I'm against preparing saving throw spells

[NaughtyTiger]

Well, she shouldn't be determining the purpose and motivation for the characters. That's on the players of those characters.

fine, you win. the DM is not a storyteller.

[KorvinStarmast]

You absolutely get to, after all it's a game, it has rules.

And the DM is master of Rules, DMG p. 5.

That's ridiculous

No, it's a different play style than you prefer.

okay, see this is getting silly. I am saying "a DM fudging an occasional die roll."
You are responding with "might as well write a book then"

Nice summary.

If I understand zinycor's position, the objection to fudging is that the DM is dictating the results as opposed to the game play doing it. It is not the DM's story; it's everyone's story. The DM sets up the encounter but game play should determine what happens, not DM whim of changing a die roll to whatever the DM feels like for whatever reason.

Well said. The fudge (to serve both the game and the story) should be a rare exception in my experience, if it is ever used. As a standard practice, roll the dice and see what happens as DM. The dice can be fickle, but they are mostly fair.

Absolutely mistaken on that account. The game has rules.

And the DM as Master of Rules. Reading the DMG might be useful at this point. See also page 6 of the PHB.

Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

Well, she shouldn't be determining the purpose and motivation for the characters. That's on the players of those characters.

In general, I tend to agree since the DM has to keep track of the motivations and purposes of all NPC's and monsters. The other players, who are the PCs, really need to step up and work on the motivations and purposes of the PCs. Seems fair.

[Waazraath]

If your players hate the idea of their characters dying so much, Why doesn't your table make a rule where PCs don't die unless the player gives his approval? PCs could always get captured, taken prisoner, or whatever.

I don't have fun while watching a beautiful sunset, or watching a gruesome documentary, or reading book about programming. But I get enjoyment out of those things. As long as they get enjoyment out of the session, everything is all right.

Didn't call you a cheater, and and I am sorry if I offended you. But cheating IS betraying the players trust, no matter how hard you think that word is.

A few options:
-let the dice fall where they may and see where that leads.
-Ask your players if they are okay with how things are going, and make a house rule if needed.u

The legendary saves are a part of the rules, therefore, not cheating.

And regardless of the amount of thought they may or not have given the matter, we are now talking about it, and as far as I know, that line isn't present at the 5e DMG.

...

Having said that, am trying to have a civil conversation, If I have offended you, am sorry, it may be due to English being my second language.

No worries about the latter remark, can relate (English being my second language also). The thing is, as for the bolded part (for emphasis), no: it's not cheating, and it's not betraying anything. I hope my own DM's act in the same way. I wouldn't mind playing in a game where 'no roll fudged by DM, ever', but tbh, I hope my DM's are capable and willing to employ the instrument, when needed.

'Fun' is in my point the same as 'enjoyment' - if you prefer the term, just read that word instead of 'fun'.

Your suggestions miss their mark, because you're not responding to my points. You say "If your players hate the idea of their characters dying so much", but I never said that. My point is that players (in general) hate to have their characters die in an unmeaningful way due to arbitrary bad luck of the dice. Just as that players like to have their boss fight to be a climax and not ending after the first player's turn.

Same for your arguments on 'let the dice fall and see where they lead' (yes, I do, almost always, but sometimes they simply lead to less enjoyment for everybody) and 'ask your players how things are going' (yes, I always do, session 0 and all that - but as I said in my earlier post, on this specific point this isn't the solution).

You didn't bother to reply to my main point, one that has been made now by several other posters. A DM always deceides the outcome of each and every combat. By picking the challenge, by using smart or less smart tactics, by calling in reinforcements (or not), by adjusting hp, attack modifiers or save modifiers, etc. Fudging a dice is simply one of these things. It is arbitrary to make a big thing out of it (cheating!!!) while there are plenty of other ways a DM does just the same.

As NaughtyTiger already said, also in 5e the PHB states the DM has the power to change rules when needed. So, once again, their is not cheating. Not in 5e. And following from the argument before that, the argument that a DM even could cheat doesn't hold.

