spell slots) for foes in order for the battle to feel more satisfying or dangerous instead of rolls. Like you, I'll roll for something I don't even have a number in mind for just so players feel some tension - then I say what I was going to say regardless.
Terrific video. I love dice and have more than I would ever use…or do I? - Rolling dice is great when there is a chance of something unexpected or crazy happening. These are rare events and randomness is fun. Gamers have gotten so accustomed to relying on the exact odds of achieving success in a specific situation, that uncertainty isn’t an option. With those incredible expectations of the mini-game trumping any narrative, roleplay becomes a math expression. Only two outcomes are allowed: success or failure. I absolutely loathe that play style in which an epic adventure pivots on a die roll. - As a player, I don’t get to roll dice enough so I use them to roleplay the character. This is especially true when there is a chaotic streak, distraction, or when I know they will not behave as I (the player) would. It’s fun and something interesting may happen. - As a GM, I’m all about setup and randomness in those areas that make sense. I pay attention to the players, characters, and interactions with NPCs. I roll dice when there is a chance that something specific aids or hinders the party or character. And what happens can be generated from a random table. - In my non-humble opinion, I think the greatest flaws are rolling dice when they aren’t required, and assuming every combat is a fight to the death. If a character is attempting something for which they are trained and skilled then just have them succeed. Done. Before combat ensues, consider the encounter and the scene. The perceived enemy may not want to fight and instead wants to talk. When the player thinks the character must fight and win, then they have just railroaded themselves. So, yes, the GM will need to fudge dice rolls if the players aren’t expecting their characters to lose and die. In that type of game there really is no need to roll dice. Just calculate the odds of success taking into consideration mods, weapons, armor, action economy, number of healing potions, blah, blah, blah, and tell the players the number of combat rounds required to succeed contrasted with how long it may take for them to fail. It does sound boring but you just saved hours of real time. - I think dice are a terrific way to show what a character can do, and they don’t necessarily have to roll them. Instead of having to constantly reference a bunch of numbers on a sheet, just create those dice pools and place them on the table. It’s easy to glance around the table and see what the characters can do. More dice of a larger type means more power and skill. Now, the players can pull out those cool dice and show them off.
The great upside of a phone keyboard is that the ð is just a longer button press away. So there's no excuse for the people calling you "daddy" (unless it's a kink thing).
sage advice. and it's kind of you to remind players that this is a game of spontaneous, cooperative, shared invention--not merely impartial rolling of plastic dice. I don't think fudging can happen, say, all the time (as you say) BUT! DAMN! we want a grand epic...not a fizzled flop
If players ever start to suspect you are fudging dice, you will absolutely kill any immersion they had. I'm not going to tell you not to fudge, but be very wary of when and how you do it if you choose to do it at all.
I ran the temple of elemental evil over 10 years ago and when my players faced zuggtmoy I rolled a 1 and we use a fumble table. What happened has been talked about ever since and is looked back on with joy by both me and my players. My big bad didn't even get to make one attack while my players jumped on it and laid waste to zuggtmoy. I let it play out and I was glad I did as my players now have a story of how they walked in and cut down the big bad just after they finished their dialogue. It was like a scene in a comedy action movie.
I do fudge the dice depending on the situation. maybe once every 5-6 sessions. Most of the time I roll dice to add tension. I'll roll with no context. just cause lol. Thanks for the video bro. I appreciate it very much.
I've seen people argue that running cutscenes remove player agency because they can't affect the scene, but my players respect that the cutscenes are my play time and it sets up big dramatic/scary/exciting events for them to partake in. As for fudging? sure, did that attack leave the mob at 1 hp? not if it's dramatically appropriate for them to go down.
one hp could easily be read narratively as knocked out/disabled. in fact that's maybe more interesting than dead. do the players mercilessly finish them off or leave foes to maybe pose a threat in the future??
I run games where fudging is only possible in the narrative - "The alien leaps onto your comrades, shredding them to pieces" so the PC isn't target, etc. This is because the game's I run are either player facing (so they roll all the dice) or don't have a randomizer (and thus, everything is based on player+GM choice and resource management). It's actually pretty nice.
What the DM can control, instead of fudging rolls, is what enemies choose to do for their turn. If the party is in danger of a TPK from a fight with a mating pair of Allosaurs, for example -- perhaps instead of continuing to fight those who are still up, the Allosaurs grab those who are downed/dead into their mouths and seek to escape with their prize. This gives those who are up a free round or two of damage without being attacked, and it makes thematic sense for injured Allosaurs to flee when all they wanted was a meal. If the BBEG is going down like a complete chump and is in need of rescue - perhaps instead of the BBEG's damage dice downing half the party, the BBEG frantically fumbles for a magical bauble (one they actually have; not one you give them in the moment) and breaks it on the floor to cast a Fog spell. The party, after dealing with said magical fog, finds the floor littered with empty heal potion vials and a BBEG ready to restart the battle. There are always ways to steer the narrative. Let the dice do their thing. Especially at lower levels, this is important - PCs have almost no HP at those levels, and can die to a stiff breeze.
My stance coming into this video is that the narrative is my responsibility, the rolls dictate fate, and the players are the variable authors of the world. If two of those forces at work want something to happen, that’s the majority vote. From what I’ve seen of very famous DMs like Mercer and Mulligan, they are happy to set an arbitrary DC but they also seem to understand not everything *needs* a roll. You can just say something happens. Also in combat terms, if the crit brought the fodder enemy to 1HP, that enemy is dead. I feel like DMs need to respect time investment with inevitable outcomes.
I totally agree with this argument. The goal of D&D is simply to have fun and make a story with your friends. If the dice say something that is both hurtful to the players and not dramatic in the slightest, then there's no reason to let it stand. I think the biggest argument for this is that I see DMs utilize decision making in combat to change the game all the time. When the DM has that goblin attack the non-downed party member, or even just not hit the PC about to go down, that to me is the same as fudging with more excuses. When you have the pit fiend cast a fireball that can be counter spelled rather than attack and wipe the party, you're doing the same thing that you are when you fudge, you are making a conscious decision to hold back from what WOULD happen while keeping the facsimile that it's always what happened.
I find myself being drawn to game systems that give open numbers for the players to reach-Call of Cthulhu with its d100 skill based challenges, Cypher having the tier system of enemies, different ways to encourage players to interact with the world. DnD can sometimes seem pretty fiddly with the math rocks and the rules, so it helps to look beyond the big systems to see what more is available.
I haven't played D&D in a long time because I had a DM that constantly chose our encounters to be against foes that were immune to my rogue's sneak attack and it was just constant combat with almost no time or place to reasonably rest and near zero loot. Finally the group had had enough and threatened to quit because they were doing all the fighting and I could only reasonably dodge attacks...and the lack of rest and loot didn't help matters. So he caved after we finished the dungeon that took months to get through, gave each of us 50k gold and put us in a town that had any kind of craftsman imaginable. I bought gear that negated his foes sneak attack immunity and quickly ended any remote threat of danger (after sometimes lengthy rule arguments)...after one final encounter (where I sensed danger because of how he set it up), I one-shotted his big finish, causing him to rage-quit and screaming that "we" weren't supposed to kill that character.
I think i didnt fudge Dice or only pretty rarely did it, but i have lowered the DC for successes of the players, just do be narratively fluid. It is not always, that fudging is to create or flee from a good situation, but it is a product of if you can work with the thrown roll narratively. My focus is on telling a Story, and to find compromises in low rolls from the player is a skill i am focusing on. Most of the dice I throw as a DM is combat, and there i pretty rarely fudge, because getting to the edge of death is an experience wich never gets boring. This impacts their mood, and they love it. They start to think 200 times more than ever and that is satisfying for me to watch :D. My key is to not fudge the dice, but to narratively make my way through bad or too good rolls. Thats the part i love!
My 2 cents: People aren't as good at lying as they think they are, DM's included. It's pretty likely that people will feel the presence of some tension in you as you (even sparingly) internally struggle with secretly altering an outcome. Maybe the players won't care, maybe they make the right conclusions or maybe they'll start doubting every important moment in the game future and past. If you are clear about stakes, play openly and roll in the open, you're more likely to prevent people doubting you or feeling the game is undermined. People will generally recognize dishonesty pretty quickly and reliably, and will likely not say anything about it.
