1. Do you guys roll random encounters? RAW?

2 . And then reaction? RAW?

3. Do you EVER fudge or ignore ANY of these rolls?

4. Which system?

I think I'm starting to think even RAW purists that hate fudging will often ignore some of these rules.

I'm writing a book of B/X encounters and the results do not always make sense; I'm tempted to "massage" the numbers a bit, within reason - to make chaotic creatures more aggressive, for example.

But this is fudging, right? Something I don't usually do.

Fudging means rolling the dice and then ignoring them. I usually build custom encounter tables for various areas in the campaign. Likewise the frequency of checking for encounters will be variable. These tables are weighted  to give the most logical results for a given area. For reaction rolls it really depends on what is on the tables being used. For example if the encounter rolled is a hippogryph that has recently escaped orc captors who were starving it. it WILL be very aggressive until given something to eat. No roll needed unless the party does something to change the status quo, for example by throwing a freshly slain deer its way perhaps that the ranger has just bagged for the group's supper. Most encounters with civilized people I go ahead and roll reactions if the party interacts with them.

Tables aside I do sometimes have encounters along the road or in the wilderness that I have planned. That really isn't a fudge. When the party reaches point X then they will likely encounter whatever. Once I decide to roll the bones then I will take the results as given

Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 03, 2024, 07:52:31 PM
Fudging means rolling the dice and then ignoring them. I usually build custom encounter tables for various areas in the campaign. Likewise the frequency of checking for encounters will be variable. These tables are weighted  to give the most logical results for a given area. For reaction rolls it really depends on what is on the tables being used. For example if the encounter rolled is a hippogryph that has recently escaped orc captors who were starving it. it WILL be very aggressive until given something to eat. No roll needed unless the party does something to change the status quo, for example by throwing a freshly slain deer its way perhaps that the ranger has just bagged for the group's supper. Most encounters with civilized people I go ahead and roll reactions if the party interacts with them.

Tables aside I do sometimes have encounters along the road or in the wilderness that I have planned. That really isn't a fudge. When the party reaches point X then they will likely encounter whatever. Once I decide to roll the bones then I will take the results as given

This is an interesting answer I have encountered: people making their own tables instead of using RAW. I'm thinking of creating my own tables too.

So, my question is: once you have the tables, do you sometimes ignore them and skip encounter rolls, as suggested in the DMG, because PCs are low on HP? Do you re-roll encounters that fell off, too hard, too repetitive, etc.?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 03, 2024, 08:05:25 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 03, 2024, 07:52:31 PM
Fudging means rolling the dice and then ignoring them. I usually build custom encounter tables for various areas in the campaign. Likewise the frequency of checking for encounters will be variable. These tables are weighted  to give the most logical results for a given area. For reaction rolls it really depends on what is on the tables being used. For example if the encounter rolled is a hippogryph that has recently escaped orc captors who were starving it. it WILL be very aggressive until given something to eat. No roll needed unless the party does something to change the status quo, for example by throwing a freshly slain deer its way perhaps that the ranger has just bagged for the group's supper. Most encounters with civilized people I go ahead and roll reactions if the party interacts with them.

Tables aside I do sometimes have encounters along the road or in the wilderness that I have planned. That really isn't a fudge. When the party reaches point X then they will likely encounter whatever. Once I decide to roll the bones then I will take the results as given

This is an interesting answer I have encountered: people making their own tables instead of using RAW. I'm thinking of creating my own tables too.

So, my question is: once you have the tables, do you sometimes ignore them and skip encounter rolls, as suggested in the DMG, because PCs are low on HP? Do you re-roll encounters that fell off, too hard, too repetitive, etc.?

Custom tables make a lot of sense. Even in published modules, different areas could have custom tables and even frequency of checking. Sometimes the adventures state quite plainly, when the party is in area X, there will be no wandering monsters. That kind of becomes the RAW for that particular adventure.

Some encounter tables really are repetitive as designed. For example I have created city/town encounter tables that are largely made up of regular folks going about their business or a guard patrol. In such situations I prefer to run the encounters as rolled because sometime the party will learn useful things from those encountered. In a dangerous wilderness the players have learned to find someplace semi-defensible to hole up until they are more fit to travel through the wild. The party does not HAVE to press on while seriously wounded. If they do they take their chances.

If I roll on the table in a standard way, then I keep the roll.  Caveats:

- The table is a tool.  If I know what I want to have happen, I don't roll at all.
- I usually do custom tables.
- Occasionally, I "roll for inspiration".  That is, I make a decision before the roll that the roll is only to get something to pop into my head.  I have no intention of honoring the roll at all.  It's merely a means of jogging my imagination.

I don't consider any of that "fudging," because none of it done in order to protect the PC's (or screw them, either) or to make the "story" go somewhere or any other such sops to pretending to make a decision without making one.  Or put another way, the decision to roll on the table and live with it is itself a GM decision.

