Fudging Rolls: Yea or Nay?


Advice

1 to 50 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

My attitude tends to be that "the screen is there for a reason," but I can't shake the feeling that I'm somehow cheapening the game when I alter result behind the screen. What is the community's attitude on this one? Are the dice sacred, is it the GM's prerogative, or is the answer "only fudge the roll sometimes in these specific circumstances?"

Comic for illustrative purposes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

People get surprisingly rigid on this topic and, I predict, many will be snarky. But for me, I'm the GM - I can edit anything on my side of the screen, adventures, creature stats, and, yes, die rolls. I just do so judiciously rather than willy nilly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are times when fudging the roll behind the screen is a good thing to do. Especially early on when the PCs are relatively weak and squishy. Also, sometimes you know that the crit you just rolled would put an end to the character that your player WANTS to keep playing to see how the build pans out.

The other thing I will point out, though, is that if somebody ever complains/questions, pull the screen and force them to take whatever rolls you make right before their eyes.

It's one or the other so they can't complain if they force you to take down the screen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I used to say it was OK, but having recently seen a ref painfully obviously fudging the dice rolls to keep a favoured NPC alive I am swinging back to opposing it. Because if you fudge that way you are taking away the players’ agency and turning the game into a story that only you are telling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nay. As in "I'm outta your table for good" nay. Trust is the foundation of a healthy table. If you can't trust your fellow players, you're gonna have a bad time.

The screen is there for two reasons:

1. To provide vertical real estate for commonly-needed reference material.
2. To hide rolls that are supposed to be hidden (e.g., Perception, Disguise, certain compulsion saving throws).

It is not there to give you the ability to decide how the dice fall. That is an abuse of your players' trust, and that's a total dealbreaker for me.

Edit: Preemptive apologies to anybody I respond to in this thread if I sound overly argumentative. This is a bit of a berserk button for me.


Bill Dunn wrote:
People get surprisingly rigid on this topic and, I predict, many will be snarky. But for me, I'm the GM - I can edit anything on my side of the screen, adventures, creature stats, and, yes, die rolls. I just do so judiciously rather than willy nilly.

Why should anybody play at your table when you reserve the right to revoke player agency?


Since I'm already spamming the thread:

the comic wrote:
As per the Starfinder Core Rulebook, “Player cheating can ruin a game, but as a GM, you may sometimes find yourself in situations where cheating might actually improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging.'”

(edited because I'm likely to get banned if I leave my original response here)

Let's just say that if I was ever inclined to play Starfinder before, I certainly won't now that I know what sort of mentality the writers have now.


I mean fundamentally the GM has the ability to fiat things that happen or don't happen without even rolling dice. As far as I see it "fudging" dice is just doing this complete with die roll noises to give you plausible deniability. It's probably not the best tool in the GM's toolbox, but it's there and there are places for it.

It's one of those tools you want to use incredibly sparingly however, as overuse is going to cause trust issues and there are subtler ways for the GM to sort of finesse certain things happen or don't happen, all of which only really work when the players don't suspect anything is up (like when the solution to a puzzle or mystery is "whatever the players make the strongest case for.")

But like if you want the monster to miss, "their buff they applied before the fight ran out last turn" is a much better choice than "claiming the die read 11 and not 16".


A huge nay.....

When I GM, my combat rolls are out in the open. I don't see the point of fudging rolls... it reeks of making the whole thing pre-ordained.

It tends to lead to more BBEG getting 1/2-shotted BUT it also leads to more PC deaths which I don't have a problem with.

As I always say to them..

"If being an adventurer was easy and a great way to get rich quick, everybody in the city would do it..... but they don't!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to favor letting the dice fall where they may, though I am not absolute about it. If the fun in the game can be enhanced by fudging the odd roll, I won't arbitrarily dismiss the option. Those who play at my table extend a certain level of trust towards me as the GM, and that goes both ways. If they can't trust me to run the game, even if that entails tweaking a dice roll every now and then (regardless if I use existing mechanics to do it or not), they don't have a place at the table. I'm fairly fortunate that my players are all like-minded in this matter.

That being said, I roll in the open when playing at the table top, except for those secretive rolls that the players don't get to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So a hypothetical for the hard line "anti-fudging crowd".

