Fudging dice by the GM is a tricky thing.
Some people absolutely can't abide it.
Some think it is ok when used in moderation.
Some feel it is a perfectly normal/constant part of the game.
Personally, I am in the middle bracket. I rarely fudge rolls. Pobably not even once each session. However, there are a few times.
Player is looking desperate/depressed because that evening I just happened to have rolled 4 strong crits on him. I'm probably not going to make him suffer another crit that evening.
Bad guy is a brilliant well provisioned enemy that knows the PC's are coming. There is no way he wouldn't have used a couple of cheap buff potions even though they aren't included in the module write-up and I didn't have time to redesign the encounter. If the bad guy fails the save/hit by only 1 or 2 points, I might give it to him rather than end the climax fight too soon.
The players have used good tactics and should be winning rather than on the verge of a TPK. Dang, he rolled a 2 on his will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main thing to keep in mind is that fudging is okay if it enhances the fun for everyone. In the case of the OP it seems like the GM is doing it to counteract an ability that is fun for the player, and probably many of the other players. If it were done rarely, or the GM gave SOME of the NPCs abilities to counter, I think that's acceptable, as long as it makes things more enjoyable.
Ultimately if the GM is making encounters that are getting rickrolled ALL the time, it's a deficiency in the encounter creation, and not the player's problem. They're using the abilities they chose, and should be allowed to do so. Make the BBEG the one that's got some sort of resistance, and throw in a mix of minions. The witch can go bonkers on all the minions and henchmen, allowing some of the others to concentrate on the BBEG. Everyone feels useful.
If your PCs manage to curbstomp your big fight by using tactics, good on them. If they do it because the NPCs simply weren't up to the fight, the GM needs to reevaluate how they make encounters (and still goodonya for the PCs ;) ).
I'll generally make a fight that I think the PCs will have a difficult time with, and then sprinkle liberally with minions. Minions don't hit often, and go away with one hit. As long as you don't have all the minions show up right at the beginning of the fight, the fight is controllable. If the PCs are having an easy time of it, minion reinforcements come in early. If they're struggling, hold off on the minions, or don't have them show up at all. Minions are also great for that melee fighter that has cleave/greater cleave, and any player that I've run into loves the feeling of wading through their foes to get to the BBEG. It's fudging of a sort, I suppose, but still adds to the enjoyment of the PCs. The "Oh s@&@" look the PCs get when they see a new wave of minions is great, and the look after they've annihilated everything is even better.
Yeah, I fudge rolls as a GM all the time. I have an obligation as a GM to the entire group to present a cinematic story and if your twinked out min-max horror has unbeatable save DC's and destroys any climactic encounter with that, I will do my best to preserve a sense of danger and adventure for the sake of the campaign.
I think it's better to just ban things, not stealth house-rule nerf a player's choices.
Overall, I would call what you do a dick move.
Although as a GM I have fudged rolls both for PC's and NPCs/monsters, I would almost never fudge this kind of thing.
Imagine on the first round of combat the fighter in the party crits and you pull a crit card and it says instant death. The fighter just one shoted your BBEG in round 1. Is this a problem? No it is EPIC FUN. A moment the player will always remember.
A spell or hex is the same. If a player takes out a BBEG with a hex then he takes out the BBEG with a hex. In this situation I might put a new and very similar BBEG in the next room but I would not take away the player's success.
tear
tier
I have noticed that players act differently depending on what is rolled. Have you noticed how if a player rolls a 1 perception, that the player may reroll or be more skittish about the area - or another player who does not often roll perceptions, may roll in this case. As opposed to when the player rolls a 20, he is more confident in not finding anything and is less likely to research an area // the other player is less likely to also roll perception behind the first searcher. The same goes with a a couple other skills like knowledges and spellcraft.
How would you react differently if you saw the GM roll a 2 and save vs. rolling a 20 and saving? Are you more likely to recast the same spell if the GM rolls the 20?