To approach this from the other angle: in the way you interpret the game, a DM is entitled to make a completely wrong assuption on what the party can handle, and send them into a certain death tpk - but at the same time, when realizing this during the combat, but wouldn't be allowed (cheating!!) to fix it by turning a few hits into misses, failing a save that would have been made, reduce some hp, or have the superior foe have "tactical retreat" (wink wink). In my book, that's a bit silly, and contrary to the goals of the game, and the job of the DM.

..., there are so many ways as a DM you can change the encounter. More monsters show up, or even the intelligence of the monsters. I rarely play monsters where they all bunch up on a single PC, beat it to death and go to the next. This from a gaming perspective would be the most optimal, but as a player I also think this is the least fun.

I often change the monster HP during the encounter, that 70 hp.. thats now 100. Why? I'm much better at sensing dramatic tension than at encounter design. If I would have been better I would have written down 100 before the encounter started. Because I want to archieve a certain something with the encounter. Does the order change a lot.. my players have never told me things were not fair, they have told me fights were really exciting.
I must say I also change things the other way around. Round 1 I crit and would KO an PC immediatly, maybe the attack deals 3 less damage. Next round if you are still there you are free game. But when I'm a player I don't think its fun to go down before you can do a thing. So I don't often do that to my players.

...

As I DM myself, I admit that I might fudge a dice roll on the second go, when they are fighting a boss battle. So there is certainly some effect, but not encounter winning in itself. If it isn't a final boss I might throw another encounter instead. But man, I don't have an endless supply of encounters ready. DM'ing is hard enough as it is.

So much this. Especially the last part. Yes, it's more elegant to avoid TPK by having everbody taken prisonor or having the cavelary arrive. But that isn't always an option (an Owlbear doesn't take prisoners), nor can I always improvise it in the heat of battle. Sometimes a fudged dice is the best option.

If you are constantly needing to control the dice to keep the game good then it probably means the campaign you are running is a mismatch for the current players.

True, of course - but note that the whole discussion here is more about fudging a dice every 3 sessions.

The DM changes/creates lots of things throughout the story: NPCs reactions, rulings, narratives, additional heroes/villains, etc. The players can't find a solution to the puzzle, the DM simplifies the puzzle or adds a backdoor.
But we are getting hung up on a die roll because it is the one change that isn't abstract.

This.

Well, she shouldn't be determining the purpose and motivation for the characters. That's on the players of those characters.

Of course. But how is this relevant in any way to the discussion here, or has this anything to do with the fact that the DM is the storyteller - next to the arbiter, and the one who plays the NPC's, and has a whole lot of other roles?

[Aaedimus]

True, of course - but note that the whole discussion here is more about fudging a dice every 3 sessions.

Actually it was less about fudging the dice every three sessions rather than: Fudging the dice every time something happens that contradicts your plans for the story.

It's the same for illusions. Illusionist Wizard is a VERY DM dependent class, because some DMs say give auto checks and successes for simple things, while other DMs are willing to play along and see what happens. It should be a ballance, AND you should WANT the players to succeed, because succeeding is fun!

As a DM, I think the former (and quite a bit of dice roll flubbing) is laziness rather than working to improve the experience. Additionally the biggest issue for me is that it discourages origionality and inventiveness

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

I accidentally hijacked the thread, which is bad, because it took away from Mork's post. This post is worth a second read.

[Corran]

fine, you win. the DM is not a storyteller.

This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

[NaughtyTiger]

This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

Some people can read my posts to figureoutwhat my definition of story teller is... Some people cant

[Aaedimus]

The way I see it, the DM IS the story-teller but does not specifically choose the direction of the story. It's not a pre-designed story (or you'd jsut read a book), you're creating the story collaboratively and the DM is the central voice for that story.

[JNAProductions]

Some people can read my posts to figureoutwhat my definition of story teller is... Some people cant

If you're using a set of common words, but require someone to parse them differently than the commonly understood definition, perhaps you're using the words wrong?

Or, if not wrong, in a less than perfectly clear fashion.

[DrLoveMonkey]

There's different circumstances to fudging die rolls that can make it more or less bad, but they're almost always the result of the DM not properly planning for things.

