What happens when you think everything is a level-appropriate encounter

[Mr Beer]

The best motto is always: "Let the dice fall as they will."

Always? LOL hell no. For example, if I screw up a minor combat encounter and look like I'm going to get a TPK because I didn't judge it properly, no way are the dice falling as they will.

Seems like one of those mottos that is group and game and setting dependant rather than a universal Law of RPGs.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Fudging dice rolls is universally bad.

If you don't want to kill people by accidentally misjudging a combat encounter there's other options. Like taking the PCs captive, or another group attacking and distracting the first one, or just relying on the PCs to have the good judgement to flee when they're outmatched.

[thirdkingdom]

Fudging dice rolls is universally bad.

If you don't want to kill people by accidentally misjudging a combat encounter there's other options. Like taking the PCs captive, or another group attacking and distracting the first one, or just relying on the PCs to have the good judgement to flee when they're outmatched.

I agree. I think the Fellowship of the Bling is a good example of how to handle character death and overwhelming odds, btw.

[Erys]

Right. And what happened before then? Generally by that point you've made a lot of decisions, and had lots of opportunities/ways to minimize danger.

Again, in those situations, the players have had plenty of choices to make before the die roll. The lethal die roll is the culmination of a series of decisions - not the first thing that happens before any decisions are made.

Usually all that happened was a combat encounter started.

In the former example the very first attack against a first level PC could kill him.

In the latter, say you are fighting a beholder, have a fair chunk of HP and fail the save against the ray... really, what choice could you have made to mitigate that? Run away before the fight? Seriously, would love to hear all these choices you think are present.

The fact is, sometimes the dice work against you. Sometimes you roll several crits in a row. Such is the nature of games involving chance.

[kyoryu]

Usually all that happened was a combat encounter started.

And what happened before that? Did the PCs just nonchalantly charge into whatever lair or situation? Or did they scout the area, try to do recon, etc?

Are the fighters doing their bit to target the ranged attackers? Is the wizard using terrain and range to do their best to stay out of danger?

If you as a GM are just saying "oh, combat starts now. The archers are firing before you do anything. Yup, you died. Make a new character." Then, um, that may be fun for some folks but I'll pass. And for the love of all that's holy do NOT strawman that into me saying that PC death shouldn't happen because I did NOT say that, will NOT say that, and have NEVER said that.

[Fiery Diamond]

Fudging dice rolls is universally bad.

I disagree with you. Your assertion is about something which has subjective components. Therefore, your assertion isn't a factual one, just your opinion.

[Erys]

And what happened before that? Did the PCs just nonchalantly charge into whatever lair or situation? Or did they scout the area, try to do recon, etc?

Are the fighters doing their bit to target the ranged attackers? Is the wizard using terrain and range to do their best to stay out of danger?

If you as a GM are just saying "oh, combat starts now. The archers are firing before you do anything. Yup, you died. Make a new character." Then, um, that may be fun for some folks but I'll pass. And for the love of all that's holy do NOT strawman that into me saying that PC death shouldn't happen because I did NOT say that, will NOT say that, and have NEVER said that.

Even if the archers don't go before you, even if you recon and know the layout first, sometimes when the archers get their turn - they kill you.

What about using assassins? Their whole schtick is to get a sneak attack off and do a boat ton of damage, if played smart they will target someone squishy like the wizard... is using one suddenly the mark of a bad dm?

I don't think so.

BUT, I will concede one point, and maybe this is more in line with what you are saying (that I perhaps did not fully understand prior) there is a difference between bad dice rolls on the players part and a dm who is out to get the players. A friend of mine, long, long ago, had a killer dm who once killed the entire party with one goblin. He was in a tree some 50 feet up and armed with a ballista. He got the surprise, had the range, and decimated the group.

I didn't think that sounded fun then, and still don't think it sounds fun now.

I guess, ultimately, there is no right or wrong way to do things. If the dm and group are happy with the run/play style and are having fun, don't let anyone tell you that you are doing it wrong.

[prufock]

Fudging dice rolls is universally bad.

Friend Computer would like to remind you that knowledge of the rules is forbidden. Friend Computer would like to remind you of that. Unfortunately, you've already been vaporized for suggesting that Friend Computer is cheating. Welcome to Alpha Complex. Have a nice daycycle, citizen!

[Elderand]

I'm of the opinion that if you feel the need to fudge the roll, you either failed somewhere mechanicly and misjudged something; in which case it's okay to fudge. Or you shouldn't have rolled in the first place. If you only accept one outcome, don't bother to roll.

[Mr Beer]

Fudging dice rolls is universally bad.

If you don't want to kill people by accidentally misjudging a combat encounter there's other options. Like taking the PCs captive, or another group attacking and distracting the first one, or just relying on the PCs to have the good judgement to flee when they're outmatched.