I guarantee you my players do not know when I fudged dice last. On one hand because I hardly ever do it, and on the other hand, because there's willing suspension of disbelief. They came to be immersed, so they willingly choose to believe. - Daði
Ugh, great, another video about fudging dice 😂 I've been trying to hear other people's opinions about the statistics and mechanics of fudge/fate dice, you know, the ones with blank, plus and minus, but all people are talking about on RUclips is whether to lie their players or not. Let's add another video to this endless list, why not. That will make my research easier 😅
I've been on both sides of this issue, both as a GM and as a player. I hold a personal stance on it, and I know GMs who have differing opinions. To me this isn't a good GM/bad GM issue at all, it's just a stylistic choice. I was a player recently in a fight that should have been pretty easy. The knowledge checks that would have given the party an edge against an otherwise tricky monster failed, so "we didn't know how to fight it." And then the monster's dice came out hot while the PC dice came out cold. That resulted in a massive tempo shift, and we had players dying almost immediately, while having done nothing serious to the monster. Fast forward several rounds, and it was a Total Party Kill, and ended the campaign. Dice did that. Not the players, not the GM. And that's OK. One way to look at it is that the situation is a failure, and the story ended prematurely. Another way to look at is that "oh hey, sometimes evil triumphs." There's now a whole kingdom in our world that has been over-run by a tyrant from The First World who has consumed the area with unnaturally verdant and dangerous plants and animals. And someday that's going to have to be taken care of - because the first heroes who dove through a portal into the First World to strike down that tyrant failed. I view the dice as a way to take the story in directions that nobody can anticipate. The GM certainly didn't script a TPK vs the random monster in the random room, but here we are. On the flip side, I once had a fairly challenging fight set up for a party I was GMing for, and it involved a really, really nasty melee boss. She was going to be real trouble. Then the party's druid cast a spell that blinded her on round 1! Oops! Her minions were pretty easy for the party to mop up, and she was no major threat considering the massive miss chance the condition imparted to her. Some people look at that as "a bad fight" because it was supposed to be hard, and it wasn't. Maybe I should have fudged the dice on the save and made the boss blind for only a few rounds, instead of permanently. But I feel like the Druid especially - and the whole party really - look back fondly on that fight because the spell went off to maximum effect. It felt really good for them to have that big momentum shift. Another consideration - After a fight like that, my players trust that I'm not fudging dice. They all knew it was supposed to be a really challenging fight, and they all knew that I COULD have fudged that save, and it was clear that I didn't. So, to the GMs who feel fudging is an asset - all power to you by the way - make sure you let enough "oops that didn't go as planned" results go through that your players still believe that your dice matter.
I've heard someone once say that DnD and TTRPGs aren't game engines, they're story engines and I think that's important to keep in mind. We play games like this for the story first and foremost
There's really only two times I personally fudge dice rolls. 1) when something is unfair and would down them in one hit (and even then I've been more and more starting to suggest they might want to use silvery barbs in those moments) and 2) it's become apparent that they going to defeat the enemies and the enemies didn't get to do much or there was a cool thing I wanted them to do and so I let the enemies get some hits in to up the tension a little even if the pcs winning is a foregone conclusion.
I use all the tools at my disposal when I am running a game. Sometimes that tool is a dice fudge. I had the *exact* same thing happen with a 1st level mage with no Con bonus and a critical hit from a goblins bow. The dice said instant death. I changed it to leaving the poor mage with one or two hit points. It was a brand new player in AL at my FLGS. The proverbial ink was barely dry on his character sheet. I would do it again in that kind of situation or any other that screamed "No... it just ain't right." This is from the 1st AD&D DMG, p. 110: "You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur." And later on that same page: Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!
I was running a Champions RPG session and introducing a new character's nemesis. The PC's defenses were particualrly strong against the new villain, but the villain was otherwise lethal to normal human. However, during the villain's opening attack against the PC, the villian rolled almost maximum damage and stun, taking the PCs out of the fight in a single, lucky blast. I "let the dice fall where they may" but, in hidesight, always felt like I should have fudged the damage roll to keep the *player* in the combat. This was a key moment for their personal narative, and the dice robbed them of it...and I was complicit. Over the years, I try to only fudge as a 'guard rail' against wrecking the story. PCs and key NPCs can die, but some stuff just doesn't make sense in the shared narative.
I always roll in the open now. I've invited Luck to the table -- the moment I override their contribution that first time, Luck exists only at my whim, forever. I've broken trust, and even if the other players don't mind, I can't live with that. It will fester and eat away at me long after the adventure is over. I'm also completely open about HP, modifiers, AC/DC, and have to justify any advantage or disadvantage I give out. That way, the other players can always make a risk assessment *before* picking up the shiny maths rock. If I ever feel that the Luck component (or DC) needs to be concealed, 5e has a rule for that! Passive checks and passive contests allow me to determine a result without ever alerting the players to the fact there was a challenge. This is most useful for information gathering -- if you didn't learn it, you (usually) don't know you missed anything. When passives have determined that information is acquired, Luck can then be called on by reframing the question: "who noticed/recalled the thing *first?"*
My problem with fudging dice has never been with player agency. It's with kneekapping the dice's power. One of the things that makes ttrpgs unique is that they are an eternal push and pull between three forces: The DM, the player, and chance. So many great stories only happen because the dice did something unexpected. Sometimes the result will suck. Sometimes a result that sucks leads to the best stories. Let the dm do dm things and the dice do dice things.
@@MirrorscapeDC Often times when you need to fudge a roll thats because you need a certain outcome for the story. Maybe just skip that roll in the first place. If I want my players to notice something I just tell them. Dont roll for essential movement, Information and Items is my rule of thumb after... After dming 2 games, but Im on it!
@@jonash.8139 If you are unwilling to accept the result of a RNG method of arbitration, do not use a RNG method of arbitration. It is okay to say an outcome occurs without using dice.
I think that one of the things that people often forget is that most games define the Game Master as a player as well… The 2024 rules of Dungeons & Dragons seem to be less clear about this distinction, however, in the 2014 rules it says “One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee.” So that should mean that all of the things that you mentioned about players and player agency go for the game master as well… I think that instead of framing these sorts of discussions as fudging we should think of it more in terms of the game master is given the discretion by the rules to make certain choices that players controlling characters are not given. It is this discretion where choosing narrative choices over random chance falls.
This channel is amazing. I discovered it yesterday and have thoroughly enjoyed every video. I've never DMed before but after watching this I really want to get into it. Thanks for all the amazing content. I'm sure you have plenty of vids and ideas lined up, but something I would love to get your take on is flaws/quirks. I find the base ones so dull (liar, coward, racist...). And in my experience players either don't have any which makes the character a bit 1 dimensional, or only have flaws/quirks that will annoy other plays or the DM. Which are funny for 30-60 minutes and then get old. I think that flaws should ideally have an occasional upside, to justify to the character why they keep doing it. I don't know if this needs to come from the design of the flaw, or rather the DM. If you have a compulsive gambler, that is always losing the party's possessions, and as a result everyone keeps all items away from that player, that flaw never gets resolved, it gets bypassed and forgotten about. Maybe the DM should set a short session in an illegal underground casino, where that character has insider info or advantage on rolls, so that something positive can come out of it? I haven't experienced anything like this, and also don't think I've seen it in streams either.
I'm one of those grognards who doesn't fudge dice rolls but I DO fudge ac, hp, and sometimes purposefully use questionable strategy. Of course, I play mostly virtually and my players expect to see my die rolls. But I see where you're coming from. I find that die rolls are great for building excitement and tension, especially when seen publicly. And the occasional PC death is acceptable. But that's just me and my table and my players. Mileage may vary.
Fudging dice does not directly remove player agency. After all, the players don't choose the die result. And, while players make decisions knowing the consequences are random, humans are terrible at understanding odds. Many people see 90% as basically a sure thing, instead of a 1 in 10 failure rate. Because of this disconnect between expectation and reality, fudging die results to match the expectations the players had when they made their decision is increasing player agency, not taking it away.
@chrisg8989 You must hate video games then. They fudge all the time. Mario has a frame or two after leaving an edge where the player can still make him jump. Fallout's VATS system makes sure that 90% on screen is actually 99% in engine. All of this is done to ensure that the experience people are expecting is the one they're getting, even if reality has to be massaged.
@@MrTDawg135 Yeah fallout is cringe for doing that and I mod XCOM to give me accurate odds because otherwise how do I make decisions? If the game is feeding me false information then the choices I make aren't truly my own.
@finlaygilfillan7963 You're going to want to talk to a neurologist about getting a mod for your brain, then, because it too "fudges" things ALL the time.
"the girl we thinks likes about us" at 10:36 fried my brain a little 😂 it took me a few seconds to recover and I had to go back to check if I heard it right. Irl Stunning Strike 😂 Anyway, great video, as always :3
I think you give good examplas for fudging dice as well as against it. However I got one imporant advice for intermediate DMs which should be considered in this discussion: You should only roll dice if you are sure that you can live with the outcome of the dice roll. Otherwise simply explain what happens your are the DM you can decide what is the reality in your world. In my game when the players decide to run from an encounter and they are out of ressources and Hitpoints I don't want to kill them. THe simple fact that we stopped rolling dice in a battle shows that they lost.
If you have to fudge a die roll you should later reflect on the situation and evaluate if the die roll was neccessary in the situation.
I sometimes roll dice just to make my players think that rolling was necessary, although I'd already decided the outcome of the situation. :D
Sometimes I roll to cover time while making up my mind, or just for the sake of rolling, just to have an internal dialog with the die afterwards.
Me: "Okay on nat1 - 5% chance someone dies here."
Die: nat1
Me: "Hey why'd you do that?!"
Die: "Because it's one of my faces and I can."
Me: "You're killing one of the characters."
Die: "Not my fault you rolled. I'm a die; you knew the risk."
Me: "And I'm the DM; I'll leave you on read."
Die: _nat1face_
Just make smart choices of when and how dice are used. People fudge dice because they're unhappy with the results... of a roll... that they decided needed to be rolled... but now they wish they hadn't. Just reflect on how you're running and really build the skill of only rolling when it matters and all possible results are acceptable. Also, if you're the kind of DM that finds they are fudging dice here and there and that your players don't notice... well, lets just keep that facade and not talk about it then ;) (nice video btw; thumbs up)
Yup, if you're going to fudge, it should be done extremely selectively. By no means should you be doing this every session. - AB
Kinda like when Boris Johnson called the vote for Brexit, then lost the vote for Brexit, and then everything went to shit...