I played in some guys star wars game where he had guys that were name NPCs in the genre and if they were in trouble, he would fudge things so they wouldn't die. My opinion is that if a GM puts some guy in the scenario, they are fair game. If an NPC is important to some story arc, use your gm powers to change the story arc; don't make the guy unkillable.
I think it's lame to fudge a die roll because it might make some encounter less exciting.
That's a little different for me. Whatever you put against the PCs is fair game, but if bilbo decided to stab Gandalf and GM decided that a lucky crit isn't going to kill him. I would be cool with that.
Fudging rolls against the players just to keep combat interesting is another thing entirely.
I played in some guys star wars game where he had guys that were name NPCs in the genre and if they were in trouble, he would fudge things so they wouldn't die. My opinion is that if a GM puts some guy in the scenario, they are fair game. If an NPC is important to some story arc, use your gm powers to change the story arc; don't make the guy unkillable.
I think it's lame to fudge a die roll because it might make some encounter less exciting.
That's a little different for me. Whatever you put against the PCs is fair game, but if bilbo decided to stab Gandalf and GM decided that a lucky crit isn't going to kill him. I would be cool with that.
Fudging rolls against the players just to keep combat interesting is another thing entirely.
Fudge as a GM? you bet your bippy.
Heck I fudge (Fail a save, check, etc) as a player if it will make the scene more interesting.GM: Ok you have cautiously and stealthily followed the tracks deep into the cavern and as you start to round the corner you notice... (passes me a note which reads: "Big old Black Dragon fast asleep" make a check vs fear)
Me: (rolls d20: nat 20) In a note back to GM "Failed it"
Me: "I cautiously and stealthily make my way back to the entrance and the party with fear showing on my face."
Party: "well? was the filthy little thieving beast in there?"
Me: "B... b... b... b... big... D... D... D... *Faint*.
I played in some guys star wars game where he had guys that were name NPCs in the genre and if they were in trouble, he would fudge things so they wouldn't die. My opinion is that if a GM puts some guy in the scenario, they are fair game. If an NPC is important to some story arc, use your gm powers to change the story arc; don't make the guy unkillable.
I think it's lame to fudge a die roll because it might make some encounter less exciting.
That's a little different for me. Whatever you put against the PCs is fair game, but if bilbo decided to stab Gandalf and GM decided that a lucky crit isn't going to kill him. I would be cool with that.
Fudging rolls against the players just to keep combat interesting is another thing entirely.
Fudge as a GM? you bet your bippy.
My concern is more with not banning the builds you invalidate with fudged rolls.
That's a dick move. If you have problems with something let the player build something else.
I played in some guys star wars game where he had guys that were name NPCs in the genre and if they were in trouble, he would fudge things so they wouldn't die. My opinion is that if a GM puts some guy in the scenario, they are fair game. If an NPC is important to some story arc, use your gm powers to change the story arc; don't make the guy unkillable.
I think it's lame to fudge a die roll because it might make some encounter less exciting.
That's a little different for me. Whatever you put against the PCs is fair game, but if bilbo decided to stab Gandalf and GM decided that a lucky crit isn't going to kill him. I would be cool with that.
Fudging rolls against the players just to keep combat interesting is another thing entirely.
Fudge as a GM? you bet your bippy.
My concern is more with not banning the builds you invalidate with fudged rolls.
That's a dick move. If you have problems with something let the player build something else.
And there is where you make your mistake...
You assume I fudge every single roll every single time and only to the detriment of the players.On the contrary.
I fudge only when it would be "interesting" and in whichever direction makes the most sense. If that means the mook failing to save against the PCs spell/skill/feat then that super save that the mook made is now a botch.
If the BBEG needs to slip free of his bonds after the party captured him... he makes his check.
