Fudging Rolls - Good Trick or Crossing the Line?

For those unaware - "fudging" a roll is when ST/GM alters the result of a roll - they might've rolled a nat 1, but said that they rolled a nat 20. Reasons are plenty - to save an important NPC or player, prolong a fight, give out (or withhold) a crucial piece of information.

Are you down for that kind of trickery? What could, in your mind, justify the practice? Do you use it? Ever been in a game where ST/GM was doing it? How did you and other players react to it (if it was disclosed)?

I have lately arrived at the conclusion that if you're unwilling to accept the results of a roll (within the range of its possible outcomes), you should not be reaching for the dice.

My chosen option would be "Okay for the right reasons". Which in my eyes is not exactly the same as "in certain situations". But I suppose it similar enough.

To me a very important part of the GMs job is to make sure the players have fun and try to give them what they are looking for. So if the PCs are getting absolutely murdered by the GMs lucky rolls, maybe it's time to cut them some slack. Or the reverse, the GM has been rolling badly all evening and there is hardly any challenge for the PCs. This can be just as much of a mood killer.

Though I use it very sparingly. Part of my fun at the table is the randomness, so I want to keep that element. Otherwise I might as well not roll any dice at all.

I'm sure I've done it before but these days I think it's not needed if a game is structured right. It's a bit like pulling the fire alarm. I'd rather not need to do it but if it saves a campaign from disaster I might.

I believe it really depends on the table and the game. There are plenty of games where the rules aren't meant to be fair and the dice are supposed to be sacred; obviously you shouldn't fudge here! But there are some games that emphasize a more character-focused narrative. In these, sometimes, it can be ok! But it should be a tool in your belt; like a hammer, it is not always appropriate. But sometimes you need to see the wrong result to know that it's wrong, such as with random encounters or weather or even reactions!

I don't like fudging rolls, but what I think is more important is whether the players are aware that it's something a GM might do. If everybody's fine with the GM fudging, go for it!

On the other hand, if it would make some players unhappy to know that fudging has occurred, that's not a good idea. I've read some bad advice to simply deceive your players and say that you never fudge, which stuck in my craw.

For me, fudging rolls on purpose is unacceptable. If I don't wanna go with the dice, I don't roll it!
I completely agree. That's the only situation where I think it's acceptable to adjust the roll. If it was a mistake, from the beginning, to roll... Then it's fine to regret and try to "fix it". After all, we're only human =)

Does it count as fudging if you truthfully announce the result of the roll, but then alter the criteria you judge the result by? Not in a game mechanically strict or with a group which prefers to play by the rules, of course, but in a more flexible situation.

Say a player rolled a 9 and GM had a success point of 10. And say GM has a feeling that the player won't have much fun if they fail, and since the margin was so small, they go "well, actually, maybe this task wasn't as hard as I estimated and this succeeds too." Maybe with a slightly reduced effect or the like, but not a straight up failure it should've been if they stuck with the original goal. Would this still count as fudging? 🤔

(As for my opinion on fudging in general, I agree with testlum - as long as it's communicated, I'd be fine with it. And if I'm not feeling like it, then I just won't join a game that has it in its description. Win all around.)

Generally, let the dice fall where they may.

But, as others have aptly posted, it depends. Sometimes you have to do things to preserve the narrative and/or to save the game. I was in a scenario recently, my character was about to get killed or at least at death’s door, and the rest of the party was down in a sense where it didn’t look like a great path forward. GM gave me an out. I enjoy that character and was glad to get to overcome the encounter and to keep playing. For me, it preserved the fun factor. You know who you are, great GM! :)

So, yeah. In certain situations, mileage varies, etc.

What are you rolling for if you're not willing to abide the results of the dice?

That's my overall position, but there can always be extenuating circumstances. Indeed, for some games it's absolutely verboten in most circumstances, but there are some situations where it's perfectly okay to roll again or interpret the results liberally. I will sometimes roll twice and choose the more interesting result on encounter or random tables in OSR games, for example... but I will *never* fudge a save or combat roll in those games.

Many games offer metacurrencies as a way to legally fudge things -- play those those if you don't like abiding by what the dice say.

Also consider in pass/fail games that success at cost can often be more interesting than failure -- regardless of the system. And take the advice in Mothership's Warden's manual to heart, which says that degree / result matters, even on a pass/fail roll. In other words, if you're shooting for 50 or below in a % system, missing by 1 and missing by 40 are two quite different results...