Wow, remember that time ( 3:00 ) when in the video you’re commenting about they said exactly what you said in your comment but better? Ah ah ah what a blast!
@@thomas19994 no need to be rude
@@samchelms It's quite alright.. We can't all follow conversation or read fully. Some of us want to stand out in different ways. In this case, being a bit of an ass to be honest, and not being able to understand the conversation. Since the warning provided in the second portion is not exemplified within the video we can only hope others read it in full and understand the nuance of the message.
The day I went with "All rolls are made in the open" policy is the day I found out how much I loathe that moment when you think if you should fudge or not.
By going open it is much MUCH easier to embrace the mindset that you are playing WITH your friends, not against or above them.
The only case I deviate from this nowadays is sometimes with knowledge/intuition checks (I give player 3 dice, they roll them all together, but only one is a real result, so they can be super unsure, rather sure or absolutely sure in the result of their checks)
The moment when enemy crit hits or crit misses hits so much different when you are not gasping behind DM screen, but observing the die being cast with your players.
Honestly, it brings your game to a whole new level. Shout out to Runehammer who found words that convinced me to try this.
I urge new DMs to also go open at least as an experiment, you can always go back if you do not like it.
@lyowin Choosing moments to open roll is how I do it. I don't want it to be easy to tell enemy attack bonus off the bat, saving throws, etc. That said, I OFTEN provide the DC of skill checks, and everything the players roll is of course open, so that ends up being about 90% of rolls.
I love your 3 dice idea. That way you can always roll in the open but also keep the mystery. I might use that.
@@TwoEcksKay props to Questing Beast here on yt, saw it in one of his old videos
I *LOVE* that 3-die method as a starting point. I might have to tinker with that, some, in my home game.
This is proper and good and never let anyone tell you otherwise.
Nobody rolls more crits than schlub goblins and kobolds against L1 parties.
And giant rats!
This is how my very first character died! To be fair a level 1 wizard with 11 con should not have been that close to the goblins, but I really wanted to cast thunderwave 😂
@Mystic-Arts-DM "Fudging the dice should be done intentionally in service to the story you and the players are telling." I love that you added the part of 'being in service to the story and players', instead of the whims of the DM (who are also emotionally dependent on shiny math rocks). Great advice as always!
Thanks, man! - Daði
On a side note, I feel the Grognard rolling dice just for the sound is taken out if context. There's a DM tactic for a DM to roll some dice to give the illusion that there's something going on. Like players walk down a hallway and the DM rolls some dice just to get them thinking they might want to be on the lookout for something.
Exactly. I remember rolling dice in a game I was GMing just to ratchet up the tension. The players were sufficiently freaked out: "what was that for?!??". "Oh... No need to worry about that... Yet"
You know, the DM is a player, too, and gets to have some fun just like the PCs.
Your reference to players rolling dice being a radical idea reminded me of a recent Matt Colville video where he discussed some history of D&D where that came up. I love this conversation and I do really love the topic of “where do the dice belong in the game?”
The elusive shift video was really eye opening. Mainly because my friends and I only starting eith 5e and BG3. I hadn't realized how "Unsolved" it as a format was back in the day and even is today. There is truly no optimal way to play and RAW is isn't fun for everyone.
Even something like 'Should players roll their own dice?' Was a radical idea once.
Completely agree. Fudging dice should be the absolutely last resort of a situation that has completely gone off course from what you had expected in an extremely negative way for you and the players and the only way to return things into balance is to change things behind the scene. It should be avoided at all cost except in the most extreme scenario
"Surely there's a middle road here"
Indeed. It's to only roll dice when all the numbers they could show are acceptable and to not roll them, or pretend to roll them, when that is not the case.
This is the way. Only use RNG when you are willing to accept the results of RNG. If you attempt to have your cake and eat it, too... the consequences tend to be undesired.
@@Hikikodere Pretending to roll is the same as fudging. Let's be real, if the die result is what you wanted, you keep that roll every time and announce it accurately. If it's not, THEN you fudge it. You're saying the same thing as the OP.
@@MrDavidKord I am not advocating pretending to roll.
@@MrDavidKord Yeah, that's not what @Hikikodere is saying here.
They're saying to simply *not* roll the dice when the outcome *could* be something so undesirable that it would cause you to fudge. If you only roll when all results of that roll would be acceptable, there is never a reason to fudge anything.
I go one step further, and suggest you sure up all of your edge cases with the rules - so that everyone (GM and player alike) know where they stand and can accurately assess the *real* risks at hand. This basically means that any *rule* interaction that can cause something so undesirable as to elicit a fudge should be altered to alike with where you *actually* want the goal posts set - rather than moving them by fiat when those statistically unlikely odds eventually show their face and "force" you to fudge.
Don't want a boss to die in one round of combat? Make damage per round on Boss mobs cap at a percentage of their total HP. (Or give resistance to crits, or second wind abilities, or epic resistance, or whatever rule you think befits the issue you have with that scenario)
Don't want PCs killed off by mooks within the first few sessions? Grant immunity to death for x sessions - you can only go down, not out. Or say that death by the hands of minion grade mobs doesn't stick so long as the PCs win the fight (anyone who dies to unforeseen crit turns out to just need some first aid once their allies check on them after the dust settles). Etc etc.
Basically - if there is an instance where you feel you "ought to" fudge - either don't roll the dice that would make it happen, or better yet, don't let the rules allow that situation to occur in the first place. Then - if it *does* still somehow happen? *Let it.*
@@pseudofenton The OP as in the video creator.
One of few channels that I watch every video as soon as it comes out. As a 15 year DM, even the beginner focused sections are nice to remind us we are on the right path and to provide thoughtful opinions on the basics. Please keep it up!
I think there is always an exception to the rule, but the rule definitely should be "never fudge the dice roll".
Then again, the game should also bring joy to the players and you as a DM. And some outcomes just don't spark joy, yet you can't always Marie Kondo those outcomes out of the game. So sometimes the most responsible choice is to make the outcome spark joy, however that might be for the group of players you're with.
In my opinion, the core of the issue is this; if you're fudging dice roll to 'beat' your players, that sucks. If you're fudging dice roll to increase your player's enjoyment, then I'm all for it. That includes potentially keeping a boss alive, or even killing a player character, if it will increase the stakes and/or serve the story. There's no wholesale 'yes to fudging' or 'no to fudging' answer, but as long as its coming from a place of increasing enjoyment, then it's okay in my books. Like with anything else, DMs will make mistakes fudging dice rolls, but those can be learned from - don't write it off because it went badly a couple times. It's a tool to be employed at the DMs discretion, just like any other DMing skill.
I totally agree here.
Player enjoyment, and the DM is a Player too, is the key to the equation.
@@pkWreck EXACTLY. Letting a game go to utter despair and isn't worth not occasionally fudging dice.
I am thoroughly enjoying your videos and learning from your perspective. Keep up the great work, and thank you!
I totally understand this argument however as a DM I always roll completely openly. (I've only played on vvt so it's easy to show everyone the rolls). I just feel that this really helps to create a sense of trust between me and my players. I don't believe there is a 'right' way of managing your rolls, it's just what works best for you as a DM. :o)
Definitely. The goal with this video is not to convince people to change up their tactics, it's just food for thought. Rolling in the open is completely respectable! - AB
I roll openly after playing in a game where the monsters almost never missed an attack, critted with every fifth one and succeeded every single saving throw.
I don't even use a DM screen. I highly recommend it to all DMs. Let the Dice tell the story. Otherwise. What are we even doing?
I don't think all rolls should be open, though. In particular, opposed NPC social rolls involving insight on either side should be secret, so that the player can't use metaknowledge of the dice to gauge whether they succeeded or failed. For that matter, I wouldn't even let the player roll their own dice for knowledge checks, I'd roll them secretly so that the player doesn't know whether the info I give them is accurate due to a high roll or outright incorrect due to a nat 1. If the players can't trust me to be honest when it matters, then I don't want to play D&D with them to begin with.
@Mystic-Arts-DM oh yeah. Absolutely. :-) hence why I said there's no 'right' way. I could see fudging being something for more experienced DMs. I think as a beginner, it can potentially set the wrong kind of precedent.
Like everything in TTPGs, this really comes down to what you are looking for in your game. I do not like fudging dice. I used to do it as a GM but ultimately I found that it took away from my enjoyment of the game as a DM because i also like to be surprised by the outcomes at the table. I also don't hide my die rolls when I am playing at a table. I roll in the open, so the players can see the drama unfold as the dice weave the strands of fate into the game.
I also don't think that PC death or bad outcomes run the fun or create bad games. Much to the contrary, it has been my experience that the low points in the game are often what create some of the best opportunities for story and drama. If a PC is cut down early, then perhaps the rest of the party now needs to go on a side quest to return their friend from the dead and who knows what all that entails. This is why I am often left, feeling a little bleh by how deathproof 5E characters seem to be.