It is what is for the good of the story not what is for the good of me the GM.
|
I'm still somewhat of a newbie GM myself (bought the BB then CRB and started running games). I roll behind a screen, and have fudged rolls usually in the PC's favor while they were still newbies. Once they understood the mechanics more the fudging of rolls has lessened if not ceased. Now if i roll a crit that can seriously wreck a player I have the one closest scoot over to verify the crit roll and confirm it on the table. I also roll random effects such as miss chance or what mirror image/bad guy they hit. Some things I flat out say won't work such as a intimidate build fighter not being able to intimidate the big bad raging barbarian ogre king, that's just not gonna happen. But I also let things slide that normally wouldn't work if it increases the fun and memorability of the encounter.
The dice do get bone chilling cold or center of a volcano hot sometimes. I've had entire nights where attack rolls were never over a 9, and some where I roll 3 critical threats in a row.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the BBEG needs to slip free of his bonds after the party captured him... he makes his check
This
I fudge only when it would be "interesting" and in whichever direction makes the most sense
and this are two different things.
One is preserving the story arch, the other is trying to force memorable moments by invalidating a character.
I wonder how many players would have made that kind of build if it came with the clause, "all benefits are useless when the GM thinks it's fun."
If the BBEG needs to slip free of his bonds after the party captured him... he makes his checkThis
I fudge only when it would be "interesting" and in whichever direction makes the most senseand this are two different things.
One is preserving the story arch, the other is trying to force memorable moments by invalidating a character.
I wonder how many players would have made that kind of build if it came with the clause, "all benefits are useless when the GM thinks it's fun."
I hate to say it, but if a character becomes invalidated from a single roll of the dice, then there are more glaring issues than a GM or PC fudging dice for the good of the campaign...
For example, let's have a BBEG encounter that ends before it begins due to a Surprise Round Save or Death spell. Interesting? Perhaps. But does it take the danger and adventure out of the game when you can just invalidate characters like that? You bet it does.
Better yet, what about a BBEG who instead crits on every attack and causes a TPK with a single Full Attack Option? Or a Charm/Dominate effect which makes so-and-so your little plaything?
There are several things that invalidate a character going by the book, and from this perspective, it's safe to say the GM fudging rolls either keeps the game interesting and dangerous, or keeps the players from falling asleep or getting angry, standing up, and storming out from the table.
|
|
I fudge only when it would be "interesting" and in whichever direction makes the most sense. If that means the mook failing to save against the PCs spell/skill/feat then that super save that the mook made is now a botch.
If the BBEG needs to slip free of his bonds after the party captured him... he makes his check.
It is what is for the good of the story not what is for the good of me the GM.
Except sometimes the mooks don't go down like planned and change the direction of the story. Same for when the BBEG takes a dirt nap in the first round.
There is something to be said for letting the dice fall where they may.
If the BBEG needs to slip free of his bonds after the party captured him... he makes his checkThis
I fudge only when it would be "interesting" and in whichever direction makes the most senseand this are two different things.
One is preserving the story arch, the other is trying to force memorable moments by invalidating a character.
I wonder how many players would have made that kind of build if it came with the clause, "all benefits are useless when the GM thinks it's fun."
I note you over looked the example of the Mook that lost to the character even though the dice would have dictated otherwise...
you do not get to cherry pick which parts of my overall example you wish to use when one part refutes your argument.I in no way invalidate any build.
Lets go with the assumption that one adventure may in the course of its completion see one "fudge" per session (average number of 4 hour sessions per adventure is 10). I run 6 to 12 encounters (encounters are more than just combat) every session; so we will call it average of 10 encounters. That would mean we see an average of 100 encounters in a typical adventure (Not a campaign; just one adventure) and 10 "fudges" (half of which would be beneficial to the players [assuming equitable distribution]).
That means that 5 of my "fudges" were "detrimental" to one or more members of the party.
Or to put another way...
5 - Detrimental
5 - Beneficial
90 - Random
so now you tell me; given that data; Just how am I invalidating the character?