It's getting late in the day, everybody is tired and wants to go home, and a combat with no real significant narrative impact is very nearly over. One monster is left and they are low on HP, one PC is left in the initiative order before the monster can act, and if it does act it would plausibly heal itself, teleport away, summon allies, or do something to prolong combat. Nobody wants to call the end of a session in the middle of a fight, and nobody really wants to be there any longer.

So if the last PC manages a near miss (in either to-hit or how much damage) do you really consider making everybody stay longer or playing the monster dumb on purpose so they do not prolong the fight to be better options than "How much damage? Okay, they're dead" or "OK, that hits... roll for damage... they're dead."

I feel like "in order to accommodate people's real life situations" is a clear-cut case where all manner of GM shenanigans are acceptable. Like "the dice should fall where they may" is much less important than "you should go home and get some sleep."


Depends on the table.

For casual play where folks aren't invested and just want to have a good time, but can't roll above a 3? Fudge away, but be upfront about the fact that you do fudge rolls to keep the game moving and make sure everyone is on board. I've GMed these kinds of games from time to time.

For more serious play? Never. The dice fall where they fall. This is the only way I enjoy playing. Otherwise you might as well be freeform.

It's one of the reasons I like failing forward as a game mechanic.

But yeah having everyone in agreement of what kind of game you're playing is huge. And fudging dice after promising not to is absolutely lying and cheating.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't one of the main selling points of D&D and all its many many cousins that it isn't a video game.

Everything is flexible, the DM can change things on the fly and let you do things you couldn't strictly always do, because in the moment its more fun?

I don't think unbending rigidity is ever a good thing in these games.

EDIT: I'm not done

In the end I think context is key (as with literally everything) a random disappointing unceremonious death of a level 3 barbarian with promising roleplay and character, where the player did nothing they weren't meant to, because a CR1/3 Orc happened to crit and roll max damage isn't great. turning that crit into normal a hit isn't the end of the world.

If you're coming to the end of a two year long campaign and your long time adventuring ally barbarian gets crit by the red dragon he is heroically staring down and falls in glorious climactic combat. I think fudging those dice would be a disservice to the story, the players everything really.

blahpers wrote:


Edit: Preemptive apologies to anybody I respond to in this thread if I sound overly argumentative. This is a bit of a berserk button for me.

If you're self aware enough to preemptively apologise for bad behaviour you're self aware enough to just not do it.


I guess it depends.... I’m for it to advance a plot line or such but I’ve seen DM’s play favorites or use it arbitrarily and it took much of the fun away from the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cade Ravenhill wrote:
I guess it depends.... I’m for it to advance a plot line or such but I’ve seen DM’s play favorites or use it arbitrarily and it took much of the fun away from the game.

This is a key point for me.

For it to work you need a GM with a strong grasp of narrative who treats player characters equally and doesn't run around with his own NPCs stealing glory all the time.

Basically you need a good GM for it to work and if you have a bad one then you have bigger problems already.


Albert Einstein wrote:
The Dungeon Master does not play dice with the Universe.


I can't tell you to always or never fudge. The decision may or may not ruin the game. The decision can have a huge effect on the game.

You want to give the players some blend of the experience they want and the experience you want to give them. But at the same time, they usually want it to be fair, except for when they actually don't, but may or may not realize that.

So, you do the most to keep their trust which might mean lying and fudging the die rolls, betraying them by lying to them about the rolls while at the same time that very lying is earning their trust that things will turn out that will create whatever they think is the experience they hope for from you, all the while confident that you never fudge the rolls, except for when sometimes you do, but maybe they don't want to think about that too closely...

Or else just let the chips fall where they may. Make it fair. Make it harsh and capricious. People should respect that. People might like it. It might make you less a GM though, and more of a referee. But when that's the case, I sure do feel more proud of my successes.

Or just don't use dice, and create the narrative you all want together. Of course, that's not Pathfinder anymore, but rather a story game, or some kind of improvisational theater project.

It's a sticky wicket.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

Since I'm already spamming the thread:

the comic wrote:
As per the Starfinder Core Rulebook, “Player cheating can ruin a game, but as a GM, you may sometimes find yourself in situations where cheating might actually improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging.'”

(edited because I'm likely to get banned if I leave my original response here)

Let's just say that if I was ever inclined to play Starfinder before, I certainly won't now that I know what sort of mentality the writers have now.

Hate to break it to you but i'm 99% sure that line is in the Pathfinder rulebook, as well as in just about every GMing section in just about every tabletop rpg ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

isn't it basically just another wording of rule 0?


