Fudging Dice Rolls

[Scott]

The party's encounter with Lolth got me thinking about this. Two fluke rolls and the party defeated Lolth in a very anti-climactic fashion. I was tempted to fudge a roll, but two rounds in and it was apparent that the encounter could very well be a TPK. I think it's one of the flaws in the 1E system. High level play. It's kind of how every encounter has been recently, the monster attacks either have no threat, or it's one hit dead. I see why EGG, etc. generally retired their characters around name level.
5E has a mechanic called Legendary Resistance, which is built in to prevent the BBGs from being taken out this way. They can ignore 1 or more failed saves. But 5E characters are much harder to kill than 1E characters. If I would have fudged the magic resistance roll or saving throw to avoid the apparently easy victory for the party, and then end up being wiped out that would be a huge mistake. I think in a 1E game, which was written much more gamey than later editions, you have to let the dice fall where they will.

[Scott]

Well, I think I would probably fudge a die roll in a PC's favor if he was playing very well and it was one bad roll that could completely end everything.

[geneweigel]

Ernie had the players get usable points to apply to different situations as luck and also he gave me a secret backup weapon (Not sure if everyone had something like that).

One of my hangups has always been sort of the opposite that I don't like to punish cheaters in the game. Why should the entire adventure be ruined because someone is behaving like a dick. I just rubberize their character for the rest of the session then cut them loose later. Alignment behavior, I will reward/punish like that because it is the actual game. So if lets say Lolth lost an advantage because of being too unruly (Chaotic evil) then something has to go in her favor later perhaps a big bonus which might be deemed a fudge but not really.

[GRWelsh]

Ernie gave the player characters something he called "Pivot Points" which were like luck points: they allowed for a free reroll, or a big bonus on an attack, but from what I can recall weren't automatic success. Ernie had custom character sheets designed which included the Pivot Points in the graphics, so I assumed he'd been using them for some time... Some other questions I had were: how long had he been using them, and did his dad ever use anything similar in regards to a game mechanic? Ernie did not give me a secret backup weapon, so not everyone had that. I kept my character sheet and wrote down the XP and treasure in case I ever get to play with Ernie again as the DM. I was also wondering if he ever gets to play anymore or if he is always the DM for other people making the 'pilgrimage' to Lake Geneva.

[Scott]

There was a Mythus mechanic, JOSS I think it was called.

[GRWelsh]

Dec 18, 2022 15:30:39 GMT -5 Scott said:

Well, I think I would probably fudge a die roll in a PC's favor if he was playing very well and it was one bad roll that could completely end everything.

I am sympathetic to this, as I've learned that if a player plays well, it is very frustrating to them to fail or die simply due to bad luck with die rolls. The other side of this is that it is a game, with dice, and part of the experience is based upon the randomness for good or ill. It somewhat robs players of the experience of playing a game if their occasional phenomenal rolls giving them unexpected success are not counterbalanced with the opposite. There should be ups and downs. I would just add that if a DM does on rare occasions fudge a die roll in a player characters' favor it must be kept secret to preserve the integrity of the game, or tied in with something internally consistent or already established like divine intervention. As an example, my cleric and paladin PC are exceptionally generous in giving to the poor and to the church, beyond the tithe amounts described in the PH -- and if the player characters are generally good or loyal to their patron deities or mission, I think it can be justified in some metaphysical context within the campaign milieu. I suppose the same could be applied, in rare situations, to foes...

I recently had an experience where as DM I let the dice fall where they may, and one of my players had his character, a paladin, die at around 2nd level and grew very frustrated and quit for a time [he did eventually come back]. The encounter involved two owlbears and I randomly rolled who they would attack within range and both ganged up on him and tore him apart to below -10 hp within a round. I didn't feel I did anything wrong as an impartial referee, as it isn't uncommon for player characters to gang up on a single foe. Combat isn't always fair in that sense -- and so your character may be targeted, either by intelligent tactics or randomly by monsters of animal intelligence. But I think I learned that since the player didn't do anything foolish or stupid, I probably could have handled it a bit differently without 'cheating' from my point of view as the DM.

Something else I've learned is to adapt to how the campaign develops, and to place treasure or magic items to help make up for player characters with bad dice rolls in regards to spells learned, hit points rolled, etc. I allowed some m-u characters to find magic robes of a minor nature the give them some bonuses to both hp and AC which counteracts their bad hit point rolls and makes them a bit more survivable, and this doesn't unduly imbalance the campaign. The most honest players in my experience often tend to have worst ability scores, hit points and armor class... and I notice a pattern. As DM, I can somewhat correct or compensate for that. I regard it as DM's fiat to place magic items and treasure in the campaign to give an advantage to certain player characters, or to help them catch up or keep pace with the rest of the party... Call it divine intervention, fate, or what have you. At the end of the day, I want the players to have fun and for death and misfortune to be be possible -- but not constantly frustrating and meaningless. I'd prefer most deaths in heroic fantasy to be reserved for stupidity, recklessness, or especially epic battles with foreshadowed and truly fearsome foes and great stakes involved.

[geneweigel]

If the player is an entitled good alignment oriented class who thinks every dangerous animal qualifies them for a good deed pass versus "evil" then I would just let it go.