NPCs are cannon fodder for the murder hobos. They die. They lose. If you want them to die slower, you ban things like the slumber hex witch min/max build. You don't just have cool mobs auto-pass the saves for giggles.
Any character who relies on stacking the dice and taking luck out of the equation (read: every witch ever) is going to be invalidated by fudging rolls.
You're not going to have a BBEG who wipes out the whole party with a string of natural 20's. Hitting a 5% chance five times isn't something one can really rely on, and if it does, well, that's what you get for playing a game where dice rolls are a primary mechanic. Have the characters fight their way out of hell to get back and try again.
However, when a Witch is built in a way where that enemy /needs/ a natural 20 in order to survive her save-or-suck effects... Well, if you decide that that 12 you just rolled was actually a 20 in order to make the game more "interesting" you just invalidated her entire strategy because you decided it made the game less fun. If it really makes the game less fun, tell her and let her make something you don't feel the need to cheat to beat.
If you want to rain on her parade throw enemies at her that'll do it legally. Throw a pack of suspicious barbarians at her or something.
|
IMO GMs should never "tell a story". If you expose a BBEG to the party, make sure he can survive, or dont risk him. Making him auto save everything is sorta demoralizing even if you want him around for later. Specifically the GM should set the stage, but not dictate the narrative. That part is interactive between the PCs and their world, not a cut scene from a novel.
There has to be some cause and effect and some room for luck, both good and bad, or you are basically actors playing out the GMs script. This is where fudging is annoying and a bad idea when done to control the narrative.
I have never fudged a roll as a GM (going on 7 years now) but I have chosen to implement my judgement in lieu of a dice roll at all. Sometimes that means I don't roll to confirm a crit (because I want it to fail) or sometimes that means I use minimum damage on an attack sequence. Very, very rarely it means an NPC makes a save that they might have failed if rolled. And even in those cases it is usually because I know what the repercussions would be for the party if they succeeded in "suggesting" that king's mistress burst into the ball naked and tell the world about the affair.
Basically, I will forgo a roll when it keeps the story moving, but I would never do this against the party's favor in a fight.
I have never fudged a roll as a GM (going on 7 years now) but I have chosen to implement my judgement in lieu of a dice roll at all. Sometimes that means I don't roll to confirm a crit (because I want it to fail) or sometimes that means I use minimum damage on an attack sequence. Very, very rarely it means an NPC makes a save that they might have failed if rolled. And even in those cases it is usually because I know what the repercussions would be for the party if they succeeded in "suggesting" that king's mistress burst into the ball naked and tell the world about the affair.
Basically, I will forgo a roll when it keeps the story moving, but I would never do this against the party's favor in a fight.
No way. Let them suffer the repercussions.
I note you over looked the example of the Mook that lost to the character even though the dice would have dictated otherwise...Changing the odds in the PCs favor when it doesn't matter does not balance changing it against them when it does.
When that mook saving leads to the characters death? does it matter then?
I run combat at a high lethality rate; a PC dying from a no-name-toss-away is anti-climatic and decidedly no fun.
No way. Let them suffer the repercussions.I have never fudged a roll as a GM (going on 7 years now) but I have chosen to implement my judgement in lieu of a dice roll at all. Sometimes that means I don't roll to confirm a crit (because I want it to fail) or sometimes that means I use minimum damage on an attack sequence. Very, very rarely it means an NPC makes a save that they might have failed if rolled. And even in those cases it is usually because I know what the repercussions would be for the party if they succeeded in "suggesting" that king's mistress burst into the ball naked and tell the world about the affair.
Basically, I will forgo a roll when it keeps the story moving, but I would never do this against the party's favor in a fight.
I'd personally be highly interested in seeing how this turns out.
Making horrible decisions that only affect you as long as you're still sitting at the table is half the fun of this game, I think.
I think the best phrasing is 'don't pull the trigger if you aren't committed to the kill'.
That means you shouldn't be rolling dice if you aren't willing to let them determine the result.
Or as I like to say, no backsies.