I couldn't imagine fudging dice to save an NPC!

I don't fudge dice rolls because I don't think I'd be good enough to hide it from my players.
And if the players know you occasionally fudge dice rolls to save their lives then they know that what they do doesn't matter as much so they don't care as much about the game.

But at the same time, I understand why someone would fudge dice rolls if it would result in a disappointing death or would cause a large, unwanted stall in the game. But I wouldn't do it myself and I wouldn't want a GM running a game to do it either.

Grand Lodge

Ryan Freire wrote:
blahpers wrote:

Since I'm already spamming the thread:

the comic wrote:
As per the Starfinder Core Rulebook, “Player cheating can ruin a game, but as a GM, you may sometimes find yourself in situations where cheating might actually improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging.'”

(edited because I'm likely to get banned if I leave my original response here)

Let's just say that if I was ever inclined to play Starfinder before, I certainly won't now that I know what sort of mentality the writers have now.

Hate to break it to you but i'm 99% sure that line is in the Pathfinder rulebook, as well as in just about every GMing section in just about every tabletop rpg ever.

CR pg 402 to be precise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Hate to break it to you but i'm 99% sure that line is in the Pathfinder rulebook, as well as in just about every GMing section in just about every tabletop rpg ever.

Page 402 of the Core book:

Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is
bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in
a situation where cheating might improve the game. We
prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and
while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the
law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the
dice....

Edit: Ninja'ed but keeping it as I wrote it anyways.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DRD1812 wrote:

My attitude tends to be that "the screen is there for a reason," but I can't shake the feeling that I'm somehow cheapening the game when I alter result behind the screen. What is the community's attitude on this one? Are the dice sacred, is it the GM's prerogative, or is the answer "only fudge the roll sometimes in these specific circumstances?"

Comic for illustrative purposes.

I think you will find very strong opinions in both camps on this topic. It is one of the most divisive topics.

I agree with Blahpers in that "Trust is the foundation of a healthy table." However, trust is a variety of things and you will see them weighted differently by different players and GMs.

1) Trust in obeying the dice
2) Trust in a good engaging story, in a word: fun
3) Trust in a fair GM that doesn't favor his NPCs
4) Trust in PCs and NPCs following the rules.
5) Trust that a GM will run with a PC idea, even if not planned for.

Personally, I only fudge when the dice make Trust #2 not possible. Exceptionally rare.
I never fudge in favor of the NPCs, it just makes an unfun story. Having a character killed by a weak encounter through sheer bad luck is also unfun.


I agree with Jared


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
People get surprisingly rigid on this topic and, I predict, many will be snarky. But for me, I'm the GM - I can edit anything on my side of the screen, adventures, creature stats, and, yes, die rolls. I just do so judiciously rather than willy nilly.
Why should anybody play at your table when you reserve the right to revoke player agency?

What do the dice have to do with player agency? They're arbitrary. I've been known to overrule dice because they disappoint well-laid player plans - that's boosting player agency, not taking it away.

See, this is what I mean about people being very rigid and even insulting on the topic of fudging dice. Taking away player agency, indeed!


I do whatever I feel will make the game the most fun for the players.

This occasionally means fudging the success/failure of an otherwise close roll to build tension or let them get that one glorious success. They don’t need to know I fudged the result by a point or two, it would be less fun for them.


The only time I was okay with a GM fudging dice rolls was in a PFS scenario for low level characters where the final boss was an optimized Magus. He straight up said "yeah, if I don't fudge the rolls and run this character the way the scenario tells me to the first person to get hit in this fight will lose their character" which was entirely true. So that was fine.

Otherwise... It's not usually a good idea. It's very difficult to remove the human element of deciding which dice to fudge and which not to fudge - you could end up playing favorites, and even if you aren't then someone will almost certainly suspect you are. If you want to offer better opportunities for good plans to not get ruined by bad dice, Hero Points or other mechanisms to reward players with free rerolls is a better solution.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take? Err on the side of not doing it.
When the PCs have access to revification, one of them dying won't necessarily mean Game Over. If they collectively had a bad idea, and didn't take any hint to avoid it, then avoiding consequences will only teach them bad behaviour.
However, if a fresh-faced player brings out their shiny new level 1 character with a backstory full of intrigue you've planned out together, only to take a triple crit from an arrow on the first attack of the game, before even getting their first fighting action, that player might either just write a "The Second" on their character sheet, or leave in frustration.
So basically, don't fudge dice unless the group's continued enthusiasm is at stake. Also, something that tends to get overlooked in these debates: don't fudge the dice if you want a PC dead. If they're causing such a reaction from you, it's most likely a problem with the player & you, and unfairly telling them that, shut up, their character just died, will only breed more resentment.