I don't think you ruin games by not fudging dice and leaving things to fate. It's a style of play that can be as rewarding as heavily "managed" games. I have heard it referred to as emergent storytelling and it is the one sort of storytelling that can be as fun, with all the twists and turns, for the DM as it is for the players.
For me the paradigm shift was understanding that dice are essentially an improv randomizer, functionally similar to an audience member at an improv show yelling out a suggestion. So if you’re fighting the dice in order to tell a story a specific way, you might as well fudge.
But sometimes if the big villain rolls three 1s in a row, maybe the dice are the improv audience yelling out a suggestion that will spin the story off into an unexpected and interesting direction, as long as you’re quick enough to pick up on it. So that’s what I’ve been trying to work on with my DMing recently, to try to work _with_ the dice rather than fighting against them.
@@RobertWSquirrel this is merely one way of viewing dice. Dice in an OSR game represent the latent uncertainty in a real world. Some things in life have uncertain results. You have unclear information or you're under pressure of some kind.
Just don't roll then
Not if your into the game aspect, the dice give you real feeling of success, the moment I know fudging is happening, that agency is gone, and I wont be able to have fun at that table.
Fudging is not about removing latent uncertainty (which is what the dice have always represented in every game ever) but rather embracing that latent uncertainty while also retaining edit rights on the scenario in case you need them, which is a GM's prerogative and just one more way that the simulationist model does not fully account for the presence of an 'author' figure in the scenario.
And I believe the art of "good GMing" is balancing all these things, and making good calls on when to intervene or exert pressure on that narrational reality, and when to let things unfold following a natural (and idiosyncratic) chain of events. I believe that OSR operates on certain dictums, which some groups may swear to... but most gamers aren't ideologues, and OSR precepts can be just another tool in the toolbox.
Of course, I say most gamers aren't ideologues, but most groups have a range of player types, so the expectations in a game are usually subject to a consensual understanding of 'reality' and best practices.
An alternative would maybe be a strict simulationist model, though I guess following that path too far just brings us back to video games and (maybe) AI DMs.
@tmonkeyking2424 fudging is an admission that your sense of what the story "should be" matters more than the verisimilitude of the game world and the choices players have chosen to make within that world.
That's a fine choice to make, but you are not so far from removing all sense of "game" at all and instead embracing group storytelling.
In short, why roll dice if the result doesn't matter? I don't find "oh don't worry, it *mostly* matters except when it doesn't" particularly satisfying. But hey, we're all just playing elfgames here. If that's satisfying for your table, more power to you.
"I roll dice with no intention of honouring the dice roll."
See, that's the key to me. If you're doing this, why are you rolling? Use the other tool you mentioned instead: just don't roll. If you're not willing to accept all results of a roll, don't.
What if a random group of goblins are about to kill a PC with an epic storyline going on? How do you not throw if you start an encounter expecting an easy random encounter, that suddenly turns into an absolute disaster thanks to a bunch of bad rolls from players and a bunch of high rolls from the random goblins? Will you just cut the combat and say "And the goblins suddenly escaped for some reason"? What if your boss keeps rolling terrible? He used this example in the video. The boss fight turns into an anticlimactic disaster. What do you do then, instead of fudging the dice?
@sajisama24 You might not like this answer but at that point I'd probably kill the players.
The way I see it if they're about to be killed by goblins the mistake has already been made. Either I didn't appropriately warn them of the dangers or the players didn't respond to the warnings and leave the encounter instead of fighting.
I trust my players to understand this and they know that I'm going to let the dice fall where they may.
I also don't really see a scenario where there's an "epic story" going on yet goblins are still an unexpectedly huge threat. Goblins are low level, which means only low level players will be threatened, which means the stakes are lower - losing a level 2 PC doesn't sting quite like losing a level 16 PC.
If the players smash through a boss fight easier than intended that honestly doesn't seem like a huge deal. I'll feel like my prep was wasted, sure, but the players still get to have a big win.
@@sajisama24 Just as I don't roll dice if I can't accept all possible outcomes of the roll, I trust my players not to enter combat if they can't accept all possible outcomes of the combat.
If an encounter is going south, a mistake has already been made: either I didn't properly communicate the danger of the encounter to the players, or they didn't heed the warning signs. Either way, if they're in a spot where a bad dice roll will kill them? Then yeah, they might die. Or they could run, or they could avoid combat in the first place. There is a risk of death in my games, my players know this.
No, I won't suddenly cut the combat and decide the goblins escaped (in fact the goblins are only likely to attempt escape if THEY are losing) - but while you're using that as an example of what not to do, it's worth pointing out that deciding "the goblins inexplicably miss every attack so that you can win" isn't any better, even if you're pretending that isn't what's happening.
As for the boss fight? If the players get an easy win, they get an easy win. Maybe it'll fall flat, maybe they'll be elated that they broke the system and smashed what was supposed to be a challenge. My prep is wasted but that's fine - most of my prep is going to end up being extraneous anyway. Maybe these things aren't actually a problem as long as people accept that they're a possibility.
@TwoEcksKay that's okay if that's the style of game you run. Feels like a more numbers, rolls and stats focused game and that's alright. Our games are much more roleplay focused. There is a whole lot of talking rather than rolling.
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case either - my players usually jump at the opportunity to talk their way out of encounters. Goblins, demons, statues, totally inanimate doors... you name it, they'll try to roleplay with it lmao.
If anything I find that risk assists roleplay. They've got to take it a bit more seriously if there are likely to be real consequences.
There's no more numbers involved, I'm just not ignoring the numbers when they're there. Creating that uncertainty is why we put numbers and dice there to begin with, why do that if I'm going to ignore it?
Agreed. I generally don’t fudge-but I do sometimes refrain from rolling dice in the first place (Judge’s prerogative). If a “random table” behind my screen has something on it that I’m just dying to bring into play, I cue it up at will (Judge’s prerogative). It doesn’t make sense to keep sending Dire Wolves at the players just because that’s the recurring die result-especially if your brain has already started rehearsing the verbal outbursts you’ll make for that Apoplectic Leprechaun you just can’t wait to play.
Fudging stuff like HP and stuff is useful. Once, a paladin-warlock scored a crit on my BBEG round 1 and obviously used the divine-eldritch smite, basically esting 90% of the boss's HP. I fudged him to have more HP, BUT I also said that that the paladin cut his staff-holding arm off. Imho it still made the crit matter (bbeg lost access to powerful spells) while also not robbing the rest of the table of their cool fight.
This is why my campaign ending bosses are never just "one guy", unless the have multiple phases and/or forms.
Learning when to roll is truly an intermediate DM skill and one of the cornerstones that show you're developing into more than just a mediocre or ok dm and moving into a great dm. a lot of times, like you mentioned about having an outcome predetermined, I'll call for a roll or roll myself for degree of success or failure. Like, nat 1 included, you're going to succeed, let's just see how much of a resounding success it was or if it was lukewarm. my mind kind of thinks of it like crit fishing in combat. when you forgot you had advantage but it's already been confirmed you hit, so you roll again to see if you roll a crit or not. I also use this a ton when a player does something convincingly at the table, like word for word explaining their side of the argument before rolling their persuasion, but they're actually making some really good points that resonate with the npc. I'll still call for the roll, and because of that my players think all that talking beforehand doesn't matter, but really their roll is for degree of success, not fail or succeed (I just don't like invalidating skill monkeys, cause otherwise, when are you going to get to roll your expertise persuasion skill?)
Maybe it was just my tables, but I've been playing since white box in the late 70's and I don't recall the DM rolling for players...at least not often.
Also, at least for me, the DM screen was to hide the map of the dungeon I was running for than anything else.
I absolutely love your videos. I’ve been dming for awhile and find your perspectives wonderfully insightful.
At one point, a fight was getting same-y and boring but the enemy was only at half hit points. So I decided to have him undergo a spontaneous transformation sequence (and erupt into flames), and gained new attacks and a fly speed. The players thought it was awesome and had no idea that wasn't intended from the start :P
Not exactly on topic, but sometimes random chance gets a bit uncanny. I've watched my husband roll five natural 1s in a row. Three consecutive rolls during two combat turns, a fourth just to see what would happen, and then the fifth when he tossed the die aside and it landed next to another player. That player picked it up, claimed it needed to be purged with holy water, and dropped it into a cup of Mountain Dew (which he'd brought along as a joke). It's been the "Black Die of Dew Not" ever since.
Another great video! Please keep them coming.
People act like it's some kind of huge sin, but it's really no different than deciding what an encounter will be instead of rolling on a random encounter table.
People who have started relatively recently just don't have the perspective to understand how far the game has shifted away from where it started. And that's not a bad thing.
In my opinion if you stare at a roll and you think, if this goes this certain way, this is going to be really boring and anti-climactic for everybody, fudge the roll. Or don't! It's up to you.
Quickly becoming the DM I'd like to play with the most in the world. Excellent precision of thought. Your videos always feel unforced, like a conversation all sides enjoy. Kudos for the both of you!
When it comes to Attribute/Skill rolls, there is another option I like: Telling the players outright that they will succeed/fail and then let them roll how well / bad they're doing.
So simple but so smart. Avoids the problem of bad rolls causing characters to fail at stuff they reasonably never would without making the dice irrelevant
@@kylelong8654 Exactly, A critical failure becomes a success with a complication. "You make it over the wall, but you rip your white shirt you put on to later blend in with the catering staff."
