As a GM, do you think it's ever alright to fix rolls for the sake of the RP?
>>44208831
Yes. In fact, if an action must absolutely, positively succeed to keep the game moving forward, I won't even call for a roll in the first place.
>>44208831
Very rarely, but yes.
>>44208831
If you need to fix it, why did you call for a roll it in the first place?
>>44208831
Yes. But be smart about it, and don't rely on it too much. Do it sparingly.
>>44208870
This. Don't roll dice unless there is an actual risk of failure.
>>44208870
Usually, because you didn't realize the roll could go that badly wrong.
One time, long ago, I was dealing with a 6 man Dragonquest party. Tromping through the woods on their way to an old ruin, get attacked in the night.
They were smart, broke their watches into 3 shifts, each of which had someone with a high perception stat, and someone else with some magic, either racial or item, that let them see better in the dark. The swarm of goblins that rolled up had a miniscule, less than 1% chance of beating all 4 perception rolls (2 sight, 2 hearing).
They beat them, through incredible luck behind the screen. The "proper" outcome would then be
>Oh, sorry, they slit the throats of the 4 sleeping guys, the two of you remaining, start surprised, there are 15 goblins surrounding you, you're gonna die.
So I fudged a listen roll to give them a last minute hearing of a twig breaking, enough to fight at disadvantage, but not instant death. Random encounters are supposed to be a tax on your ability to stay in dangerous areas, not a death sentence like that.
>>44208831
I was thinking about this myself the other day.
In my opinion, it's alright to botch event rolls once in a while for the sake of the story.
I'm more hesitant about botching character rolls though, when applicable.
Generally, if you're relying on fixing roll too often then your story and your situation setup as a DM probably need some improvement,.
>>44208917
Shit GM detected.
>>44208917
Sorry, I'm with>>44208979 here, it sounds like bad DMing to me. If you don't want to live with the chance of that happening, just don't roll.
>>44208831
People who don't GM will go "no, never".
People who GM will go "yeah, sometimes".
>>44209037
I GM a lot and I still say you should never do this.
No. The dice are intended to be a neutral party to BOTH sides, player and GM.
The point of the dice is that people are gambling on something. Once you start adjusting the odds you are being unfair to the players by cheating them. Their efforts become an illusion that is subject to your whims, not their decisions.
By playing straight, players get a better sense of when they are pushing their luck. They suffer consequences for bad decisions, failing to have a backup plan, and sometimes just by fate. Adventuring is a risky business and that's the way adventurers like it.
Only if you NEVER tell them you do it. A magician never reveals his secrets does he?
>>44209037
I did it when I was younger and a much worse GM.
>>44208917
You can set the consequence of failure as something less than instant death without completely negating the roll - like, say, give the goblins a big tactical advantage or have a couple of them make off with some of the party's gear.
>>44209116
Cancer. Only fudge rolls with the players' knowledge and consent.
>>44209156
Wanna justify why it's cancer kid? Your job is to entertain the players, not play a fair game. As long as you're clever, don't do it too much and make sure nobody notices it's fine.
>>44209101
>By playing straight, players get a better sense of when they are pushing their luck. They suffer consequences for bad decisions, failing to have a backup plan, and sometimes just by fate. Adventuring is a risky business and that's the way adventurers like it
Wrong on all counts, if we're talking about the majority of players. Your sentiments only apply to exceptional players who are far and few in between.
>>44209150
>Fudging the roll is wrong and evil and bad
>Fudging the consequences of said roll is somehow different.
I don't think so. I do all my rolls in the open, and it gives the game more weight and, for us, enjoyment when you can actually SEE how the BBEG fucked up or succeeded in his roll. There is no room for doubt that what happened happened because fate wanted it to.
That, of course, requires to not create scenes why the game just stops when roll doesn't succeed. If there is only one possible outcome, why are you even rolling? Just write up problems where failure just drives you in a different direction instead of completely stopping the game and making it impossible to advance.