For example your party of third level adventurers are attending the grand opening of a noble's new museum. A novel idea, a place where art or magical curiosities can be put on display and people pay a fee to come and learn about them. Unfortunately, one of the magical curiosities is far more than it appears. It's a simple thing, a glimmering glass orb, but unbeknownst to all present it's actually a key to tearing the world apart and turning all life into twisted undead versions of their old selves. So during this event a powerful and evil mage teleports into the grand hall of this museum with the intent to snatch up the orb and make a quick escape. Then the focus of the campaign is working your way up his minions, forging alliances and hunting down this insane wizard before the ritual can be complete.

As soon as he teleports in the guards try to take him down, but a quick Shield spell deflects their attacks! Then one of the players casts hold person on him and he fails the save...and he doesn't recover for three rounds by which time everyone has beaten him to death. Then the players smash the orb on the ground, destroying with it all possibility of the global catastrophy and the campaign is over twenty minutes into the first session, everyone can start thinking up characters for the next campaign.

At that point, I don't think it's unreasonable for the DM to fudge the hold person roll. Of course an experienced DM should never have let it come to that point where a single spell ends the campaign in the first scene, but if you're not experienced enough to account for that, then that's really the only option.


Otherwise if you're just fudging the numbers because you want this hill giant to smash more stuff before he dies then that's garbage and you're totally killing the wizard's fun. Besides, you're the DM, you don't need to fudge rolls, just attack with like 4 fire giants instead of 1, or attack with two waves of 2, that way the wizard can totally shut down one wave like the master of arcane he is, and still not always save every building every time.

[False God]

Sounds like your DM experiences suck.

Fair is fair. You roll for saves when monsters shoot magic at you. I roll for saves when you shoot magic at my monsters. IME, playing monsters tactically is far more fun, and far more deadly than simply saying "oh yeah they pass!". Generally I'm far more inclined to favor the players in any situation, since I find games to be far more exciting when the PCs have to struggle...but ultimately succeed. I don't want to beat them, I don't want them to beat me. I don't see us as on separate teams. We're all on the same team here, but I want them to work for it.

[Rynjin]

There's different circumstances to fudging die rolls that can make it more or less bad, but they're almost always the result of the DM not properly planning for things.

For example your party of third level adventurers are attending the grand opening of a noble's new museum. A novel idea, a place where art or magical curiosities can be put on display and people pay a fee to come and learn about them. Unfortunately, one of the magical curiosities is far more than it appears. It's a simple thing, a glimmering glass orb, but unbeknownst to all present it's actually a key to tearing the world apart and turning all life into twisted undead versions of their old selves. So during this event a powerful and evil mage teleports into the grand hall of this museum with the intent to snatch up the orb and make a quick escape. Then the focus of the campaign is working your way up his minions, forging alliances and hunting down this insane wizard before the ritual can be complete.

As soon as he teleports in the guards try to take him down, but a quick Shield spell deflects their attacks! Then one of the players casts hold person on him and he fails the save...and he doesn't recover for three rounds by which time everyone has beaten him to death. Then the players smash the orb on the ground, destroying with it all possibility of the global catastrophy and the campaign is over twenty minutes into the first session, everyone can start thinking up characters for the next campaign.

At that point, I don't think it's unreasonable for the DM to fudge the hold person roll. Of course an experienced DM should never have let it come to that point where a single spell ends the campaign in the first scene, but if you're not experienced enough to account for that, then that's really the only option.

It's not the only option at all. Take your lumps and move on. A valuable lesson you need to learn as a GM is how to react to things on the fly. Or do you prepare speeches for every random NPC the players might strike up a conversation with?

If your plot is derailed, there's plenty of stuff you can do to re-rail it without making the players feel like nothing they do matters.

Option A.) Don't let the object be smashed, for one. That sounds like Artifact level magic, and Artifacts have VERY specific destruction requirements. "Just hit it with a hammer" isn't going to cut it. perhaps then urn the adventure into a quest to figure out how to destroy this thing, because knowledge of its existence is now public and every Necromancer, Chaos cultist, and omnicidal maniac in the land is going to be gunning for this thing.

Number 2: Make it clear that this wizard was a high level minion of some greater force. After all, why would the guy have come to steal this thing in person?

Number C.) Say "good job everybody, you stopped the bad guy" and come up with a new plot. You can even re-use a lot of the encounters from the previous plot idea.

These are three viable options I can think of in under 5 minutes that don't require you to **** with your players.