I had a dm that ran a campaign where he would fudge dice (sparingly) to make some of the most memorable moments in the campaign. He was running his own custom combat system where he rolls and not the players. You had an action roll, and an attack roll. The action can be used to prep a specific reaction, that can be an attack, but the action itself on your turn can't be an attack. (I hope that made sense)
It was a mech dnd where as I stared down the enemy, their minigun spinning up for an attack as their reaction the dm asked me 4 simple words, "What do you do?". I chose to dodge as my action, then to fire down upon my enemy. The DM rolled 2 dice, then described the scene.
As the minigun spun up completely, I sprint to the left, bullets whissing right behind me. I raise my gun to fire as time seems to slow. You watch as the fourth bullet you fire flies true going straight down the top barrel of the minigun. A massive explosion insues and as the smoke clears, you see the right arm of your opponent's mech blown apart, completely noncunctional.
What were the rolls for such a breathtaking scene? A 12 to hit and a nat 20 to dodge. The opponents AC was 13, so I was 1 face of the dice off from suceeding. The dm decided in that moment that to properly honor the nat 20 to dodge, he would allow the attack roll to also hit to the same extreme.
This dm greatly appreceates combat roleplay (describing in depth what you're doing and why) and will give you bonuses when you do. This was my bonus for using combat roleplay to make the most out of a fight with a superior opponent who up to this point had me on the rails.
That sounds like a dramatic moment that really had an impact on you! Love to hear stories like this. That's what TTRPG's are all about :) - AB
Okay, first let me say that you've done an excellent job of outlining both the pros and cons of this topic in a nuanced and detailed way. You've not dismissed any side, or landed on a stylistic answer. I also appreciate the acknowledgement of "fudging numbers" being the same as fudging anything else, including dice - they are the same.
I especially love the argument you make about setup vs gameplay. However, this is where I feel you've already undermined your own stance of "why you should fudge".
Your two main reasons given to fudging are as follows:
"Saving the player from unfair deaths" and so the "big bad doesn't suck" in the end showdown.
Basically, you've invested a lot of work into something, and don't want the extremes of random chance undermine them. An entirely reasonable stance. However, I just want to quote you a few more times.
"meaning comes from the setup"
"so if you're engaged in setup, and not gameplay, you can and I think should remove some choices to deliver the premise to your players"
"but as long as what you're doing is set up for the game that's to come, and the game itself has meaningful and informed choices, you can remove a bit of choice to make something interesting happen "
I agree with all of this! Perfectly said, and entirely true (in my opinion, at any rate) - however I feel this contradicts your stance on fudging. As you say "meaning comes from the setup" so you must ensure your setup is tailored to your desired outcome. I think you're using fudges as a crutch for what you ought to be baking into your setup... but specifically the mechanical setup.
To expand on what you've said. It's okay if this removes some choice - OR RANDOMNESS - to make sure something interesting happens. You can easily make a rule that states "If you are struck with a critical hit, and go down because of it, you automatically stabilize" to avoid downing the wizard in a bad way, or "You cannot die to minion grade monster, you still go down and are treated as dead, but after the fight you recover after receiving first aid from an ally" or any number of other rules.
The same applies to the boss fight - if they are meant to be tough, make them mechanically tough. Give them the ability to shrug off or halve the damage of any critical hit they take, or give them a protection against crits that slowly diminishes each time they take one. You can bolster any part of their mechanical build to ensure they can't be anti-climatically downed in short order.
However, should the unlikely still occur - the boss gets 8 crits on them in a row, or the party launch such an unorthodox style of attack that they're just not setup to avoid being crippled by it... well, then you did you setup, and the players earnt their meaningful outcome from their choices (even if that choice was just to use a weapon with a high crit range, or "be lucky"). The gameplay should still play out fairly, even if unexpectedly.
You can fetter fate only so far, and you *should* attempt to do so if certain events are undesirable (that way everyone knows what the odds *actually* are - thus allowing them to assess the risk and reward accurately). However once you're done loading the deck with the setup, then it can be fun to see a house of cards all fall apart because of something unforeseen - even if the unforeseen thing is just a really unlikely statistical fluke. It can give your players an even more entertaining story at the end of the day, even if it was one noone could see coming.
You can also just change the rules of your roll. If you have a set outcome in mind, you can stick to that outcome, but still roll and use your role to determine if what happens goes extra well, or has a downside.
Basically the "yes and/yes but" concept. You already know you want it to be a yes, so you only use the roll to see if its leaning towards yes and, or just yes, or yes but, and it might give you an idea to add a small consequence or reward on top of your plan.
If you already rolled the d20 and then changed your mind, you could use that result for the yesand/yesbut, just split the DC to be something like 7-13 straight yes, higher is and, lower is but. Otherwise, if you think of it ahead of the roll, you can instead grab 3-4 fate dice (+/- dice) or d6's and add up the +'s and -'s, or 6's and 1's (steeper curve with that one). If theres more +'s or 6's its a yes and, if theres more -'s or 1's its yes but. If it cancels out or theres none, just straight yes/your plan without anything extra.
Kind of a long winded explanation but TL;DR: instead of fudging, you can change the meaning if the d20 roll or use fate dice to determine yes and/yes but, if youve already decided it should be a yes
That's definitely an interesting way to approach it!
Sometimes, when I don't know what I want, I flip a coin.
I flip a coin. I look at the result, the result that the coin is telling me to choose... and I do what I want.
I didn't know what I wanted until something told me to do something that I didn't really want to do.
That is how I treat rolls behind the screen. Sometimes, I don't know what I'm going to do, and I just need something to make a suggestion.
I really look forward to every video on this site. There hasn't been one that's gone by that didn't only present an interesting topic in an understandable and helpful way, but also planted hooks for future potential videos. I'd really love to see one on player agency specifically. I'm a new DM, and I'm really struggling with the idea of wanting to have a overarching story the characters will follow, while giving them lots of choices for things they want to do along the way. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Anyway, keep up the fantastic work. I'll be checking my subscription list daily to see when your next video drops!
Another great video, thank you for expanding on player agency, and its limits!
" If you're fudging dice roll to increase your player's enjoyment, then I'm all for it." This!
If I as a the player knew you fudged,I would see the entire structure upon which the game sits to be a farce and lose faith in your leadership.
@@Arrowintheknee702 You would not be one of my players past session 2 or 3. Your attitude makes it clear you whine and cry a lot. I don't tollerate children in adult cloths in my games.
I think that's kind of the point. The players aren't *suppose* to know a roll was fudged.
The role of a DM is that of a story teller. Players say what they want to do or accomplish. A decent DM would be able to figure out how to narrate that and make it a good story/game with or without dice rolls or fudging.
If I found out later my DM fudged dice but it never >felt< like they did, then I'd have more trust in them as a DM in doing the right thing for the game and everyone's enjoyment.
@ the DM is not a story teller. The DM is a stage setter and rules arbiter.
“Storyteller” defies player agency. If you can just fudge a die roll, then the dice don’t matter.
They do matter.
@@Arrowintheknee702 stage setter and rules arbiter, therefore, the story teller.
The players say what they wishful their characters to do in the game, the DM arbitrates how that happens with rulings, which may or may not involve dice, all up to the DM's discretion. Regardless that's the DM's job to make the player's choices meaningful in the experience of the game. The DM holds all the cards, which you're not even suppose to know that a die fudge occurred in the first place.
As a little practical tip, also practice fudging discreetly; of course, no-one should admit to fudging and it's relatively easy to fool players who've never sat in the hot-seat and might not even know what fudging is, but what if you are playing with other DMs who know about fudging, or just really suspicious players in general?
Don't do that thing where you roll and don't look at the dice before announcing the result; do everything the same as you otherwise would for any dice roll, and substitute the fudged number(s) for the one(s) you actually read on the dice. Similarly, pick a variety of numbers, don't just go 'oh that's a nat 1/20'; throw in some 17s, some 4s, stuff like that, and also describe HOW you are getting the numbers, i.e. 'so he rolled a 14 and has a plus 3 so that's 17', for verisimilitude. I believe some digital tabletops even have a fake dice roll option, so you can punch in a number and then have it "rolled" visually on everyone's screens
Sure, you are actively being more deceitful by doing this, but you're doing it to preserve the illusion even for the knowledgable and perceptive players at your table, thereby increasing their immersion and fun. Of course, this advice applies specifically to when you are fudging sensibly and reasonably as the video describes, which should also be in service to fun; remember you can't ACTUALLY know whether the best outcome for the table's fun is the fudged or non-fudged outcome, you can only make an educated guess, so be careful (that's why I personally NEVER fudge, of course)
You guys are doing great! Thank you! :D
Thanks for including that clip from the music video, it popped into my head anyway as soon as you said "arrange the blocks".😂
I refence it too much! - Daði
"I am a river to my people".
If you commit to rolling dice, use the result. Don't roll the dice then choose the result you want anyway
Lately, I've been declaring a DC for a check before rolls are made, and making my rolls in the open. This signals to players that its their own choices and luck that decides the game- not the whim of the DM. That's how you add real drama, real stakes, and real excitement to the game. The default should be never fudging, and any exception to this rule is because of a mistake on the DM's part
It can also be on the game designers. A lot of systems give inadequate advice or outright bad advice to GMs on how to properly set up encounters, including imbalanced mechanics or enemies, which can result in outcomes that are not reasonable to expect a layman GM to recognize before it happens. D&D CR, for example, is infamously bad. While an adequately skilled GM can redesign around that, that is explicitly a case of the product not working as advertised or intended.