I'm more apt to fudge under certain circumstances.

1. If its a non-dramatic death for a PC, IE: lucky crits from a wandering monster.

2. If its earlier in the session rather than later in the session. I'm not generally in the mood to figure out how to get a new character into the game on the fly at the beginning of a session, nor am i happy to have a player sitting out and making a new character for the majority of a session.

3. If the Player cheats and its too much trouble to call them out on it. We had a player who would routinely lie about damage done and dice rolls. Our gaming setup did not really allow monitoring at the table (no table, people sitting around in a big room on couches and recliners) After a while that player started paying a marginal damage tax whenever his DPR stretched credibility. I get that people here are going to hate that, but it wasn't your friend group and you weren't there.


Rules are for P.C.s and sometimes not even.

Most of the time, I follow the dice but sometimes I don't when not following them makes the story better, a story to which the P.C.s are the main characters and I'll be damned if as the G.M. I let an N.P.C. take this role away from them.

Sometimes an N.P.C. fails when the dice say he succeeded, sometimes he succeeds when he shouldn't have just like sometimes I invent a bonus to a P.C. about to roll, justifying it as a circumstance modifier, because it makes the atmosphere good and pumped up.

This being said, Pathfinder is more of a fantasy combat simulator than a role-playing game and as such, the rules are a much more integral part of it than other games, making me follow the dice in a decidedly stronger fashion.


Artofregicide wrote:

Depends on the table.

For casual play where folks aren't invested and just want to have a good time, but can't roll above a 3? Fudge away, but be upfront about the fact that you do fudge rolls to keep the game moving and make sure everyone is on board. I've GMed these kinds of games from time to time.

For more serious play? Never. The dice fall where they fall. This is the only way I enjoy playing. Otherwise you might as well be freeform.

It's one of the reasons I like failing forward as a game mechanic.

But yeah having everyone in agreement of what kind of game you're playing is huge. And fudging dice after promising not to is absolutely lying and cheating.

Absolutely all of this.

Pathfinder is many different things to many different people. All the players should agree what they're there for, and everyone should stick to the agreement.

I'm not going to bring a min maxed multiclass death machine to an excuse-to-drink game. Also, I'm not going to bring my high functioning alcoholic dwarven sorcerer to a game where the other players want a combat simulator. I hope the GMs of those two games behave differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Before I DM for anyone for the first time, I talk to them in private and ask them if they would want me to fudge a roll if doing so prevented their character from dying an anticlimactic and unlucky death. So far, everyone's said "yes", and I've honored that. If someone said "no", I'd honor that too.

That's the only circumstance where I'm willing to fudge rolls. In almost all other situations, it really does reduce players' agency and faith in the game.


You shouldn't fudge rolls wantonly by any means. But Having a level 1 character on the receiving end of an unlucky crit by some random longsword wielding bandit could easily be lethal. Is that realistic? Yeah, I suppose it might be. But is it more fun? As InvisiblePink says I can't imagine many players would be happy with it.

The goal for everyone at the table is to have fun. If you are doing it to keep the narrative more entertaining for everyone I am fine with it. If you are doing so to show favoritism or enforce certain outcomes in a situation, no, you really shouldn't be doing that.

So yes, IT IS reasonable in some circumstances. And the rules even say as much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I decide to roll the dice, I will obey the results. Otherwise why roll?

I feel no obligation to keep a PC alive; that's the player's job. Likewise, I have no desire to kill a PC; that's the job of their enemies. I'm just the referee.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leitner wrote:

You shouldn't fudge rolls wantonly by any means. But Having a level 1 character on the receiving end of an unlucky crit by some random longsword wielding bandit could easily be lethal. Is that realistic? Yeah, I suppose it might be. But is it more fun? As InvisiblePink says I can't imagine many players would be happy with it.

The goal for everyone at the table is to have fun. If you are doing it to keep the narrative more entertaining for everyone I am fine with it. If you are doing so to show favoritism or enforce certain outcomes in a situation, no, you really shouldn't be doing that.