Using GM fiat to alter reality is fudging, whether you change the results of a dice roll or have the cavalry come flying over the top of the hill.

"Universally bad" sounds a lot like "badwrongfun" to me.

[Erys]

I'm of the opinion that if you feel the need to fudge the roll, you either failed somewhere mechanicly and misjudged something; in which case it's okay to fudge. Or you shouldn't have rolled in the first place. If you only accept one outcome, don't bother to roll.

This confuses me.

So, in the case of the 1st lvl character who gets killed by an unlucky crit... should the dm not have rolled in the first place? How does that even work?

Your 'one outcome' is dependent on the die roll, you either accept it or fudge it.

While I have done the latter, the more I game the more I realize doing so can cheapen the game. Triumph is much more satisfying when you know that you did it on your own and not because the dm gave it to you.

[Yukitsu]

I'm sure some players think that's a given, but I don't know of a single GM, ever, who thinks that characters should die from a bad roll with no choices by the players whatsoever.

And if there *is* one, I'm fairly sure we can all agree that they're just a bad GM

He is just a bad GM.

[Elderand]

This confuses me.

So, in the case of the 1st lvl character who gets killed by an unlucky crit... should the dm not have rolled in the first place? How does that even work?

Your 'one outcome' is dependent on the die roll, you either accept it or fudge it.

While I have done the latter, the more I game the more I realize doing so can cheapen the game. Triumph is much more satisfying when you know that you did it on your own and not because the dm gave it to you.

There are things other than combat, if a character get killed by a crit so be it. that's just part of the risk. But if you fudge the tracking roll result because your player have to be able to get to the bandit hideout somehow, then you shouldn't have rolled at all.

[Erys]

There are things other than combat, if a character get killed by a crit so be it. that's just part of the risk. But if you fudge the tracking roll result because your player have to be able to get to the bandit hideout somehow, then you shouldn't have rolled at all.

I agree.

If for some reason the PC's have to make a roll to continue the adventure then there is no point rolling. However, if they are looking for the bandit hideout and not finding it isn't the end of the game, let the dice fall where the will.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I disagree with you. Your assertion is about something which has subjective components. Therefore, your assertion isn't a factual one, just your opinion.

And the only thing we can know with certainty is that we ourselves exist. You could be the only person that exists imagining you're playing a game you invented called D&D with other people that you also invented. Dice fudging is still bad.

Friend Computer would like to remind you that knowledge of the rules is forbidden. Friend Computer would like to remind you of that. Unfortunately, you've already been vaporized for suggesting that Friend Computer is cheating. Welcome to Alpha Complex. Have a nice daycycle, citizen!

Yes, anyone who fudges dice rolls is GMing like they're playing Paranoia. Don't GM like Paranoia if you're not actually playing Paranoia, as much fun as Paranoia is!

Using GM fiat to alter reality is fudging, whether you change the results of a dice roll or have the cavalry come flying over the top of the hill.

"Universally bad" sounds a lot like "badwrongfun" to me.

Inventing reality is literally the GM's job. Breaking the rules of the game is not the GM's job. I'm not saying it's a great thing to be doing, but it's better than cheating.

If you fudge dice rolls you're cheapening the entire experience and will damage the game for everyone involved.

I agree.

If for some reason the PC's have to make a roll to continue the adventure then there is no point rolling. However, if they are looking for the bandit hideout and not finding it isn't the end of the game, let the dice fall where the will.

The other option is make the roll, and when failure would stall out the game instead give them success with a complication. You find the bandit hideout, but you get ambushed on the way there, etc.

[kyoryu]

BUT, I will concede one point, and maybe this is more in line with what you are saying (that I perhaps did not fully understand prior) there is a difference between bad dice rolls on the players part and a dm who is out to get the players. A friend of mine, long, long ago, had a killer dm who once killed the entire party with one goblin. He was in a tree some 50 feet up and armed with a ballista. He got the surprise, had the range, and decimated the group.

I didn't think that sounded fun then, and still don't think it sounds fun now.

This is basically my point.

To put it a different way a core loop of RPGs is:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation. What do you do?"

The following, I think, is acceptable.

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "That went really poorly. You are dead."

The following, I think, is not really acceptable.

GM: "This is the situation. Things happen. You die."
Player: "Um.... so I couldn't do anything?"
GM: "Nope. You are dead."

We can quibble about details and specifics all day, but if you're doing the first, I think that's perfectly fine (though some might prefer more or less lethality, which is also their preference).

The second one is the one where I think there's a problem. However, even that sometimes will be a matter of the situation being a result of previous decisions...

[Hawkstar]

Usually all that happened was a combat encounter started.

Play lethal games, win lethal prizes.