@NevisYsbryd Ideally, a DM doesn't evaluate their party, then perfectly tune each encounter to be "balanced". The DM should set up NPCs and challenges in the world, some may be trivial, some may be challenging, and some may need to be avoided. That's just my take though
And you're exactly right that DND 5e especially doesn't have good support for DMs, and CR isn't reliable. That's why I think DMs should set up encounters that make sense in the world, and let the party deal with them, avoif them, fight them, run away, or negotiate. CR is just a way to get in the right ballpark for challenges a given party might be able to handle
@BenHameen33 That is not the ideal but a very specific game type, and one that a sizeable minority, not the majority, of ttrpg players want. Part of a the issue here is that there is a lot more variance in what people want out of a ttrpg than most players or GMs realize.
D&D is certainly one of the worst offenders, though it is hardly unique to it. The issue is that what players want and expect out of a system and modules do not necessarily match what it actually delivers, and insofar as the players calibrated around that mismatch, the results are going to diverge from what they intended. GMing is ultimately acting as a secondary game designer and most GMs do not have the knowledge, tools, or practice to design very well, especially by improvisation. D&D in particular has a much wider variety of encounter design than most systems at a mechanical and mathematical level, so it gets hit especially hard here.
you get it. you really get it. Well done. Second video I've watched. Still good voice, well scripted, to the point, engaging, informative, knowledgeable. Groovy.
Remember: The dice (and game mechanics in general) are just a storytelling tool. If you think the story would turn out better by fudging here and there, do not hesitate.
I started this video thinking "I'm going to hate this video." I was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed it. Keep up the awesome takes!
I only fudge rolls to make things more dramatic or fun for the players. I never go into an encounter planning to kill any characters, I want them to succeed, but sometimes I want them to feel like close calls, or for something fun or memorable to happen during combat.
Love your videos, keep up the good work you two!
I am currently running Lost Mine of Phandelver for a group of mostly new players (family). This one time they walked right into Venomfang’s tower and after a brief exchange of dialogue the Paladin attacked. Now Venomfang’s “Poison Breath” would have meant instant death for the player, but luckily its damage roll was very low….
You can fudge the dice... until you are caught or suspected - then the trust is broken and you have damaged your integrity as a DM. It is better to never fudge and just don't roll the die when you want a certain outcome.
Worse, that distrust can easily extend beyond the game into the relationship in general. The fundamental issue of this is trust, not in-game agency.
This is bananas haha. If you're playing with people who would genuinely think less of you as a person in real actual life because you fudged a few dice rolls to hide the fact that your monsters passed all the saves for all the spells they threw at you... I mean idk, those don't sound like people I'd want to play a game with.
I open roll all of my rolls. Ever seen a table all lean in to see if a player hits or passes a do or die save in a desperate situation? Open rolls create the opposite effect. They need me to miss, the die is cast, they all lean in, the drama, the anticipation, and the suspense plays out in the real time, in the open. I love to let the dice tell the story in dice rolling situations. Let go!
Another awesome video on a well discussed topic.
Love the video and totally agree on what is said !
I don't understand how fudging a dice roll to make a scene or a fight more dramatic is considered "removing players agency", when a completely random dice roll (which players have no control on) can dictate the fate of a character. I occasionnally fudge dices at my table when I'm rolling really bad in fights and it's just anticlimatic for the players because there's no challenge when enemies just forgot their glasses that day !
"Why let a random dice roll dictate the fate of a Character." Wow....
So, none of your combats actually have any stakes? If your players knew that their rolls and yours don't matter, I doubt they would return.
People want to play a game. Not story time with Max.
It’s removing agency because the decision the player made to accept random chance is being overridden by the GM. The player made a decision, and the decision ultimately didn’t matter at all - hence a removal of agency.
Now this isn’t an indictment of fudging. I think a lot of groups prefer if the GM does this, and quite frankly don’t care for “player agency” as much as a reddit hivemind will have you believe. But fudging is by all accounts a removal of agency, and certain types of players will definitely be put off by the implications of fudging.
I’m personally not a big fan, but ultimately it’s just about knowing your group.
Whilst I don't agree with you entirely, I do respect how you have put that across. I personally have no issues with the (un)lucky crits at level 1 or the poor boss battles. Great vid as always.
I understand the concept, and agree that it makes no sense to have characters with huge plots intertwined in the campaing die because you mismanaged the encounter or rolled too many 20... but the cost of the players finding out they cannot trust you is too high.
Players should have agency, but, so should the DM. The DM is not just a guy who wastes hours of his time to entertain you; HE has a role in shaping the world as well.
Even amongst players, when presented with some decision to make, the party can discuss and debate on how to proceed and in the end a decision is made that some of the PCs are against doing.
Do we give agency to every PC at every moment? No. If we did every PC would simultaneously be the main character going in whatever direction they choose. This would be utter chaos and impossible for a single DM to manage.
• Thanks for another great video Daði! (+10 XP for spelling you name correctly?)
"Do we give agency to every PC at every moment? No. If we did every PC would simultaneously be the main character going in whatever direction they choose. This would be utter chaos and impossible for a single DM to manage."
It's called a Sandbox and is the best way to play. Let your players actually play and not be stuck on a railroad.
@@SlyBlueDemon I agree, but you can't let 5 PCs each go in their own direction at all times. At some point a consensus must be had among the PCs about what to do. Sometimes the story highlights the Barbarian and the cleric takes a back seat, sometimes the cleric is in the spotlight and the barbarian passively watches on.
Imagine playing a Legend of Zelda game with 5 different players all playing their own Link character in the same game and they all split up and do what each wants to do. How does a DM handle this? OK, it's "sandbox" but how interesting is that if you have to wait for hours before the DM gets to your personal story because he has to give the other 4 PCs their personal story some time? TTRPGs beg for the party to stick together and work as a group most of the time.
@@sirhamalot8651 yeah it's kinda built into the social contract (that a lot of creators and now the official books tell you to set up). Whoever your character is, they have to be someone who is willing to A. go on the adventure and B. cooperate with the party. If your character "wouldn't do" one or both of these things, then either tweak them so that they would or make a new one, or just play a solo ttrpg game if you don't care about the other players' time lol
these are definitely examples of limiting player agency, in the same way that telling people they can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or make pointed threats to another person, impedes on their right to free speech. But we generally don't see these things as "limits" because they're kind of necessary caveats to even have these spaces in the first place. At the same time, it's a bit of an extreme example in terms of saying "you don't need to give all players agency simultaneously." It's not... wrong, per se. It's just that it makes people think of other scenarios where this would be a toxic thing to do as a dm
I wont sit at a table where dice are being fudged and would actually make me really mad. Their are a lot of people like me, so you need to consider that. It might work at your game but there people like me who would hate it. Its not that your a bad DM, your bad DM for everyone like me.
I relate to many of your dming ways. The videos always give me a feeling of supporting my Dming style
Your team does amazing work. Keep it up.
I'll also say that the answer to this question depends entirely on the kind of players you have. I usually end up with hardcore power gamers (PF1), and they would be furious if I fudged. Should a combat be too hard and they die because of bad encounter design, they want to be able to critique me afterwards 🤣. Also, PF1 players tend to be very weak roleplayers and don't care much about it, so fudging for the sake of narrative doesn't fly for most of them. Keeping them alive would piss them off. I had to flat-out execute an unconcious PC once when it wasn't needed just to make sure the players would take me serious. Overall, I think being brutal every once in a while is good, as it ensures the level of tension is always high, and the combats tend to be more rewarding for them. The minute players think you will routinely go out of your way to keep them alive, they'll lose interest in your game.
Do whatever you want, but, for me, fudging dice rolls violates the social contract of our table.
The heroism of the characters is directly proportionate to the challenges they face. DM’s can provide players with enough trust and agency to let them dig their own graves.
If a DM is pitting players against challenges the players cannot overcome, outwit, or simply choose to avoid, maybe that DM should reevaluate their approach to the game, as opposed to relying on deception.
@@ISpiers I don't fudge dice rolls. If I make a combat too easy, I'll either add more enemies I have prepped in advance, or I'll string another combat encounter to deplete them more in the future. If it is too hard, I usually make fleeing a reasonable option, which is built into the encounter design. If all else fails, they simply die and need a rasie dead if they want their char back. I've never had a tpk, but come very close a few times, and I've killed a lot of PCs.
Hidden "Death Saving Throws" , where even the player doesn't know what they've rolled, are super fun. And keep them rolling, even if the character has died. The party only know when they check the body!
I like using dice to throw a bit of randomness into the mix. It can be a mess to deal with at times, but it often ups the drama of the moment and allows for just enough chaos for the campaign world to feel more real. I tend to fudge stats (HP, AC, spell slots) for foes in order for the battle to feel more satisfying or dangerous instead of rolls. Like you, I'll roll for something I don't even have a number in mind for just so players feel some tension - then I say what I was going to say regardless.