[GRWelsh]

Dec 26, 2022 21:58:21 GMT -5 geneweigel said:

If the player is an entitled good alignment oriented class who thinks every dangerous animal qualifies them for a good deed pass versus "evil" then I would just let it go.

The player in question didn't say he felt entitled to a good deed pass versus evil, but rather that he felt 'targeted' by me personally, but there wasn't any reason for that, and I've killed other player characters such as a halfling thief and another paladin in the recent past. Also, I tried to mentally prepare everyone for the likelihood of some death and misfortune -- at low levels especially -- in 1st edition AD&D by having everyone roll up secondary characters. So, I don't see how he could have thought I was targeting him as a player to get him out of the game. He had a lot of personal and health issues at the time, so that may have factored in. And some players simply don't deal with death or bad things happening to their characters as well as others.

In the future, there will be foreshadowing of deadly foes and if the party charges in thinking they will win simply by virtue of "Hey, we're the players!" there will certainly be more deaths. My players are generally intelligent and cautious and don't take character misfortune personally.

[Scott]

I was never really hesitant to kill PCs, and usually let the die fall where they would. But after a period of really Gung ho by the book, I mellowed out a little bit. When you are running a campaign, and it's basically the default playing style, i.e. just one party adventuring together session after session, killing a PC can have a big impact, especially once the party as a whole have gained a few levels. Most of the players I game with don't want to start PCs at higher levels. And it sucks being the 1st level PC in a party where everybody else is 8th level.
If playing an older campaign style, old Greyhawk or Blackmoor, I wouldn't hesitate. The whole experience is much more gamey.
I don't run story driven campaigns, but in a common play style game I try to factor in and balance everybody's enjoyment and the overall impact the PC death will have on the game.

[geneweigel]

Here is Gary on the subject in MASTER OF THE GAME (1989) while going over the seven game master principal functions [Moving Force, Creator, Designer, Arbiter, Overseer, Director, and Umpire/Referee/Judge ((a single function with various shades of
meaning]) on the 7th function he mention dice rolls (I put in bold):

Umpire/Referee/Judge: This threefold function places the Master GM in a more personal role in game proceedings. While the role of Arbiter is vital to regulatory supervision, this function focuses on the Master GM as a person who must deal with players as individual human beings while maintaining the standards and integrity of the game as a whole. Because the player characters interact with the game system and scenarios based upon it, they do require some supervision. Since only the Game Master can know the motives, thoughts, plans, purposes, and actions/reactions of the sentient creatures and beasts encountered during the course of an adventure episode, he or she must deliver the final word on all disputes. The Umpire role is not a biased one. The Game Master must serve as sole decision-maker with respect to actions within a scenario, combats, and all the rest of what occurs where activity requires determination of results. Various dice rolls called for by the rules may determine success or failure on some occasions. But often some activity not anticipated by the systems and rules will be initiated. As Umpire, the GM's rule should consider only the facts and resulting circumstances, whether as probability results expressed by random-number generation or arguments of fact and logic. The Referee role is very similar to that of Umpire, but the focus
is on disputes or hostile player character interaction. Let us suppose that in the PARANOIA game Slip-R-EEE wants to substitute a dud energy cell for the weapon carried by Boss-Y-JRK. The activity involved would fall into the Umpire category, but a resulting dispute later, wherein Slip-R-EEE and Boss-Y-JRK deal directly with one another, is very much the purview of the Referee. The Game Master must handle these types of interactions in an impartial and judicial manner. The Game Master also determines rewards for character performance in adventure scenarios. This role of Judge does not normally extend to the division of spoils taken during the course of play. (If there is a dispute there, it is the Referee who intercedes.) But in this last capacity the Game Master comments on the strength and weakness of each character's play, and gives each player character the awards and honors he or she sees fit. In some game systems, this might mean the distribution of points toward an increase in professional skills or personal statistics, or an increase in rank, level, or other such status. Going back to Slip-R-EEE in the PARANOIA example, that character's assumption of the Team Leader role after the demise of Boss Y-JRK, plus a further successful "discovery" of a "Commie Mutant Traitor," might result in the awarding of several skill points and a promotion from red to orange status for Slip ... ruining a perfectly good name in the process. (Slip-O-EEE doesn't quite cut it, but that's progress for you.) The function of Judge is a very important one, for the action of the GM in this capacity is a measure of his or her overall skill. Too few or too many awards will be seen as a sign of weakness, or that the GM is being unfair or showing favoritism. Player participants do their own judging of course, and the Game Master is rated continually throughout the course of activity but never so critically as in the case when he or she serves as Judge at the conclusion of an adventure scenario.

[GRWelsh]

Yes, EGG put a lot of thought into the various functions of being a DM and had some good advice. It's the sort of thing you can spend a lifetime working on. DMing is very difficult, because it is about so much more than just being an impartial referee... There is the function of making an entertaining and satisfying experience for the players, getting all players engaged, presenting a certain aesthetic, effectively staging the miniatures and terrain and/or describing the theater of the mind, role-playing in different accents and voices, having a creative outlet for writing and artwork, etc.