[DrLoveMonkey]

It's not the only option at all. Take your lumps and move on. A valuable lesson you need to learn as a GM is how to react to things on the fly. Or do you prepare speeches for every random NPC the players might strike up a conversation with?

If your plot is derailed, there's plenty of stuff you can do to re-rail it without making the players feel like nothing they do matters.

Option A.) Don't let the object be smashed, for one. That sounds like Artifact level magic, and Artifacts have VERY specific destruction requirements. "Just hit it with a hammer" isn't going to cut it. perhaps then urn the adventure into a quest to figure out how to destroy this thing, because knowledge of its existence is now public and every Necromancer, Chaos cultist, and omnicidal maniac in the land is going to be gunning for this thing.

Number 2: Make it clear that this wizard was a high level minion of some greater force. After all, why would the guy have come to steal this thing in person?

Number C.) Say "good job everybody, you stopped the bad guy" and come up with a new plot. You can even re-use a lot of the encounters from the previous plot idea.

These are three viable options I can think of in under 5 minutes that don't require you to **** with your players.

For options A and 2 though you’re now changing things that you didn’t previously set up to make your players not win when they actually did. It’s like if your players kill a lich before you wanted them to and now there’s suddenly two liches. They get their hands on the orb, which previously was easily smashed and maybe that was even going to be part of the plot later, that the wizard took absurd precautions to keep it safe, and now suddenly it’s invulnerable.

At that point you might as well just say “oh crap, well really this kind of foe should have legendary resistance.” and he passes anyway. Option C is okay, but it’s also a kind of a waste of an evening and possibly a lot of planning. Not that you can’t expect the PCs to trash through your setting, but now you’re welding broken character relations and possible plots around. If you’re running a shoot and loot megadungeon campaign you just keep going but if it’s really story heavy you’re going to need some time off.

The real solution is just to not have the int 22 level 20 wizard lord just walk in to get a thing totally alone and by himself while the room is full of adventurers. At the very least send your simulacrum and a boatload of minions. Also give your CR 24 boss monsters LR. It’s not like your players win because you couldn’t bring enough stuff to beat them, if you want a cabal of 5 ancient liches divine that the PCs will eventually grow powerful enough to challenge them so they come and Meteor Swarm them when they’re level 5, and that’s not cheating in any way.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you're using a set of common words, but require someone to parse them differently than the commonly understood definition, perhaps you're using the words wrong?

Or, if not wrong, in a less than perfectly clear fashion.

Not sure what you meant there, but given that the phb calls the DM the "game's lead storyteller and referee", i am comfortable with that as the commonly understood definition....

[False God]

Not sure what you meant there, but given that the phb calls the DM the "game's lead storyteller and referee", i am comfortable with that as the commonly understood definition....

Technically the book is using that line to define the roles of the DM. It's not defining what a storyteller is. Which was what JNAProductions' question was to you: "how are you defining a storyteller?" Because in JNAProductions' view a storyteller is someone who reads a pre-set text to people, with no input from the listeners.

Also, that's not a terribly good definition of a DM either (which is a long standing issue with a number of D&D's RP elements) since as JNAProductions' question rightly asks: "What does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?" The cited definition does potentially imply that the game is a cooperative storytelling experience since 'lead storyteller' implies that there are co- or subordinate storytellers. But it still leaves it unclear exactly the degree to which the DM 'leads'. The answer here is vague because D&D is designed to enable multiple levels of story-leadership from 99% to 1%. And there are certainly adventures that rely heavier on lower or higher DM leadership than others.

Anyway. The question wasn't "What is the role of the DM?" The question was "What is a storyteller?"

[Rynjin]

For options A and 2 though you’re now changing things that you didn’t previously set up to make your players not win when they actually did. It’s like if your players kill a lich before you wanted them to and now there’s suddenly two liches. They get their hands on the orb, which previously was easily smashed and maybe that was even going to be part of the plot later, that the wizard took absurd precautions to keep it safe, and now suddenly it’s invulnerable.

It's not really the same thing, since you let the players achieve a victory they earned (and will likely be awarded for, with both XP and treasure, in terms of Wizard-body-loot and gratitude from the ruling body of Whereveristan) and then also let the campaign continue. it's also weird that the orb would be easily smashed in the first place. if it's dangerous, evil, and easily destroyed, why is it being kept around instead of having been smashed forever ago?