Enjoyed it, and yes like in all things balance is needed...
Terrific video. I love dice and have more than I would ever use…or do I?
-
Rolling dice is great when there is a chance of something unexpected or crazy happening. These are rare events and randomness is fun. Gamers have gotten so accustomed to relying on the exact odds of achieving success in a specific situation, that uncertainty isn’t an option. With those incredible expectations of the mini-game trumping any narrative, roleplay becomes a math expression. Only two outcomes are allowed: success or failure. I absolutely loathe that play style in which an epic adventure pivots on a die roll.
-
As a player, I don’t get to roll dice enough so I use them to roleplay the character. This is especially true when there is a chaotic streak, distraction, or when I know they will not behave as I (the player) would. It’s fun and something interesting may happen.
-
As a GM, I’m all about setup and randomness in those areas that make sense. I pay attention to the players, characters, and interactions with NPCs. I roll dice when there is a chance that something specific aids or hinders the party or character. And what happens can be generated from a random table.
-
In my non-humble opinion, I think the greatest flaws are rolling dice when they aren’t required, and assuming every combat is a fight to the death. If a character is attempting something for which they are trained and skilled then just have them succeed. Done. Before combat ensues, consider the encounter and the scene. The perceived enemy may not want to fight and instead wants to talk. When the player thinks the character must fight and win, then they have just railroaded themselves. So, yes, the GM will need to fudge dice rolls if the players aren’t expecting their characters to lose and die. In that type of game there really is no need to roll dice. Just calculate the odds of success taking into consideration mods, weapons, armor, action economy, number of healing potions, blah, blah, blah, and tell the players the number of combat rounds required to succeed contrasted with how long it may take for them to fail. It does sound boring but you just saved hours of real time.
-
I think dice are a terrific way to show what a character can do, and they don’t necessarily have to roll them. Instead of having to constantly reference a bunch of numbers on a sheet, just create those dice pools and place them on the table. It’s easy to glance around the table and see what the characters can do. More dice of a larger type means more power and skill. Now, the players can pull out those cool dice and show them off.
The great upside of a phone keyboard is that the ð is just a longer button press away. So there's no excuse for the people calling you "daddy" (unless it's a kink thing).
sage advice. and it's kind of you to remind players that this is a game of spontaneous, cooperative, shared invention--not merely impartial rolling of plastic dice. I don't think fudging can happen, say, all the time (as you say) BUT! DAMN! we want a grand epic...not a fizzled flop
If players ever start to suspect you are fudging dice, you will absolutely kill any immersion they had. I'm not going to tell you not to fudge, but be very wary of when and how you do it if you choose to do it at all.
I ran the temple of elemental evil over 10 years ago and when my players faced zuggtmoy I rolled a 1 and we use a fumble table. What happened has been talked about ever since and is looked back on with joy by both me and my players. My big bad didn't even get to make one attack while my players jumped on it and laid waste to zuggtmoy. I let it play out and I was glad I did as my players now have a story of how they walked in and cut down the big bad just after they finished their dialogue. It was like a scene in a comedy action movie.
I do fudge the dice depending on the situation. maybe once every 5-6 sessions. Most of the time I roll dice to add tension. I'll roll with no context. just cause lol. Thanks for the video bro. I appreciate it very much.
I've seen people argue that running cutscenes remove player agency because they can't affect the scene, but my players respect that the cutscenes are my play time and it sets up big dramatic/scary/exciting events for them to partake in. As for fudging? sure, did that attack leave the mob at 1 hp? not if it's dramatically appropriate for them to go down.
one hp could easily be read narratively as knocked out/disabled. in fact that's maybe more interesting than dead. do the players mercilessly finish them off or leave foes to maybe pose a threat in the future??
this reminds me of when the BBEG's legendary resistances were gone and the guy got instantly imprisoned by the wizard
Good video again! Considering a holiday to Iceland for a game with you 😂
Ohhhh a fellow Crusader King.... Nice example
Love it! Great video! Well said.
I run games where fudging is only possible in the narrative - "The alien leaps onto your comrades, shredding them to pieces" so the PC isn't target, etc. This is because the game's I run are either player facing (so they roll all the dice) or don't have a randomizer (and thus, everything is based on player+GM choice and resource management). It's actually pretty nice.
What the DM can control, instead of fudging rolls, is what enemies choose to do for their turn.
If the party is in danger of a TPK from a fight with a mating pair of Allosaurs, for example -- perhaps instead of continuing to fight those who are still up, the Allosaurs grab those who are downed/dead into their mouths and seek to escape with their prize. This gives those who are up a free round or two of damage without being attacked, and it makes thematic sense for injured Allosaurs to flee when all they wanted was a meal.
If the BBEG is going down like a complete chump and is in need of rescue - perhaps instead of the BBEG's damage dice downing half the party, the BBEG frantically fumbles for a magical bauble (one they actually have; not one you give them in the moment) and breaks it on the floor to cast a Fog spell. The party, after dealing with said magical fog, finds the floor littered with empty heal potion vials and a BBEG ready to restart the battle.
There are always ways to steer the narrative. Let the dice do their thing. Especially at lower levels, this is important - PCs have almost no HP at those levels, and can die to a stiff breeze.
My stance coming into this video is that the narrative is my responsibility, the rolls dictate fate, and the players are the variable authors of the world. If two of those forces at work want something to happen, that’s the majority vote. From what I’ve seen of very famous DMs like Mercer and Mulligan, they are happy to set an arbitrary DC but they also seem to understand not everything *needs* a roll. You can just say something happens.
Also in combat terms, if the crit brought the fodder enemy to 1HP, that enemy is dead. I feel like DMs need to respect time investment with inevitable outcomes.
I totally agree with this argument. The goal of D&D is simply to have fun and make a story with your friends. If the dice say something that is both hurtful to the players and not dramatic in the slightest, then there's no reason to let it stand.
I think the biggest argument for this is that I see DMs utilize decision making in combat to change the game all the time. When the DM has that goblin attack the non-downed party member, or even just not hit the PC about to go down, that to me is the same as fudging with more excuses. When you have the pit fiend cast a fireball that can be counter spelled rather than attack and wipe the party, you're doing the same thing that you are when you fudge, you are making a conscious decision to hold back from what WOULD happen while keeping the facsimile that it's always what happened.
I find myself being drawn to game systems that give open numbers for the players to reach-Call of Cthulhu with its d100 skill based challenges, Cypher having the tier system of enemies, different ways to encourage players to interact with the world. DnD can sometimes seem pretty fiddly with the math rocks and the rules, so it helps to look beyond the big systems to see what more is available.
I haven't played D&D in a long time because I had a DM that constantly chose our encounters to be against foes that were immune to my rogue's sneak attack and it was just constant combat with almost no time or place to reasonably rest and near zero loot. Finally the group had had enough and threatened to quit because they were doing all the fighting and I could only reasonably dodge attacks...and the lack of rest and loot didn't help matters. So he caved after we finished the dungeon that took months to get through, gave each of us 50k gold and put us in a town that had any kind of craftsman imaginable. I bought gear that negated his foes sneak attack immunity and quickly ended any remote threat of danger (after sometimes lengthy rule arguments)...after one final encounter (where I sensed danger because of how he set it up), I one-shotted his big finish, causing him to rage-quit and screaming that "we" weren't supposed to kill that character.
I think i didnt fudge Dice or only pretty rarely did it, but i have lowered the DC for successes of the players, just do be narratively fluid. It is not always, that fudging is to create or flee from a good situation, but it is a product of if you can work with the thrown roll narratively. My focus is on telling a Story, and to find compromises in low rolls from the player is a skill i am focusing on. Most of the dice I throw as a DM is combat, and there i pretty rarely fudge, because getting to the edge of death is an experience wich never gets boring. This impacts their mood, and they love it. They start to think 200 times more than ever and that is satisfying for me to watch :D. My key is to not fudge the dice, but to narratively make my way through bad or too good rolls. Thats the part i love!
My 2 cents: People aren't as good at lying as they think they are, DM's included. It's pretty likely that people will feel the presence of some tension in you as you (even sparingly) internally struggle with secretly altering an outcome. Maybe the players won't care, maybe they make the right conclusions or maybe they'll start doubting every important moment in the game future and past. If you are clear about stakes, play openly and roll in the open, you're more likely to prevent people doubting you or feeling the game is undermined. People will generally recognize dishonesty pretty quickly and reliably, and will likely not say anything about it.
I guarantee you my players do not know when I fudged dice last. On one hand because I hardly ever do it, and on the other hand, because there's willing suspension of disbelief. They came to be immersed, so they willingly choose to believe. - Daði
Ugh, great, another video about fudging dice 😂 I've been trying to hear other people's opinions about the statistics and mechanics of fudge/fate dice, you know, the ones with blank, plus and minus, but all people are talking about on RUclips is whether to lie their players or not. Let's add another video to this endless list, why not. That will make my research easier 😅
"You'll never roll only nat 1s in a session."
Will Wheaton: "Bet"
They've gone and done it again again again again again again and again
I've been on both sides of this issue, both as a GM and as a player. I hold a personal stance on it, and I know GMs who have differing opinions. To me this isn't a good GM/bad GM issue at all, it's just a stylistic choice.