[hifidelity2]

I'm of the opinion that if you feel the need to fudge the roll, you either failed somewhere mechanicly and misjudged something; in which case it's okay to fudge. Or you shouldn't have rolled in the first place. If you only accept one outcome, don't bother to roll.

I agree

We tend to play more lethal systems (GURPS, RuneQuest) etc – there one hit can kill – very unlikely at all bust the very lowest level in D&D
Personally I am not into killing PCs needlessly

If its a combat and they have IMO taken reasonable precautions (i.e. have not charged the Red Dragon, 1001 elite troops etc in which case its all gloves off ) then I will fudge rolls – that critical hit followed by Max damage to the head might become a critical hit, min damage to the head (so knocked unconscious rather than die), or damage to the hand (lose the hand)

If it’s (for example) a Listen roll to over hear the BBEG’s plans at a party and they fail then they fail – if I really wanted them to overhead the BBEG’s plan then I would have just told them they are near the BBEG at the party and you overhear him discussing his plans

[prufock]

To put it a different way a core loop of RPGs is:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation. What do you do?"

The following, I think, is acceptable.

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "That went really poorly. You are dead."

The following, I think, is not really acceptable.

GM: "This is the situation. Things happen. You die."
Player: "Um.... so I couldn't do anything?"
GM: "Nope. You are dead."

Succinct and agreed.

[goatmeal]

This is basically my point.

To put it a different way a core loop of RPGs is:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation. What do you do?"

The following, I think, is acceptable.

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "That went really poorly. You are dead."

The following, I think, is not really acceptable.

GM: "This is the situation. Things happen. You die."
Player: "Um.... so I couldn't do anything?"
GM: "Nope. You are dead."

We can quibble about details and specifics all day, but if you're doing the first, I think that's perfectly fine (though some might prefer more or less lethality, which is also their preference).

The second one is the one where I think there's a problem. However, even that sometimes will be a matter of the situation being a result of previous decisions...

This is something I hope we could all agree on, even the more old school such as myself. The third example is something that 2e DMG addresses with the door opening into a bottomless pit and some other examples.

[Telok]

I think that all encounters, that is challenges that need to be overcome, should be resolvable by combat.

This is a D&D/wargame mentality. It is not true in many other games. Pendragon, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, and many of the superhero systems all lack the assumption that "I hit it with an axe" is always a valid option.

[kyoryu]

This is a D&D/wargame mentality. It is not true in many other games. Pendragon, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, and many of the superhero systems all lack the assumption that "I hit it with an axe" is always a valid option.

Even more, it's specific to *certain versions* of D&D.

[Yukitsu]

This is a D&D/wargame mentality. It is not true in many other games. Pendragon, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, and many of the superhero systems all lack the assumption that "I hit it with an axe" is always a valid option.

To be fair, I've found it equally valid to every other option in CoC since just about everything I see done results in death or insanity, including getting the tools the DM wants you to so you can progress, and conversely I've had no trouble so far with the mentality of it always being valid in shadowrun with the caveat that yeah, sure it's sometimes a really bad idea but it's still as good as a lot of the others on the table. Paranoia is a bit like CoC in that I don't think there is supposed to be any "correct" way to play it, or if there is, knowing about it is cheating so frankly I again don't think it's ever any worse than any other solution out there. Pendragon I admit I outright don't know however.

[Mr Beer]

Inventing reality is literally the GM's job. Breaking the rules of the game is not the GM's job. I'm not saying it's a great thing to be doing, but it's better than cheating.

If you fudge dice rolls you're cheapening the entire experience and will damage the game for everyone involved.

You're making an arbitrary distinction between altering reality that you label a 'job' and altering reality that you label 'cheating'.

[Telok]

To be fair, I've found it equally valid to every other option..

It really sounds like you're just playing D&D with different systems and fluff. Lots of TPKs?

[Yukitsu]

It really sounds like you're just playing D&D with different systems and fluff. Lots of TPKs?

I have an uncanny knack for making them TPKs minus 1 but other than that, yeah, hence the comment about my killer DM a while back. Though admittedly, our other DMs that aren't deliberately trying to kill us cause some TPKs as well. Then again, none of them like Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia whereas the killer DM does as all those have a reputation for being the character equivalent of wood chippers, rightly earned or not.

[Fiery Diamond]

You're making an arbitrary distinction between altering reality that you label a 'job' and altering reality that you label 'cheating'.