If the players roleplay really well or do something really clever, usually just skip the roll, at least with social tests.
>>44208870
Because the player asked to do something really stupid. I don't fix the roll, I fix the DC
I would say yes, but only used sparingly and for the sake of the story.
Sort of like how luck works in Discworld. Some things are just too crazy and reckless to not work. Might as well fudge a roll for dramatic effect.
>>44208831
If you fix rolls, you're pretty much admitting that the game isn't about the characters, it's about your story.
It's unfair to invite people to role-play if you don't let the risks they take and the choices they make matter, for good or bad.
IF you really feel that your story is more important than the characters, at least skip the rolling part, or the whole game starts feeling really hollow when people realize that they miraculously make it every time failure would cut your story short.
>>44209280
Wait what? Do you want the players to succeed?
If yes -> the action succeeds.
If no -> the action fails.
If you don't have a strong preference -> you ask for a roll.
What does it matter if it was a stupid thing or not?
>>44209336
You do realize that any DM can do that anyway simply by control of the context of the rolls without fudging a thing, right?
>I know you rolled great on trying to convince the Duke of Rahaxy to increase patrols, but he thinks it's a really bad idea, the DC was higher than you could hope to achieve.
>Nope, nope, that thief is just a clumsy idiot, even on your 2 spot roll, you see him ducking into the crowd, you want to chase him, he's got your McGuffin, right?
>You've chopped up the seven orcs in front of you, but the sounds of the combat have attracted more of the green skinned tribesmen, looks like eight more. What's your call?
Tell me how any of those are different from a GM altering the roll for a persuade, spot, or combat respectively?
>>44209400
But you can't alter dice rolls. That would be taking away player agency!
>>44209247
I'm just saying that the GM sets the stakes before rolling. Those stakes don't have to always be life or death for every roll.
>>44208831
I can't speak as a GM, but in the very first encounter of my first D&D game our GM would have wiped the party if not for fudging a couple rolls.
The GM had admittedly little experience with low-tier magic games (its was Eberron) and hadn't realized throwing enemies with several Cleave feats at a group of three fist level characters was not a great idea.
>>44209436
And I'm just saying that I don't see any functional difference between altering the roll itself, and altering what would be the reasonable consequences of said roll.
I'm not familiar with the setting, but if standard operating procedure of Goblins is to kill people in their sleep if they can, then changing that in absence of a good (that is, in character) reason isn't any different from changing the listen roll. They're both equally soft railroading to get the party out of a jam.
>>44209420
I honestly can't tell if you are sarcastic.
Player agency is having player actions matter in the story. It's the right of players to suffer the realistic consequences of their actions. You can run a game where the players have their agency without using any dice at all. It just wouldn't be as exciting.
>>44209535
Yes, I was being sarcastic, because I'm not pretending the rather obvious dichotomy between success or failure of a given action won't affect the story.
If the only actions that can succeed are the ones that the GM wants to happen, and the ones that the GM doesn't want to happen are guaranteed to fail, the players have an extraordinarily limited agency, because their actions have been yoked to GM preference instead of some internally consistent/realistic probability calculation to determine success or failure.
>>44209535
As a DM, I generally feel that it's better to allow something incredibly difficult and unlikely on a hilariously difficult roll, instead of outright forbidding it.
For example, if a player wants to addempt something only has a 1% chance or is even impossible at first glance (like achieving 7 successes when the players only have 4-6 dice), they can go ahead and try.
This works best in games where players can invest resources to heighten the abilities of their characters so they actually have a shot at succeeding. Stuff like Edge in SR or blood in Vampire, for example.
On the other hand, I also like to have a chance of failure on tasks that aren't completely miniscule and irrelevant. Even the best shot can fuck up and not hit a mark, but that should happen incredibly rarely. So that works best in systems where a skilled character has only a very, very, very small chance to fuck up.
