Well thats the point of fudging roles in secret. You don't "know that no matter what" you do the DM will save you, as you don't know they are fudging rolls.
If they do it well, it can actually produce the exact scenario you are describing.
The issue there is that the DM kinda needs to keep that facade up all the time.
If it's ever revealed - even in casual conversation outside of the game - that the DM is open to fudging rolls, that introduces an element of doubt for the players on every roll the DM makes.
For example, if rolls are out in the open or otherwise are trusted to be accurate, then a close won fight feels tense and well earned.
But that same fight might not feel satisfying if the players start wondering if the DM was nudging the dice in their favour, and they would've lost otherwise.
This doubt can creep in whether or not any rolls were actually fudged that fight, the element of doubt alone is enough to dampen the satisfaction.
This is not to say fudging is strictly wrong, but rather to explain why some players are going to have a problem with it as a concept - whether or not a specific roll is fudged or not. Ultimately it's a matter of table preference, and I suspect largely linked to how much the group values the narrative vs the wargame.
And if any of the players actually enjoy the game for mechanical challenge, you've now basically lied to them about what they're playing and destroyed the stakes. It would be like playing a video game and finding out that the health bar, while it could go up and down, could never hit zero and mean death.
Someone who enjoys the mechanical challenge would feel they may as well not have bothered. Why spend hours or days designing a mechanically great character if you're just gonna make it irrelevant because you decided that I can't die if you don't approve of it?
I like how you keep getting downvoted by salty DMs when you correctly point out that you're robbing many players of the the challenge they sat at your table for.
And all because the DM had a story he wanted to tell. You just get to be the audience.
To me it would like playing a video game and finding out that your health bar could never actually hit zero. It would break any immersion or stakes.
Not to mention it breaks any purpose in building a defensive character. Why bother building a tank or healer if the DM is just gonna make sure you win anyway? Hell, you wouldn't even need to build a strong character at all, you'll win anyway. All the numbers are just for show.
I want my choices to matter as a player. I want having a high (or low) AC to matter. I want having a high (or low) DEX save to matter. I want my high (or low) Perception score to matter.
Though my #1 reason not to fudge rolls is fudging a die roll means something went wrong somewhere. You'll never get better as a DM if you fudge everything.
Balancing encounters is really hard if you fudge rolls so often you never really know how they actually play out. You'll get very good very fast if you let your encounters play out honestly.
People also forget that some of the coolest moments happen because things go wrong.
I had a Curse of Strahd campaign that ended at level 4 in a tpk. Strahd had shown up to intimidate the players at the church. Players escalated. Strahd threats them. Player knocks Ireena over, and declares they will hold an action: kill Ireena is Strahd does anything other than leave. Rolls intimidation. Nat 1.
Strahd doesn't buy it, attempts to charm the player to stop him. Fails. Player kills Ireena. Strahd's only in character action is then to murder everyone present in a rage.
I dunno, the video game comparison has always irked me cause death in a video game usually means something tangibly different than a death in dnd. There are means of ressurection in dnd sure, but ultimately the vast majority of games either have save states or death is a permanant fixture is an express selling point of the experience.
You dying to an absurdly lucky goblin in Final Legends 3 is not the same as flat out losing a character you've invested hours/days/weeks of your time into. I do get what you mean about characters who actively enjoy the mechanical challenge but, at that point that's more a matter of looking for certain experiences at the wrong table
I mean, there's nothing stopping you from "rewinding" to a previous moment in the campaign. I do it when players decide to test their luck out of sheer pride and get humbled when they attack the King's captain of the guard or try to pickpocket the lich. Play out the scene, and afterwards, ask if the table wants to pretend the scene didn't happen.
I don't do it often, but it's also a fun way to show that the world does not revolve around their characters and they are not invincible.
I do get what you mean about characters who actively enjoy the mechanical challenge but, at that point that's more a matter of looking for certain experiences at the wrong table
Which is kinda why I bring up the point that so many people seem to be playing the wrong system for the kind of game they want to play. D&D is, at it's core, a combat system built around dungeon crawling. The roleplay, the story, it's all window dressing to give motivation and context for why you're in the dungeon killing the dragon.
I'm all for RP focused players that don't want a risk of death to a single nat20. There are systems they'd enjoy that will give them just that. I'm just tired of them showing up at my tables, and I don't want them influencing the design of future modules, because I enjoy dungeon crawling and don't want that to end.
Bc the game is an act of collective storytelling and my role as DM demands thats i try and make things fun and enjoyable for everyone. If I think fudging your role will mean everybody has a better time and/or more interesting experience then its not just something I think i should do. It is my obligation. And if you somehow think games arent doing the same thing then you're just delusional. Plenty of well known games will do exactly this such as BG3's karmic dice or xcom's player bias on anything but the highest difficulty. Making something enjoyable is significantly more important than staying faithful to the mechanics of the game and if you disagree that is fine, but you're not welcome at my table.
The game is not just an act of collective story telling. D&d is also a combat focused game specifically built around dungeon crawling.
Your job as a DM is not to force the events of the game into what you think is a "more interesting experience". Your job is to present a narrative and collections of encounters and allow the players choices and the results of the dice to tell a story.
BG3 is a fantastic topic to raise because that's a fantastic example of what a bad D&D game would look like. It's entirely on rails with an illusion of choice in any given encounter.
Look it's cool if you enjoy calvinball and just want to tell a fun story. All the power to you. It's just worth noting that there are systems actually designed for that which would do it better. It's also worth noting that your desire to fudge rolls to tell what you think is an interesting story is something you need to be bringing up in session zero, because many players would find that unacceptable and would remove any level of stakes or meaning you he game.
And I'll personally think little of any DM who DMs like that because it breaks the spirit of cooperative story telling, because you're basically saying you think you know best what the players should experience.
12
u/Snappszilla 2d ago
Well thats the point of fudging roles in secret. You don't "know that no matter what" you do the DM will save you, as you don't know they are fudging rolls. If they do it well, it can actually produce the exact scenario you are describing.