So he is. I think the core of our disagreement, and why that poster does this, is that that poster is one of the "the rules are the game" type people. I am not. Using the GNS (as much as I dislike it), I am, in terms of preference strength, Narrative foremost, then Simulation, then Game - to the extent that I am somewhat anti-gamist in a number of situations. The rules are not god; almost nothing is subservient to the rules. The rules exist to make it not-freeform, to give a certain kind of structure and lead you to certain kinds of gameplay. The rules are subservient to every other concern. If something would be decidedly unfun, the rules are bent or broken, and that's not a bad thing; in games like D&D, that's how it is SUPPOSED to be. Fudging rolls is just one of the many ways this can take place. In order to maintain tension, suspense, trust, consistency, and verisimilitude, fudging and its kin should probably be relatively rare. The important thing is that you do right by your players - if that involves never ever fudging regardless of anything because your players irrationally hate the concept, then fudging will, if discovered, completely shatter their trust in you as a GM and therefore should be avoided. If your players are not of the "DM is slave to the rules" sort of people, you should use your best judgment on what would produce an outcome most enjoyable to your players, both in the short term and the long run.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You're making an arbitrary distinction between altering reality that you label a 'job' and altering reality that you label 'cheating'.

It's not an arbitrary distinction in the slightest. Without someone portraying the world the world does not exist. This is typically the GM, in some games it can be the players as well. The rules are an independent thing that exist that makes certain everyone in the game are on the same page. You're playing a game, ignoring the rules is cheating. The GM lying about a die roll is cheating just as much as a player lying about a die roll would be.

Now, if you don't like some implications of the rules, you have options. You can play a different game with rules you like more or you can modify the rules of the game in a transparent manner to better suit the experience you want to have. If you don't want players to die randomly in a minor encounter then make a rule that all damage in "minor encounters" is non-lethal, or something. That sounds terribly boring to me, but if you and your players are on the same page about it it's certainly fair to do.

What you don't do is look at the presumably hundreds of pages of rules and go "None of this actually matters. Do whatever you want." That's the grownup version of playing Cops and Robbers. It undermines the entire experience of the game and takes away any possible tension. If you become known as a GM that fudges rolls then literally no victory the players have can ever be legitimate again because it's impossible to know if they earned it fairly or if you gave it to them because you felt like it. Losing now and then because you played poorly or because the dice screwed you is what makes victory meaningful when it does come.

[Cozzer]

I agree with the notion that if the DM finds himself wanting/needing to fudge rolls (or ignoring parts of the rules in a similar way), it means he has already done a mistake.

That said, I also think that in some cases, since he can't just change the past and unmake the original mistake, fudging the rule is the lesser evil. As long as the GM keeps in mind that it's not a good thing and that it would be good to avoid finding himself in that situation in the future, I think it's better than "letting the dice fall as they may" and potentially ending a fun campaign (or simply having a very boring/annoying session) because of a single mistake (or a few mistakes) on the GM's part.

I mean, my point is that I agree that a GM fudging his roll (or making his enemies forget their own special attacks for a turn, or doubling/halving their HP...) means that he made a mistake somewhere. But that's exactly why it's his job to deal with that mistake in the less disrupting way for the campaign. He can't just say "well I made a mistake but rules trump everything so now you're going to suffer the consequences of my mistakes". I mean, he can, but I don't think he'd be right.

So yeah, fudging rolls is bad if it's an habit or if the GM doesn't see the negative consequences of doing it. But saying that it's "universally bad" is an absolute, and only Sith deal in absolutes.

[Jay R]

I think I agree with everybody's basic stance, and think most people's statement of their conclusion is too simplistic. For example:

If you fudge dice rolls you're cheapening the entire experience and will damage the game for everyone involved.

I agree with your emotion, but your statement is not entirely true. If you're caught fudging dice rolls, then you are potentially cheapening the entire experience. Those are two very important qualifications.

First, I think that fudging, while rare, is a legitimate tool to make the game more fun. If they don't know I fudged, then it cannot affect their experience. [Note that if I fudge in the same direction ion every encounter, they will soon know it. This is one reason why fudging should be rare.]

Secondly, it only potentially cheapens it. If their lives are saved because they are captured and put in a new, challenging situation, then that doesn't cheapen the experience, and it can enhance it.

I think that after a TPK, the characters should wake up chained to an oar in the hold of a ship, or locked in a dungeon, or possibly on a bed being healed by a BBEG who plans to blackmail them.

Applying the rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong.

Taking medicine is essential when you're sick, but don't get addicted to it.

Like anything else, fudging die rolls can be done well or poorly, and after you've seen a DM doing it poorly, you have every reason to be leery of it. In fact, I want the DM who sometime fudges die rolls to be extremely cautious of it, just like you are cautious about deciding it's time to take medicine.

It doesn't matter what the general rule is, there are always innumerable exceptions. Therefore, the DM needs to make individual judgment calls based on the situation of the moment more than he needs any general rule, including "If you fudge dice rolls you're cheapening the entire experience", and including whatever general rule I would come up with.

In my ideal game, the risk of death is ever-present and real, but the probability of it occurring is much, much less than it appears. This maximizes the fun from suspense, while minimizing the annoyance of dying.

What the players want today is an easy, safe way to beat the encounter. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and bravely turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.