Now, once something gets placed (even if only a rumor to the players), that's fixed. Doesn't matter how it got placed--pure GM fiat, random table, or any other means. 

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 03, 2024, 08:05:25 PM
So, my question is: once you have the tables, do you sometimes ignore them and skip encounter rolls, as suggested in the DMG, because PCs are low on HP? Do you re-roll encounters that fell off, too hard, too repetitive, etc.?

I don't see procedural content generators as rules so rules as written isn't really a thing here. My only reason I can think of to skip rolls is if it's the end of the session and we are wrapping up the journey home. I wouldn't reroll for it being 'too hard'. If it seemed wrong for the area, maybe.  If it's repetitive then I'll liven it up with eg different behaviour, eg a friendly Wight in my Dragonbane on Saturday.

I am admittedly looking for some nuance in the fudging debate, and I think it can be found here.

The DMG suggests skipping te encounter roll if the PCs are battered, etc.; precisely to save the PCs. In other section, the DMG suggests saving PCs from deaths they do not "deserve". There is a common theme there, but these are not the same thing.

I avoid changing results - the players are the ones who roll for encounters in my table. The goal is letting them know how dangerous the wilderness is; changing the results would run counter to that goal.

But I don t like every result, so I'm thinking of creating my own tables.

Also, I don't balance random encounters, but I use published dungeons, and I sometimes change creatures before I run them (to match my setting and sometimes to make things a little weirder). Never change HP during fights, but sometimes just before when they are facing a new creature.

When I roll the dice, I roll in the open and let the dice fall where they may. One campaign got derailed because a player lost a PC and was disinterested in continuing; maybe my current campaign will suffer a similar fate.

But then again they'll soon have resurrection...

If fudging is consistent enough, is it still fudging or is it a house rule? For example, quantum monster HP where a monster has an unspecified amount of HP between its minimum and maximum possible values and powerful enough attack, say a crit or max damage roll, when it has taken damage to be between those two values will automatically down it.

As for skipping random encounters on the return trip, planing for the return is part of the mission. Beating the boss with 1hp remaining an all recover items exhausted is a "die, but do" outcome, not an excuse to fast travel home.

I use random tables in prep but not at the table.  I front load a lot of my prep in my campaign with a creation phase where I do out all the maps, create all the important NPCs, fill in my hexes and dungeons (or whatever the equivalent is for the game I'm running), and set up my encounters.

In short, if the players have a random encounter, it is random but it was rolled and prepped perhaps over a month ago.

Do I fudge my random rolls?  That kind of depends on what "fudging" means.  I see random tables as a way of injecting out side influence into my prep to inspire me, not a hard and fast dictator for me to be the spokesman of.  If I'm getting a roll that just doesn't fit in any way (rare, but happens), I'll toss it and re-roll.  Otherwise, I take the roll as a starting place for building up an encounter, NPC, or whatever. 

One thing I don't like to roll randomly at all is loot.  Loot is extremely impactful in game play so I need to know where it is, how it got there, and what prompts (if any) I need to give my players to go find it. 

My general answer to all of these things is *sometimes*.

But you're asking two different things for two different purposes.

1) You're asking if as GM's we do <X> for <Y>
2) You're defacto asking if what you're designing is something we'd find useful *all the time*.

That's a might be a tiny set of needle-holes to thread. GM's that really aren't particularly good at improv or thinking quickly in context absolutely need random tables to help flesh things out on the spot.

I think those GM's that are weak in their improv, can massively mitigate this by simply spending a little more time in prep. Have each locale where encounters could be probably pre-rolled up on one of your cool tables, and THEN!!!(important post-random table action!) EDIT the roll to better fit your setting.

This is a GM thing.

When it comes to reactions - it's always a case of "Is this NPC important?" If so, *I* should know what their starting disposition is going to be. If I'm going to rely on a random roll to determine what that starting disposition is, then I'd at minimum know why. "Why is the Duke, who is grateful to the PC's, </random roll says: Pissed> Pissed right now?" Well I'll come up with a reason on the spot - maybe his favorite hound was killed by an Orc this morning, on the outskirts of his woods, where the PC's had sworn they killed/run off all the Orcs. Or maybe it had nothing to do with the PC's at all? Dude has diarrhea and is having one fucked up morning.

The key here is I contextualize *everything*.

If the NPC's is Random Shopkeeper #5, sure, I'll make a random roll and do the same thing - contextualize it. It may/may not have anything to do directly with the PC's. It most certainly has something to do with the NPC's life, and could always be something potentially adventure worthy.

In this manner, when I make my own encounter tables (when I actually make them), I try to do them with a disposition description (like an emotional state), then it's easy for me to come up with a Why on my own. Which of course for those not good at Improv might require another table to add to it, in order to make the results more dynamic.