I was a player recently in a fight that should have been pretty easy. The knowledge checks that would have given the party an edge against an otherwise tricky monster failed, so "we didn't know how to fight it." And then the monster's dice came out hot while the PC dice came out cold. That resulted in a massive tempo shift, and we had players dying almost immediately, while having done nothing serious to the monster. Fast forward several rounds, and it was a Total Party Kill, and ended the campaign.
Dice did that. Not the players, not the GM. And that's OK. One way to look at it is that the situation is a failure, and the story ended prematurely. Another way to look at is that "oh hey, sometimes evil triumphs." There's now a whole kingdom in our world that has been over-run by a tyrant from The First World who has consumed the area with unnaturally verdant and dangerous plants and animals. And someday that's going to have to be taken care of - because the first heroes who dove through a portal into the First World to strike down that tyrant failed.
I view the dice as a way to take the story in directions that nobody can anticipate. The GM certainly didn't script a TPK vs the random monster in the random room, but here we are.
On the flip side, I once had a fairly challenging fight set up for a party I was GMing for, and it involved a really, really nasty melee boss. She was going to be real trouble. Then the party's druid cast a spell that blinded her on round 1! Oops! Her minions were pretty easy for the party to mop up, and she was no major threat considering the massive miss chance the condition imparted to her. Some people look at that as "a bad fight" because it was supposed to be hard, and it wasn't. Maybe I should have fudged the dice on the save and made the boss blind for only a few rounds, instead of permanently. But I feel like the Druid especially - and the whole party really - look back fondly on that fight because the spell went off to maximum effect. It felt really good for them to have that big momentum shift.
Another consideration - After a fight like that, my players trust that I'm not fudging dice. They all knew it was supposed to be a really challenging fight, and they all knew that I COULD have fudged that save, and it was clear that I didn't. So, to the GMs who feel fudging is an asset - all power to you by the way - make sure you let enough "oops that didn't go as planned" results go through that your players still believe that your dice matter.
I've heard someone once say that DnD and TTRPGs aren't game engines, they're story engines and I think that's important to keep in mind. We play games like this for the story first and foremost
Sometimes it is hard to focus and not get lost in that gorgeous voice. But it's worth trying!
You're telling me! - AB
There's really only two times I personally fudge dice rolls. 1) when something is unfair and would down them in one hit (and even then I've been more and more starting to suggest they might want to use silvery barbs in those moments) and 2) it's become apparent that they going to defeat the enemies and the enemies didn't get to do much or there was a cool thing I wanted them to do and so I let the enemies get some hits in to up the tension a little even if the pcs winning is a foregone conclusion.
If you have a predetermined outcome in mind before rolling the dice, why roll them at all?
Just narrate and proceed.
I use all the tools at my disposal when I am running a game. Sometimes that tool is a dice fudge.
I had the *exact* same thing happen with a 1st level mage with no Con bonus and a critical hit from a goblins bow. The dice said instant death. I changed it to leaving the poor mage with one or two hit points. It was a brand new player in AL at my FLGS. The proverbial ink was barely dry on his character sheet.
I would do it again in that kind of situation or any other that screamed "No... it just ain't right."
This is from the 1st AD&D DMG, p. 110:
"You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a
particular course of events that you would like to have occur."
And later on that same page:
Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will
have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but
still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you
should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent
with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right
to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is
knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any
reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster
has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player
character when they have played well. When they have done something
stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they
may!
Thanks again for a great video and the permission to fudge dice! :)
The fear I feel when I dump con on my wizard and Gary the goblin marches up to me is palpable! I might play with fire, but damn is it fun!
Gary the Goblin is coming and you know it!
I was running a Champions RPG session and introducing a new character's nemesis. The PC's defenses were particualrly strong against the new villain, but the villain was otherwise lethal to normal human. However, during the villain's opening attack against the PC, the villian rolled almost maximum damage and stun, taking the PCs out of the fight in a single, lucky blast. I "let the dice fall where they may" but, in hidesight, always felt like I should have fudged the damage roll to keep the *player* in the combat. This was a key moment for their personal narative, and the dice robbed them of it...and I was complicit.
Over the years, I try to only fudge as a 'guard rail' against wrecking the story. PCs and key NPCs can die, but some stuff just doesn't make sense in the shared narative.
I always roll in the open now. I've invited Luck to the table -- the moment I override their contribution that first time, Luck exists only at my whim, forever. I've broken trust, and even if the other players don't mind, I can't live with that. It will fester and eat away at me long after the adventure is over.
I'm also completely open about HP, modifiers, AC/DC, and have to justify any advantage or disadvantage I give out. That way, the other players can always make a risk assessment *before* picking up the shiny maths rock.
If I ever feel that the Luck component (or DC) needs to be concealed, 5e has a rule for that! Passive checks and passive contests allow me to determine a result without ever alerting the players to the fact there was a challenge. This is most useful for information gathering -- if you didn't learn it, you (usually) don't know you missed anything. When passives have determined that information is acquired, Luck can then be called on by reframing the question: "who noticed/recalled the thing *first?"*
My problem with fudging dice has never been with player agency. It's with kneekapping the dice's power. One of the things that makes ttrpgs unique is that they are an eternal push and pull between three forces: The DM, the player, and chance. So many great stories only happen because the dice did something unexpected. Sometimes the result will suck. Sometimes a result that sucks leads to the best stories. Let the dm do dm things and the dice do dice things.
@@MirrorscapeDC Often times when you need to fudge a roll thats because you need a certain outcome for the story. Maybe just skip that roll in the first place. If I want my players to notice something I just tell them. Dont roll for essential movement, Information and Items is my rule of thumb after... After dming 2 games, but Im on it!
@@jonash.8139 If you are unwilling to accept the result of a RNG method of arbitration, do not use a RNG method of arbitration. It is okay to say an outcome occurs without using dice.
Great video Dadi. Story trumps dice every time.
Thank you, as always
I think that one of the things that people often forget is that most games define the Game Master as a player as well…
The 2024 rules of Dungeons & Dragons seem to be less clear about this distinction, however, in the 2014 rules it says “One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee.”
So that should mean that all of the things that you mentioned about players and player agency go for the game master as well…
I think that instead of framing these sorts of discussions as fudging we should think of it more in terms of the game master is given the discretion by the rules to make certain choices that players controlling characters are not given. It is this discretion where choosing narrative choices over random chance falls.
This channel is amazing. I discovered it yesterday and have thoroughly enjoyed every video. I've never DMed before but after watching this I really want to get into it. Thanks for all the amazing content.
I'm sure you have plenty of vids and ideas lined up, but something I would love to get your take on is flaws/quirks. I find the base ones so dull (liar, coward, racist...). And in my experience players either don't have any which makes the character a bit 1 dimensional, or only have flaws/quirks that will annoy other plays or the DM. Which are funny for 30-60 minutes and then get old.
I think that flaws should ideally have an occasional upside, to justify to the character why they keep doing it. I don't know if this needs to come from the design of the flaw, or rather the DM. If you have a compulsive gambler, that is always losing the party's possessions, and as a result everyone keeps all items away from that player, that flaw never gets resolved, it gets bypassed and forgotten about. Maybe the DM should set a short session in an illegal underground casino, where that character has insider info or advantage on rolls, so that something positive can come out of it? I haven't experienced anything like this, and also don't think I've seen it in streams either.
I'm one of those grognards who doesn't fudge dice rolls but I DO fudge ac, hp, and sometimes purposefully use questionable strategy.
Of course, I play mostly virtually and my players expect to see my die rolls. But I see where you're coming from. I find that die rolls are great for building excitement and tension, especially when seen publicly. And the occasional PC death is acceptable.
But that's just me and my table and my players. Mileage may vary.
Interesting, I don't think I've played in a campaign in the last 30 years where you could see the DM's die rolls.
Once you get to know the party and all their abilities/stats, you can create encounters numerically designed not to need fudge....usually.
Fudging dice does not directly remove player agency. After all, the players don't choose the die result. And, while players make decisions knowing the consequences are random, humans are terrible at understanding odds. Many people see 90% as basically a sure thing, instead of a 1 in 10 failure rate. Because of this disconnect between expectation and reality, fudging die results to match the expectations the players had when they made their decision is increasing player agency, not taking it away.
@@MrTDawg135 fudging dice is a crutch for weak DMing. Get good.
@chrisg8989 You must hate video games then. They fudge all the time. Mario has a frame or two after leaving an edge where the player can still make him jump. Fallout's VATS system makes sure that 90% on screen is actually 99% in engine. All of this is done to ensure that the experience people are expecting is the one they're getting, even if reality has to be massaged.
@@chrisg8989
No argument
Opinion rejected
@@MrTDawg135 Yeah fallout is cringe for doing that and I mod XCOM to give me accurate odds because otherwise how do I make decisions? If the game is feeding me false information then the choices I make aren't truly my own.
@finlaygilfillan7963 You're going to want to talk to a neurologist about getting a mod for your brain, then, because it too "fudges" things ALL the time.
I personally don’t care if my DM fudges dice rolls. I choose to believe all the announced results as real chance. I know when I’m having fun or not
"the girl we thinks likes about us" at 10:36 fried my brain a little 😂 it took me a few seconds to recover and I had to go back to check if I heard it right. Irl Stunning Strike 😂
Anyway, great video, as always :3