Both things don't really work in most D20 style games, of course. So I'm guessing that's where the need to fudge rolls comes from in the first place. Since the system tends to fuck both the Player and the DM over randomly and regularly, you probably HAVE to either forego rolls entirely or fudge them once in a while. Not really a fan of it, though, but no problem for me since our group doesn't play D20 games.
>>44209592
If GM preference is distinguishable from common sense (or narrative conventions of the genre the game tries to emulate), then the GM is shit. If the GM and the players can't agree whether or not something could realistically (or according to the narrative conventions) happen, that's a communication failure.
In a perfect world you could play a game, where your GM would give a satisfactory answer to every uncertain situation in the game. Sadly the world is not perfect and in these instances where there's serious uncertanity if the characters succeed or not the GM1s say isn't enough. So we use dice because they are impartial and that makes us a bit better.
That doesn't mean we should use dice every time when there's a small chance of success/failure. The GM shouldn't call for a roll that he is not prepared to follow upon.
>>44209659
Even in d20 games the GM could say that you need a two or more consecutive successful/failed roll to succeed/fail. That's not the problem.
The problem is that something happens that the GM is not prepared for, so he 'fixes' the roll. My point is that you should be prepared for any outcome a roll might have if you call for a roll. Even the worst.
>>44209773
>If GM preference is distinguishable from common sense (or narrative conventions of the genre the game tries to emulate), then the GM is shit. If the GM and the players can't agree whether or not something could realistically (or according to the narrative conventions) happen, that's a communication failure.
Please. Take the following example
>Players discover threat to kingdom from, I don't know, a rising necromancer building an army.
>They run to the king, to try to get a serious response quickly
>GM doesn't want this, determines that any attempt to persuade the king will be insufficient.
>Some rolls or whatever, they all fail.
>Unless the GM is a total tard about the royal's counterarguments for why intervention isn't a good idea at this time, it is not distinguishable from either common sense or narrative conventions.
And I wasn't aware that the players had a controlling input as to how likely a given action was to succeed. I'm pretty sure that's the GM's call in literally every system. And yet we still have a railroad situation; the GM has determined beforehand that that king will not smile upon the PC's plan.
>In a perfect world you could play a game, where your GM would give a satisfactory answer to every uncertain situation in the game.
Unless of course, the players, like in most systems and settings, aren't supposed to have perfect information about their surroundings or how likely a given course of action is to succeed or fail. Dealing with that uncertainty is one of the prime points of an RPG as opposed to just a strategy game.
>Sadly the world is not perfect and in these instances where there's serious uncertainty if the characters succeed or not the GM1s say isn't enough.
But the GM's say isn't possible to separate from the issue, since he determines the context, the difficulty, and very often the consequences of the roll, no matter what that roll drops down as.
>>44209836
Well, I'm with you on that.
>>44209936
>Players discover threat to kingdom from, I don't know, a rising necromancer building an army.
>They run to the king, to try to get a serious response quickly
>GM doesn't want this, determines that any attempt to persuade the king will be insufficient.
>Some rolls or whatever, they all fail.
>Unless the GM is a total tard about the royal's counterarguments for why intervention isn't a good idea at this time, it is not distinguishable from either common sense or narrative conventions.
That's what I'm saying. If the excuses are poor the two are distinguisable thus the DM is shit. If it is not, then the players understand why their plan failed and move on to formulate an another (hopefully better) one.
>I wasn't aware that the players had a controlling input as to how likely a given action was to succeed.
I meant that players always have the option to call bullshit on the GM and leave. If they don't speak up, they accept that realistically the thing the GM described can happen and in fact just happened to their characters.
>But the GM's say isn't possible to separate from the issue, since he determines the context, the difficulty, and very often the consequences of the roll, no matter what that roll drops down as.
Yes, that's why I say it's bad GMing to roll when you, as a GM, are not prepared to face the consequences of EVERY outcome that roll could provide.