Edit: I will admit it makes me crazy when a GM doesn't announce the difficulty in a game where it's supposed to be on the table ahead of time, then just announces a low difficulty when the player rolls low. Or when they announce a specific difficulty, and they handful failures just... because. I've seen this at cons a fair bit and it tends to t-bone my enjoyment of the game.

Isn't there a Twilight Zone episode where the character can't fail and gets whatever he wants instantly and it turns out to be hell? There's my answer.

I don't do it, as a rule. And don't think I ever have in a pbp game, specifically. But...

In... lots, frankly... of the systems I run, I improvise stats of enemies on the spot. Improvise abilities. Improvise gameplay. Including D&D5E (which is the most recent time I remember doing it fudging a roll, a couple years ago). Which is... not a game designed for that, let's say.

If I make a mistake? Make an enemy that's too powerful? Or too weak?? I will absolutely change the results of a roll, if it serves the drama and/or the story.

There is no reason to be rigid about such a thing that isn't tied to ego in my opinion.

Some ideological perception that the whole experience is "not real" if you use certain types of dramatic tools.

When the fact is that we use analogous dramatic tools (judgement, fiat) all the time when running a game, just in different places.

It's an absurd notion to me that those other judgements and fiat are real, but altering a dice outcome isn't.

In most games I run, I don't fudge the rolls simply because the dice are rolled in plain view. We use a VTT, and all rolls are made on the "table". That being said, I have fudged rolls in the past to spare a PC who died through no fault of their own (just bad luck) or to ensure the players have the information they require. I have also fudged hit point totals to extend a combat when the PCs all act before the BBG and decimate him before he can even get a shot in, or to shorten a combat if they seemed to be on the verge of a TPK. It's very subjective. It's not something I do often or lightly (and yes, I have let PCs die and I have had TPKs). When I do fudge something, it is done to enhance the excitement or drama.

I prefer not to fudge rolls but have learned that they're are times when a challenging encounter turns out to be underpowered and I have to adjust. If this happens early in a campaign I let it go and just restructure future encounters by increasing it's difficult, tap DC, enemy attack bonus, etc. If it's at the end I will fudge just enough to get the challenge to a point the plays feel the expected difficulty.

The biggest problem is most players are good at tracking things and I usually roll in the open so it is very hard to fudge actual rolls. This i often ensure certain environments have contingency options to up the difficulty. Extra secondary traps, extra henchmen, bbeg rapid healing or teleport. This trend to work better than dice manipulation.

Oh, something else came to mind. I actually have no problem with GMs who decide to overrule a roll with reason - it's the deceptive part of fudging that rubs me the wrong way.

I dont know how common this idea is in other RPGs, but Free League/Sophisticated Games The One Ring (2nd Edition) has guidance for a "failed" roll. (I.e. one that does not reach the Target Number needed).

The GM (or Loremaster, LM, to be exact) can permit/decide a result like that to be a "Success with Woe". This is where a failed roll is declared to have Succeeded, but either to a less than satisfactory condition ( e.g. the penalty of the Court is delayed for further evidence to be gathered, or for a weregild to be collected) or a further, unforeseen, complication is substituted as a consequence ( e.g. the Party has negotiated a truce, but now both sides of the conflict withdraw any support for them, and they have now gained two new groups of enemies).
This decision is discretionary, usually applying only in cases of narratively important tasks, outside of Combat: and I have not seen or heard of any Combat dice result, or a Journey Hazard being overturned with "Success with Woe".

So it is baked in to the rules; but is it a "fudge"?

I wouldn't consider it a fudge, since it's RAW, but it is an interesting notion. And I have seen something very similar somewhere else before, though the name of the system escapes me at the moment.

When I was giving my answer, I assumed that the question is not about using existing mechanics (rerolling with Luck, spending Fate Points, declaring Success at a Cost, and other mechanics that can turn a failure into a success), but rather rolling a die with the expectation that certain results have certain meanings yet then either substituting an arbitrary alternative number for the result or not following up with the consequences of the resulting number (often secretly).

And my response wasn't to decry fiat as unacceptable, but that if one wants to engage in fiat, then the honest thing to do is to engage in fiat without touching the dice. I tend to want lies to players to be minimised (even if lies to characters are okay).

The first time you fudge results is when you decide what's in the room.

You're putting your finger on the scale, just by doing that.

So...

I'm generally a GM that doesn't do with fudging dice wheb it comes to dice. I am one for brutal honesty with dice and no bailouts. That said, when it comes to fudging in general, I'm not someone that's going to let a fantastic moment slip away in my campaign all because of a maths error caused by a statistical anomaly. So, if it doesn't require a dice role, I will use my own judgment to simply rule things via fiat power to keep a good and fun moment continue rather than slip away.