It's the difference between saying "No you can't do that" and saying "Yes, and/but" in improv terms.

The real solution is just to not have the int 22 level 20 wizard lord just walk in to get a thing totally alone and by himself while the room is full of adventurers.

Yes, obviously, though this was covered by the initial post I quoted already.

[Waazraath]

This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

Seriously? For me, this is not a definition of 'storyteller' but of extreme railroading and a textbook example of bad DM'ing. Which isn't related to fudging the occasional dice, because a DM like this, if he does't fudges a dice, has an endless amount of other tools to enforce a party stays on the railroad. And I think it was quite obvious from the discussion that this isn't the 'storyteller' NaughtyTiger is talking about...

Yeah, fudging the occastional dice with a bad DM sucks. But that's because bad DM'ing sucks.

[Aaedimus]

The team kills the BBG and his body crumbles into a shower of ice and snow. You see an identical copy step from behind the orb, grab it and disappear... laughing.


Less cheap than fudging the roll in that situation and adds to the fun rather than taking away

[DrLoveMonkey]

It's not really the same thing, since you let the players achieve a victory they earned (and will likely be awarded for, with both XP and treasure, in terms of Wizard-body-loot and gratitude from the ruling body of Whereveristan) and then also let the campaign continue. it's also weird that the orb would be easily smashed in the first place. if it's dangerous, evil, and easily destroyed, why is it being kept around instead of having been smashed forever ago?
.

Well the premise of that setup was that nobody actually knew how important it was until it was stolen, leading to one of those “holy crap we’ve been sitting next to a niclear bomb all this time.” moments.

I do think that’s probably a better solution, but I also don’t think that just fudging the roll there is a great evil either, especially since it should happen so rarely. Usually only a few times for a single DM before he realizes what’s going on. For instance one of my soft rules is if a villain absolutely must succeed, then whatever they’re trying to do will happen when the PCs are a continent away, just because I assume if my PCs are anywhere near the situation they’ll prevent it.

If you’re a DM who’s fudging rolls just because your players are winning too much then you’re either grossly underestimating them every in game day, or just a ****. I just don’t think that the two situations should be talked about in the same way. The best way to incorporate PC backstories is to deftly weave them together in ways that make sense, so that each of their lives brings them the moment the game starts, and then fall into eachother, so that they’re all driven towards the same ends as the game progresses, advancing their character development and supporting each of their roles in the team. Saying “The game starts on this pier in Waterdeep, I don’t care how you justify it but your characters are all there at the beginning.” is...not as good as that, but it’s not awful either, especially if you’re a new DM, or just not that good at the story stuff, not every DM is the best at all aspects of the game.

[Sigreid]

fine, you win. the DM is not a storyteller.

I think I may just be projecting on your argument some experiences I've had in the past where the DM really only wanted to be a story teller and their players were little more than an audience for their "genius". Those experiences have left a bad taste in my mouth for situations where it even sounds like the DM is so intent on the story line they created that no matter how good the plan or how lucky the rolls the course of the campaign will not change. I'm also admittedly very much a sandbox DM. Most of the time the only planning I do happens after the players have decided on a course of action or goal and I start building around that a little in advance of where they seem to want to go. Never very far because they can change direction at any time.

Sorry if I came off excessively hostile.

[Corran]

I think I may just be projecting on your argument some experiences I've had in the past where the DM really only wanted to be a story teller and their players were little more than an audience for their "genius". Those experiences have left a bad taste in my mouth for situations where it even sounds like the DM is so intent on the story line they created that no matter how good the plan or how lucky the rolls the course of the campaign will not change. I'm also admittedly very much a sandbox DM. Most of the time the only planning I do happens after the players have decided on a course of action or goal and I start building around that a little in advance of where they seem to want to go. Never very far because they can change direction at any time.

Sorry if I came off excessively hostile.

That's a very nice way of putting it. It's relaxing when someone else finds the right way to say what you mean, so thanks.