>>44208831
I do what I want, I'm a power-mad dictator.
>>44209239
No, he's actually right on all counts. Stop DMing for casual babies.
>>44209263
This is the best answer.
Ask your players if they like it when you fudge rolls to make them better. Like honest 1-on-1 about it. Some players who just like to hear how awesome they are all the time will enjoy it, but most other players hate that shit because it takes away from their accomplishment.
"Oh, I didn't beat the Grand Archdemon Lichfiend of Baramos because I used tatics, cunning, skill, and good team and party play. I beat him because the DM let me."
That is absolutely a shitty feeling all around.
I always roll in the open until I get to an adventure or campaign where some mystery is involved in the mechanics, or a horror or survival themed game, such as Out of the Abyss. THEN I'll roll behind a screen, and even ask the players to let me roll any of their perception/investigation/knowledge checks behind the screen and add their bonus for them. But otherwise, it's 100% out in the open.
And yeah, if you want the players to succeed, just let them succeed then. Why even bother creating a situation where they might lose in the first place if you're just going to fudge the roll?
>>44208870
pretty much this, if you want something to happen just invoke rule 0 have it occur without the rolls, if you roll you entrust yourself fully to the dice (and if you don't think the action is worth rule 0 then don't do it).
the counter monkey videos may have some controversy but one quote I think that all DMs should take to heart is "do you want to play the game or not?"
>>44209409
You shouldn't even be calling for a roll in the first two scenarios. If an action has either no chance of success or no chance of failure you shouldn't be rolling to resolve the action. There are things that are impossible to reasonably succeed or fail at; you're not going to trip and fall walking across a room, and you're not going to seduce a hobgoblin chief who just had half of his men slaughtered by you. Adjudicating actions is fucking GMing 101.
As for the third scenario, the players chose to attack the orcs and make a lot of noise, and are now choosing how to deal with the approaching threat. They have agency, and their choices effect the outcome of situation. Unlike when the GM alters dice rolls whenever he wants regardless of a players choices.
>>44209067
Hi, I'm posting just to say that I TOTALLY believe your unsupported assertion because I'm smarter and better-looking than you. Also, as a GM, EVERY roll is subject to Imperial Modification for Reasons whether or not I let the players - or 4chan - know about it because of Rule One.
Deal with it, you, you ... plebiscite rabble!
>>44208831
Yes and no.
In most games i run, i prefer to avoid rolling social skills AT ALL, unless we are actually fast-forwarding over the scene.
As an example, a common house-rule in my d20 games is that (again, unless the scene is fast-forwarded) i decide the outcome of each player's "d20 roll" on social skills based on RP, and then the player adds relevant training/skill ranks/other modifiers.
>>44208831
If I "fix" a roll as a DM, it means I made a mistake. I'm willing to accept bad consequences for bad dice/player mistakes, but if I fuck up and make something that turns out to be too strong with average rolls then I'll make some judicious edits.
>>44208870
This. Dice are to be used when failure is an option.
>>44208831
Yes. If the players and the GM are interested enough in the story that neither wants to have to stop it because whoops that fifth crit in a row wiped the whole party, maybe make that last crit do normal damage, or even miss.
I've found that the people who can't stand any kind of DM fudging ever are the kinds of people who try to play PnP games like videogames. Probably because they spend 70% of their time planning numbers rather than listening to what's going on in the plot, so tweaking the probabilities makes them sperg out over hindsight wasted effort.
>>44208831
I wouldn't call it "wrong" in most cases, but the more I GMed games the less I did it, and I don't do it any more.
When I first started, I kind of fell into the trap that a lot of GMs do: I called for rolls for everything. I called for rolls for things that didn't matter, and I called for rolls for things that I really didn't want them to fail at. Then, if they failed, I had to decide if I wanted to let that happen or not. It was stressful.