So yes, IT IS reasonable in some circumstances. And the rules even say as much.

TBH this is just another argument to not play at level one for me; the game gets a lot less lol random in levels 3-9, you're far less likely to die to something meaningless once you have more of an HP buffer and defensive items are easier to come by. First level play sucks.


I fudge, but consider it courteous to sometimes let the GM know.


Corathonv2 wrote:
I'm just the referee.

You're more than just the referee.

You have the freedom to decide whether the orcs are dumb enough to fall for the very obvious trap your PCs have set; you have the freedom to decide whether the mastermind your PCs were supposed to fight will accept an unexpected offer of truce.

Also, as the GM, you have the freedom to make mistakes. And if you accidentally allow a second AoO in Round 2 which ends up killing a PC in Round 5, it seems weird that you should feel helpless.

Shadow Lodge

For me it depends greatly on the game I am running. I don't play with a GM screen and I roll my dice in the open. If it is for pfs, I'm just the judge, the players get the result, no fudging at all.
For a home game I wrote, I'm the storyteller, I modify results if it helps the story. I still roll my dice in the open, but I apply circumstance modifiers. So if it would be really cool for a roll to succeed, I'll give them a bonus. If it would cheapen the game, I give a penalty. I'll fudge damage modifiers too, especially if I know that this would kill a player and I don't have any way of getting them back in the game in the next 10 minutes. In my experience, 10 minutes is the most you can reasonably ask a player to sit on the sidelines before bringing them back into the game. There has to be some balancing between immersion, fairness, and the fact that this is just a game we all gathered to enjoy and excluding one player from that ruins the experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So a hypothetical for the hard line "anti-fudging crowd".

It's getting late in the day, everybody is tired and wants to go home, and a combat with no real significant narrative impact is very nearly over. One monster is left and they are low on HP, one PC is left in the initiative order before the monster can act, and if it does act it would plausibly heal itself, teleport away, summon allies, or do something to prolong combat. Nobody wants to call the end of a session in the middle of a fight, and nobody really wants to be there any longer.

So if the last PC manages a near miss (in either to-hit or how much damage) do you really consider making everybody stay longer or playing the monster dumb on purpose so they do not prolong the fight to be better options than "How much damage? Okay, they're dead" or "OK, that hits... roll for damage... they're dead."

I feel like "in order to accommodate people's real life situations" is a clear-cut case where all manner of GM shenanigans are acceptable. Like "the dice should fall where they may" is much less important than "you should go home and get some sleep."

Never try to solve an out-of-game problem in-game.

Play the situation as it's supposed to play out. If that means calling it in the middle of a combat, so be it. If that means you have to roll on the open table disaster escape chart, then maybe don't go looking for fights so close to the end of the session.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So a hypothetical for the hard line "anti-fudging crowd".

It's getting late in the day, everybody is tired and wants to go home, and a combat with no real significant narrative impact is very nearly over. One monster is left and they are low on HP, one PC is left in the initiative order before the monster can act, and if it does act it would plausibly heal itself, teleport away, summon allies, or do something to prolong combat. Nobody wants to call the end of a session in the middle of a fight, and nobody really wants to be there any longer.

So if the last PC manages a near miss (in either to-hit or how much damage) do you really consider making everybody stay longer or playing the monster dumb on purpose so they do not prolong the fight to be better options than "How much damage? Okay, they're dead" or "OK, that hits... roll for damage... they're dead."

I feel like "in order to accommodate people's real life situations" is a clear-cut case where all manner of GM shenanigans are acceptable. Like "the dice should fall where they may" is much less important than "you should go home and get some sleep."

I'd even do more, I'd forgo the dice rolling and state "You collectively finish dispatching the opposition". I even do this even in the middle of a session when I feel the tension of this combat has subsumed and there is indeed no narrative interest left in it.


gnoams wrote:
For a home game I wrote, I'm the storyteller, I modify results if it helps the story. I still roll my dice in the open, but I apply circumstance modifiers. So if it would be really cool for a roll to succeed, I'll give them a bonus. If it would cheapen the game, I give a penalty. I'll fudge damage modifiers too, especially if I know that this would kill a player and I don't have any way of getting them back in the game in the next 10 minutes. In my experience, 10 minutes is the most you can reasonably ask a player to sit on the sidelines before bringing them back into the game. There has to be some balancing between immersion, fairness, and the fact that this is just a game we all gathered to enjoy and excluding one player from that ruins the experience.