[Cybren]

Alternatively, you could just talk to the players at your table like an adult when you screw something up. And, when they say "yeah, we're OK with fixing it this way," you do that thing. Nowadays I'm more careful with my plot designs so this doesn't happen, but we were all beginners once. I think it's much better when you admit your mistake to your table and figure out how best to move forward.

I think 90% of D&D horror stories could be solved by that simple rule: talk to your table, particularly when you made a mistake, whether player or DM.

the best way to move forward is to not be so precious with your NPCs that you can't handle their death in a game where the PCs are designed to generate death like a grim reaper factory

[NaughtyTiger]

Technically the book is using that line to define the roles of the DM. It's not defining what a storyteller is. Which was what JNAProductions' question was to you: "how are you defining a storyteller?" Because in JNAProductions' view a storyteller is someone who reads a pre-set text to people, with no input from the listeners.

Also, that's not a terribly good definition of a DM either (which is a long standing issue with a number of D&D's RP elements) since as JNAProductions' question rightly asks: "What does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?" The cited definition does potentially imply that the game is a cooperative storytelling experience since 'lead storyteller' implies that there are co- or subordinate storytellers. But it still leaves it unclear exactly the degree to which the DM 'leads'. The answer here is vague because D&D is designed to enable multiple levels of story-leadership from 99% to 1%. And there are certainly adventures that rely heavier on lower or higher DM leadership than others.

Anyway. The question wasn't "What is the role of the DM?" The question was "What is a storyteller?"

Okay, i think you are confusing JNA and Corran...

Spoiler: Here is Corran's quote:

Show

This perception always bothered me. Maybe it is that you mean it in a completely different way, but the implication for me is that if there is a storyteller then the story is predetermined and is just being narrated to the players. Which for sure, is a way to play dnd, but I don't think I could find a more boring way to play the game. I prefer to see it like that: the DM sets the stage, and then everyone starts acting.

Corran did not ask "how are you defining a storyteller"
Corran did not ask "what does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?"
in fact, despite the question mark, Corran did not ask a question.

Spoiler: Here is JNA's quote:

Show

If you're using a set of common words, but require someone to parse them differently than the commonly understood definition, perhaps you're using the words wrong?
Or, if not wrong, in a less than perfectly clear fashion.

JNA did not ask "how are you defining a storyteller"
JNA did not ask "what does it mean to be a 'storyteller'?"
in fact, despite the question mark, JNA did not ask a question.


So you are asking me how i define a storyteller... i will go with:
a person who describes a world, its inhabitants, and its events relative to one or more plot points.

if you can't figure that out, then you haven't read my posts. be respectful and actually read my posts in the thread before calling me out.

[Segev]

In the orb of destruction plot line proposed above, the solution I would use if I wanted a set piece that the PCs could do nothing about would be to wait for the PCs to be gone. If I wasn't metagaming, I'd actually have the wizard time his arrival for after the party, or create a massive distraction (like having bandits attack the party or something) to distract everyone while he teleports in, invisibly, to quietly snatch up the orb and vanish.

[Dalebert]

I don't use DM screens and I always roll in the open. It absolves me of responsibility if I get a string of crits and end up dropping people.

[zinycor]

I'll Say this: Fudging is Cheating since it breaks the fundamental mechanics and understanding present at the game and betrays the trust of the players by lying to them.

Now, some have said along the lines of: "The GM is the master of rules, therefore, he can't cheat." The problem is that Rules are public, and can be modified, discussed, changed and be played with or around. Fudging isn't a rule cause it is made in secret, only posible because the players don't see the result of your roll. Now, if you had a public rule, that ststed the GM right to Fudge his rolls, then fudging wouldn't be cheating, but I don't think this is the case for most tables, and as far as I have seen, nobody has stated that they do so.

Another argument in favor of fudging goes along the lines of "Sometimes as a GM you balance things wrongly and fudging is needed". I don't think it is, you could always stop the game, talk to the players, and nerf the enemies appropiattely so they now are a become an appropiatte challenge for the party. Now, some groups of players will say:"Don't, let us try to defeat this challenge as it is" in that case, at least now they know the encounter challenging, and they wouldn't have wanted the Fudging anyway.