Same thing in combat. I'd be afraid of some character dying because I had some really neat thing planned for him. So, if something rolled well and killed him, I had to decide if I wanted him to actually die or not. That's kind of a big decision. Why do I let one player die and not another? Why let any of them die?
The reason I was so stressed out about it is because I was building a story, and them dying (or failing, or even succeeding) at certain points would alter that story, and I didn't want that to happen, so I changed the rolls instead.
The more I played, the less time I spent building "plots". I don't do as much prep nowadays as I did before, and a lot of what I do is seat-of-my-pants. I'm less interested in the players experiencing my "story" than I am in being surprised by the shit they do. As a result, I care less if they fuck shit up (or if they die before being able to fuck shit up), because there's just not as much shit to fuck up. I feel better now. I feel like I have less responsibility when I can let the die have the final word.
Hell, I think one of the great strengths of the die is that it takes responsibility for player death. I used to feel *bad* when somebody died, because I reserved the power to save them and chose not to. Now, if they die, they die, and it's the die's fault, not mine. It's a load of my brain, I guess. And that goes for a lot of the other stuff I'd fudge, too.
Is it wrong? Do I think you're a bad GM if you do it? No, not really. But I think it's more trouble than it's worth.
>>44210294
Man, your players must love it when you have to scrap your campaign when everyone gets unlucky and the party gets wiped.
I bet you roll in the open and tell players DC as well, just so you're "fair".
Fair doesn't make for a fun game when chance is involved, because as long as the GM is anywhere above complete shit their judgement is going to be better than the dice's.
This thread is why you roll behind a DM screen.
"The only reason a DM rolls dice is for the sound that they make."
Just, don't let your players know you're doing it. Ruins the illusion.
>>44208831
Yes, but it should be kept to a minimum.
>>44222211
As a GM, your purpose is to provide fun for your group and yourself. Would it be more fun if something the dice say should happen doesn't? Do it then.
However, at the same time, you shouldn't be making scenarios that you're unwilling to accept the consequences for, and constantly fudging rolls is something the party will pick up on fast, and once they're aware of it, it completely cheapens the experience, and ruins any fun you sought to create.
Tl;Dr: It's okay sometimes. Doing it too often will ruin everything, but having a total party wipe due to some ridiculous luck is worse.
Don't listen to all these fags saying it makes you a bad dm. The only bad dm is a dm that the party doesn't enjoy.
>>44222938
Oops meant to reply to OP, thread is unrelated
>>44208831
Did the players have fun? If yes, it was the right call. If not, it might have been the wrong call. Remember that you, the GM, are also a player of the game.
That is the only universal rule of GM'ing.
I do this sometimes to help new players get into the game. It can be discouraging for someone new if they just keep rolling shit every time. As the person who introduced D&D to my group of friends, I think it's important for new players to feel powerful early on.
>>44222703
Precisely.
At the same time, I find it's a good idea to sometimes openly display impactful rolls like natural 20s/1s on the GM side of rolls to punctuate that an opponent really screwed up or pulled off something impressive, maybe even turning the tides of a one-sided encounter.
It doesn't actually matter if you rolled a 5 and used some sleight of hand to show off a 20, as long as it looks believable and it works for the story it'll make the session better.
From a player point of view:
You can tell when a DM fudges the rolls.
Of course, not every single one of them. But once you get to know your DM and played with him for a while, you start to notice if and when he does it. I've played with 7 or 8 DMs, which is only anecdotal evidence, but I definitely started to notice with those that regularly did it, and so did the other players.
And it fucking sucks. I want my achieve my victories the honest way and I don't want to get cheated out of them either. Once you start to notice that your DM is fudging rolls, everything is drawn into doubt and the game aspect of the game becomes kinda hollow.
>>44208831
All the time, it makes it more fun and engaging for the group.
>using a predetermined plot
>not plonking your players in a brand new world, then assembling everything with random encounter/event tables