Some want to roll, then back away, no they didn't make the roll, no it isn't bad for them. Ha ha ha. No.
Any character who relies on stacking the dice and taking luck out of the equation (read: every witch ever) is going to be invalidated by fudging rolls.
You're not going to have a BBEG who wipes out the whole party with a string of natural 20's. Hitting a 5% chance five times isn't something one can really rely on, and if it does, well, that's what you get for playing a game where dice rolls are a primary mechanic. Have the characters fight their way out of hell to get back and try again.
However, when a Witch is built in a way where that enemy /needs/ a natural 20 in order to survive her save-or-suck effects... Well, if you decide that that 12 you just rolled was actually a 20 in order to make the game more "interesting" you just invalidated her entire strategy because you decided it made the game less fun. If it really makes the game less fun, tell her and let her make something you don't feel the need to cheat to beat.
If you want to rain on her parade throw enemies at her that'll do it legally. Throw a pack of suspicious barbarians at her or something.
That argument still assumes that every roll every time is "fudged."
Once in a while is one thing.
Every single time is another.
No one here is arguing (at least I do not believe they are) that a GM "fudge" every roll. That indeed would invalidate the character.
But using the tool (and that is what it is) to enhance the experience every once in a while (Gee my spamming attack didnt work this ONE time... guess that means I will have to think of something else to try) does not in anyway invalidate the character.
It sets a nasty precedent and drops the level of trust between players and GM drastically. Do you allow your players to cheat if its "just this once"?
No way. Let them suffer the repercussions.I have never fudged a roll as a GM (going on 7 years now) but I have chosen to implement my judgement in lieu of a dice roll at all. Sometimes that means I don't roll to confirm a crit (because I want it to fail) or sometimes that means I use minimum damage on an attack sequence. Very, very rarely it means an NPC makes a save that they might have failed if rolled. And even in those cases it is usually because I know what the repercussions would be for the party if they succeeded in "suggesting" that king's mistress burst into the ball naked and tell the world about the affair.
Basically, I will forgo a roll when it keeps the story moving, but I would never do this against the party's favor in a fight.
I'd personally be highly interested in seeing how this turns out.
Making horrible decisions that only affect you as long as you're still sitting at the table is half the fun of this game, I think.
That may have been a poor example because I can't imagine not letting that can of worms explode.
I would be pretty unhappy to discover a DM was fudging rolls. I would rather have a TPK than find out we only survived because the DM decided we should. After that, every victory would feel uncertain and hollow.
But if a DM is going to fudge rolls, I definitely think they should be up front about it. If my high level SoS spell just isn't going to work because the DM doesn't feel like it fits the plot, then I'll know not to bother casting it and wasting that precious resource. I can just hand the DM my witch's spell list and tell him that whenever he's ready to allow my character to affect the narrative, go ahead and use one of those spells. I'll just be in the other room watching tv or something.
It sets a nasty precedent and drops the level of trust between players and GM drastically. Do you allow your players to cheat if its "just this once"?
I have watched players "nudge" their dice, "miscalculate" bonuses, utilize feats/skills/spells/powers/etc they should not have access to, and many myriad other versions of cheating...
Everyone cheats.It is just a matter of how often and how blatant.
I suppose that's where we disagree then. I certainly don't cheat, and I expect the same of my fellow players. Maybe it's because I come from a competitive gaming background and am fairly new to cooperative play but cheating just makes me feel hollow and removes any joy I may have had in victory. Losing because someone cheated just makes me angry.
I would be pretty unhappy to discover a DM was fudging rolls. I would rather have a TPK than find out we only survived because the DM decided we should. After that, every victory would feel hollow.
But if a DM is going to fudge rolls, I definitely think they should be up front about it. If my high level SoS spell just isn't going to work because the DM doesn't feel like it fits the plot, then I'll know not to bother casting it and wasting that precious resource. I can just hand the DM my witch's spell list and tell him that whenever he's ready to allow my character to affect the narrative, go ahead and use one of those spells. I'll just be in the other room watching tv or something.