Another argument in favor of fudging goes along the lines of "The GM changes things all the time, creating deus Ex Machinas to save the party, giving NPCs a bunch of hp out of nowhere, having them act out of character, etc." To these I say, these are also cheating. Now, situations do come up where these things may be needed, if that's the case, then tell your players that you are about to do these things, explain your problem to them. Be honest and open with your players and do better next time, don't hide behind your GM screen.

Regarding story reasons for fudging; The whole reason for tabletop storytelling is that you and the players are telling a story with the rules you have agreed on as the motor for things to happen. If you fudge, or cheat in any other way, in the name of the story, you are ignoring the players input, and whatever rules you agreed on. You would have been better wirting a book. A good story on TRPGs is a story that the whole table created, where even the GM is surprised, creator and watcher.

Now, This has been a wonderful conversation, and thanks to you all, I now have whle bunch of things that I now consider unnaceptable .

[stoutstien]

I think what bugs me about 'fixing' dice results is that is backdoor way of controlling player actions and choices without the players knowledge. There is no difference between telling a player they can't do X because you weren't prepared for it than allowing them to attempt X and move the goal out of reach if the succeed. Besides I think the second option is worse because they wasted resources.

If you were taken an exam to bypass some busy work and after you turned it in the professor changed the questions so you got them wrong and suddenly declared that you failed I doubt it would go over well.

[zinycor]

I think what bugs me about 'fixing' dice results is that is backdoor way of controlling player actions and choices without the players knowledge. There is no difference between telling a player they can't do X because you weren't prepared for it than allowing them to attempt X and move the goal out of reach if the succeed. Besides I think the second option is worse because they wasted resources.

If you were taken an exam to bypass some busy work and after you turned it in the professor changed the questions so you got them wrong and suddenly declared that you failed I doubt it would go over well.

Very well said.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think what bugs me about 'fixing' dice results is that is backdoor way of controlling player actions and choices without the players knowledge. There is no difference between telling a player they can't do X because you weren't prepared for it than allowing them to attempt X and move the goal out of reach if the succeed. Besides I think the second option is worse because they wasted resources..

Whereas, I do see you point, there is a difference...
Telling a player "you can't do X" explicitly makes the player aware he is prevented. Moving the goal posts without the player knowledge means the player may not be aware he is prevented.

is there ever a reason to do it? yes, if it helps the story (already discussed and fought over), and another that comes up in AL, if it helps fun.

(Note: poster is AL, so this is relevant to him... )
In AL, DMs have constraints: time, modifications to the encounter (number and type of creature), table size
Often you have 6-7 players at a table. There are 2-3 combats per 4-hour setting. Setup for combat can take a while, each round of combat can take up to 30 minutes. So DM yells, roll initiative... you realize you rolled a 4... you are going last. so 5minutes of setup, 20 minutes of combat (in which you do nothing)... and the monsters are all dead... you didn't get to go. if combat is over before you get to play during a whole session, that decreases fun.

heck, you might even finish the module early... you planned 4-hours of DnD, but wrapped up at 2.5.... getting jipped by 90 minutes sucks.

if I add 50hp to extend the fight for at least 1 full round, everyone gets to roll the dice in the 4-hour block.

[zinycor]

Whereas, I do see you point, there is a difference...
Telling a player "you can't do X" explicitly makes the player aware he is prevented. Moving the goal posts without the player knowledge means the player may not be aware he is prevented.

is there ever a reason to do it? yes, if it helps the story (already discussed and fought over), and another that comes up in AL, if it helps fun.

(Note: poster is AL, so this is relevant to him... )
In AL, DMs have constraints: time, modifications to the encounter (number and type of creature), table size
Often you have 6-7 players at a table. There are 2-3 combats per 4-hour setting. Setup for combat can take a while, each round of combat can take up to 30 minutes. So DM yells, roll initiative... you realize you rolled a 4... you are going last. so 5minutes of setup, 20 minutes of combat (in which you do nothing)... and the monsters are all dead... you didn't get to go. if combat is over before you get to play during a whole session, that decreases fun.

heck, you might even finish the module early... you planned 4-hours of DnD, but wrapped up at 2.5.... getting jipped by 90 minutes sucks.

if I add 50hp to extend the fight for at least 1 full round, everyone gets to roll the dice in the 4-hour block.

Never had a situation where short sessions would be a problem