It is impossible to run circumstance modifiers in this way without being too generous to one player or unfair to another.


Fudging rolls to keep the players alive? Yes.

Fudging roll to keep NPCs and monsters alive? No.


Xaimum Mafire wrote:

Fudging rolls to keep the players alive? Yes.

Fudging roll to keep NPCs and monsters alive? No.

I'm not so sure.

There might be a story reason why a monster or NPC needs to die in the next chapter or be killed by a different party member.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Agénor wrote:
I'd even do more, I'd forgo the dice rolling and state "You collectively finish dispatching the opposition". I even do this even in the middle of a session when I feel the tension of this combat has subsumed and there is indeed no narrative interest left in it.

I have honestly ended sessions with "all of the monsters in the room succumb to untreated medical conditions; seeing a doctor is important" when I was pretty sure one of my players needed medical attention.


I don't have a problem with fudging dice to keep the game moving or to help the narrative, but I don't need it to keep my character alive. In our Carrion Crown game we had a TPK, then the next session my new character died. Totally on board with this. It really helped us feel how deadly the world is.

Where I don't mind fudging is to keep things moving, eg. PossibleCabbage's hypothetical end-of-night scenario.
If the choice is between:
1. Continuing a meaningless-yet-slow-going combat when everyone just wants to go home.
2. Calling the session and taking photos so you can continue it next session.
OR
3. Fudging some dice rolls.

I'll take option 3 every time (in fact I'll agree with Agénor and say "skip the dice and call it a win").

For narrative purposes I think it can work too. If your villain has a connection to the Bard, and the Bard misses the kill-shot by 1 HP, and the Barbarian is up next, I'd just say the villain is dead and let the Bard describe how it goes.

I don't mind fudging, but it shouldn't be to help PCs or NPCs. It should be to help the story (and remember this is a group narrative, so it's everyone's story).

I do admit my criteria are just as subjective as everyone else's, and that it's a difficult line to walk. Knowing your group is the most important aspect to this.


Agénor wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So a hypothetical for the hard line "anti-fudging crowd".

It's getting late in the day, everybody is tired and wants to go home, and a combat with no real significant narrative impact is very nearly over. One monster is left and they are low on HP, one PC is left in the initiative order before the monster can act, and if it does act it would plausibly heal itself, teleport away, summon allies, or do something to prolong combat. Nobody wants to call the end of a session in the middle of a fight, and nobody really wants to be there any longer.

So if the last PC manages a near miss (in either to-hit or how much damage) do you really consider making everybody stay longer or playing the monster dumb on purpose so they do not prolong the fight to be better options than "How much damage? Okay, they're dead" or "OK, that hits... roll for damage... they're dead."

I feel like "in order to accommodate people's real life situations" is a clear-cut case where all manner of GM shenanigans are acceptable. Like "the dice should fall where they may" is much less important than "you should go home and get some sleep."

I'd even do more, I'd forgo the dice rolling and state "You collectively finish dispatching the opposition". I even do this even in the middle of a session when I feel the tension of this combat has subsumed and there is indeed no narrative interest left in it.

This is actually easier to defend than die roll fudging so long as the decision is public and everybody is in agreement. There's no subterfuge involved, so there's no breach of trust. I can get behind that in some situations.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

Fudging rolls to keep the players alive? Yes.

Fudging roll to keep NPCs and monsters alive? No.

I'm not so sure.

There might be a story reason why a monster or NPC needs to die in the next chapter or be killed by a different party member.

It's not the GM's job to write the story.

/lights a faux-cigarillo


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Xaimum Mafire wrote:

Fudging rolls to keep the players alive? Yes.

Fudging roll to keep NPCs and monsters alive? No.

I'm not so sure.

There might be a story reason why a monster or NPC needs to die in the next chapter or be killed by a different party member.

eh, in that case i dont fudge die rolls, i just apply more hp.


Artificial 20 wrote:
I fudge, but consider it courteous to sometimes let the GM know.

*laughs*

Amazing!

That being said, I have told players that if it makes the game more enjoyable for them it's fine if they cheat from time to time.
Or I've told them to pick a different D20 and try again if they've had a night of particularly bad rolls.

1 to 50 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Fudging Rolls: Yea or Nay? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.