There is a certain pragmatism to letting characters live. I don't have to create a new and interesting way for the new character to fit into the backstory of my Metaplot. I don't have to remove the important/unresolved elements of the previous characters story hooks from my Metaplot. I don't have to learn and evaluate the power curve of the new character to ensure challenging encounters. God help me if I wipe the party.
That's not to say that characters don't die at my table or that the players don't have a healthy fear of death, but I will generally pull a punch or two before I obliterate a character.
|
Any character who relies on stacking the dice and taking luck out of the equation (read: every witch ever) is going to be invalidated by fudging rolls.
You're not going to have a BBEG who wipes out the whole party with a string of natural 20's. Hitting a 5% chance five times isn't something one can really rely on, and if it does, well, that's what you get for playing a game where dice rolls are a primary mechanic. Have the characters fight their way out of hell to get back and try again.
However, when a Witch is built in a way where that enemy /needs/ a natural 20 in order to survive her save-or-suck effects... Well, if you decide that that 12 you just rolled was actually a 20 in order to make the game more "interesting" you just invalidated her entire strategy because you decided it made the game less fun. If it really makes the game less fun, tell her and let her make something you don't feel the need to cheat to beat.
If you want to rain on her parade throw enemies at her that'll do it legally. Throw a pack of suspicious barbarians at her or something.
That argument still assumes that every roll every time is "fudged."
Once in a while is one thing.
Every single time is another.No one here is arguing (at least I do not believe they are) that a GM "fudge" every roll. That indeed would invalidate the character.
But using the tool (and that is what it is) to enhance the experience every once in a while (Gee my spamming attack didnt work this ONE time... guess that means I will have to think of something else to try) does not in anyway invalidate the character.
The OP was guesstimating that the GM was fudging roughly 1/3 of the rolls against his hex in the Baddies' favor. I don't know when the sticks got moved but your idea of 1 in 10 encounters having a fudge in it is based on nothing said by anyone here but yourself.
Just roll in the open and let the dice fall where they may is how I run games. Never once had a problem with players trusting me GMing....
There is a reason I very rarely use save for no effect abilities, I assume that every save that the DM makes will roll 15 or higher on the die. This seems to be the case with half effect spells too, but it doesn't hurt as much when everybody makes the save.
I would be pretty unhappy to discover a DM was fudging rolls. I would rather have a TPK than find out we only survived because the DM decided we should. After that, every victory would feel hollow.
But if a DM is going to fudge rolls, I definitely think they should be up front about it. If my high level SoS spell just isn't going to work because the DM doesn't feel like it fits the plot, then I'll know not to bother casting it and wasting that precious resource. I can just hand the DM my witch's spell list and tell him that whenever he's ready to allow my character to affect the narrative, go ahead and use one of those spells. I'll just be in the other room watching tv or something.
There is a certain pragmatism to letting characters live. I don't have to create a new and interesting way for the new character to fit into the backstory of my Metaplot. I don't have to remove the important/unresolved elements of the previous characters story hooks from my Metaplot. I don't have to learn and evaluate the power curve of the new character to ensure challenging encounters. God help me if I wipe the party.
That's not to say that characters don't die at my table or that the players don't have a healthy fear of death, but I will generally pull a punch or two before I obliterate a character.
I understand that, and I don't want to sound like I'm against a DM occasionally pulling a party's bacon out of the fire when things are headed south. Just that it should be obvious. Have some help arrive or something. Let the players know they would have lost, and maybe give them some kind of setback to overcome. I just feel like if I can't know for sure if we really won or if the DM went easy on us, victory against tough odds will never be satisfying again. That's how I feel as a player anyway.
Any character who relies on stacking the dice and taking luck out of the equation (read: every witch ever) is going to be invalidated by fudging rolls.
You're not going to have a BBEG who wipes out the whole party with a string of natural 20's. Hitting a 5% chance five times isn't something one can really rely on, and if it does, well, that's what you get for playing a game where dice rolls are a primary mechanic. Have the characters fight their way out of hell to get back and try again.
However, when a Witch is built in a way where that enemy /needs/ a natural 20 in order to survive her save-or-suck effects... Well, if you decide that that 12 you just rolled was actually a 20 in order to make the game more "interesting" you just invalidated her entire strategy because you decided it made the game less fun. If it really makes the game less fun, tell her and let her make something you don't feel the need to cheat to beat.
If you want to rain on her parade throw enemies at her that'll do it legally. Throw a pack of suspicious barbarians at her or something.
That argument still assumes that every roll every time is "fudged."
Once in a while is one thing.
Every single time is another.No one here is arguing (at least I do not believe they are) that a GM "fudge" every roll. That indeed would invalidate the character.
But using the tool (and that is what it is) to enhance the experience every once in a while (Gee my spamming attack didnt work this ONE time... guess that means I will have to think of something else to try) does not in anyway invalidate the character.
The OP was guesstimating that the GM was fudging roughly 1/3 of the rolls against his hex in the Baddies' favor. I don't know when the sticks got moved but your idea of 1 in 10 encounters having a fudge in it is based on nothing said by anyone here but yourself.
Just roll in the open and let the dice fall where they may is how I run games. Never...
Nor have I ever had an issue with the player/gm trust metric. Everyone who sits at my table knows I utilize every tool in the GM arsenal to make the game entertaining and fun for all parties involved.
The OP could be correct.
Or as has been pointed out the GM may be on a hot streak (however unlikely that may be).
Or the OP could be looking at things through tinted glasses.
without more data to go on we really cannot say.
The conversation took a turn into if fudging of any kind is acceptable.
I threw in my 2cp on that front.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I fudge rolls as a GM all the time. I have an obligation as a GM to the entire group to present a cinematic story and if your twinked out min-max horror has unbeatable save DC's and destroys any climactic encounter with that, I will do my best to preserve a sense of danger and adventure for the sake of the campaign.I think it's better to just ban things, not stealth house-rule nerf a player's choices.
Overall, I would call what you do a dick move.
Your free to think whatever you want. My players are happy enough with the way they are destroying opponents. Their characters (which are a personality, not a collection of stats) have not been invalidated as far as I see it by me giving them a more cinematic experience than "Wizard casts Phantasmal Killer, opponent keels over dead in the first round, martials stand around picking their noses".
It sets a nasty precedent and drops the level of trust between players and GM drastically. Do you allow your players to cheat if its "just this once"?I have watched players "nudge" their dice, "miscalculate" bonuses, utilize feats/skills/spells/powers/etc they should not have access to, and many myriad other versions of cheating...
Everyone cheats.
It is just a matter of how often and how blatant.
Um, no. No, everyone does not cheat.
Your free to think whatever you want. My players are happy enough with the way they are destroying opponents. Their characters (which are a personality, not a collection of stats) have not been invalidated as far as I see it by me giving them a more cinematic experience than "Wizard casts Phantasmal Killer, opponent keels over dead in the first round, martials stand around picking their noses".Yeah, I fudge rolls as a GM all the time. I have an obligation as a GM to the entire group to present a cinematic story and if your twinked out min-max horror has unbeatable save DC's and destroys any climactic encounter with that, I will do my best to preserve a sense of danger and adventure for the sake of the campaign.I think it's better to just ban things, not stealth house-rule nerf a player's choices.
Overall, I would call what you do a dick move.
I think that might be part of why there is so much disagreement over fudging. I don't play with anybody who would build a min/maxed munchkin with unstoppable DCs. We don't come across a situation like you just described, at least not but once in a blue moon. We work together to make a balanced group and don't try to steamroll everything. If I played with people who played as you describe I would probably have a different opinion on the subject.