Dynamic tables that you can link together have a lot of reusable appeal, because they can jog the creativity of the GM's with possibilities they never considered until the results land on them.

Do I do this RAW? No. I rarely rely on RP related rulings RAW to determine what goes on in my settings, because of how I run my settings. Others will definitely differ, especially if they're freewheeling it for a one-shot and/or don't have a really detailed view of their setting and are just muddling through. Random tables are godsend for those GM's.

Do I fudge the results (when I use those those tables) at all? Since I'm pretty particular about what goes on in my sandoxes, my approach to these kinds of tables, much like random magic-item tables is ALWAYS just a guideline. So yes, I fudge, simply because I'm never going to not consider what I let into my sandbox campaigns. Just because the random table says something random doesn't mean it's "good" for your game. But again, that why GMing requires some modicum of discernment. Letting random events dictate *everything* because some rule says you should relinquishes your responsibility you have to your setting, in my opinion.

And the Setting, *is* the GM's character.

TL/DR Depends, sometimes. Random Tables are almost always a good thing. Using them correctly require skill. No rule, RAW, should go unquestioned.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 03, 2024, 09:55:25 PM.
- Occasionally, I "roll for inspiration".  That is, I make a decision before the roll that the roll is only to get something to pop into my head.  I have no intention of honoring the roll at all.  It's merely a means of jogging my imagination.

I don't consider any of that "fudging," because none of it done in order to protect the PC's (or screw them, either) or to make the "story" go somewhere or any other such sops to pretending to make a decision without making one.  Or put another way, the decision to roll on the table and live with it is itself a GM decision.

Now, once something gets placed (even if only a rumor to the players), that's fixed. Doesn't matter how it got placed--pure GM fiat, random table, or any other means.

I like this term - "roll for inspiration". It's how most dungeon stocking & dressing tables are "best" used, and it's the approach I took in the campaign we just cut off. I'm often rolling on random encounter tables before the session; for the setting I was running (The Runewild) the main enemy-focused random table column was covering a really wide swathe of terrain, and I'd consider whether rolls made sense in *this* part of the forest given recent events in the region. I also mixed in frequent results from two ancillary random encounter tables - one of flavour NPCs, one of flavour events - at a frequency higher than RAW would call for, but that was also a pre-decided frequency and meant for inspiration: roll d100, look at that table entry, look at the entry with the dice reversed, if neither "fit" then not planning an encounter during the watch.

But also, that setting had tried to customise wandering monsters, and I didn't like the way the probability curves worked out: 1/6 in forest, 1/36 on the road could make the road feel safer, but when there are plenty of non-hostile results on the RNG table and you're using reaction rules it makes the road feel *empty*, which was just wrong. So I was experimenting to find a way around that.

In a couple of brief side adventures I'd run the approach was roll for encounters in advance, then decide - in part on exactly where the party was and what they'd done recently - whether the right thing was the encounter, signs / traces of the encounter, or nothing.

Personally I am finding a lot of these topics trending on twitter about RPGs leading to very rigid discussion about them there, including this topic. I don't fudge. If an NPC hits a player they hit them, if they miss they miss. That said, I don't particularly care how other people do things and when it comes to a random encounter table, I do view that more as a tool than a rule, so I think if the result feels off, if the GM can't figure out how to make a given encounter work or fit, it is fine to either re-roll or pick the next thing on the list. Generally though I keep whatever the result is and try to make it work. There is also sometimes an implication here that the GM should only roll on random encounter tables, and I don't think that is right either. Sometimes the GM has a good intuitive sense of what sort of encounter would be in a given area and in those instances, foregoing rolling is fine (I don't like encounters that feel like planned set pieces but encounters like this work for me, and encounters that stem from a situation like a group of NPCs trying to stage an ambush on the party are fine by me).

Also I never use GM screens

Also I think when it comes to fudging, I am reluctant to say 'never' simply because you always want the GM to be able to step in if there is some weird edge case where the system produces a result that feels extremely off. But I think in those cases, if it does arise, the GM should be above board and tell he players

I *never* fudge in Combat.

The only things I'd consider fudging are using Random Tables to introduce something that is incongruent for the setting or situation*.

*in this case I usually try to come up with a rationalization where it *might* be true. And then I walk around it a bit to ponder the ramifications of the rest of the sandbox and if it introduces other peculiarities that wouldn't happen. SOMETIMES I might go further down those rabbit-holes, but if I can get one or two steps removed to justify it, I'll let it go and do it, damn the torpedos.


I use the small Savage Worlds screen, but not to screen my rolls, just to use the tables on them. I don't care if anyone watches my rolls.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 05, 2024, 08:08:36 AM
Personally I am finding a lot of these topics trending on twitter about RPGs leading to very rigid discussion about them there, including this topic. I don't fudge. If an NPC hits a player they hit them, if they miss they miss. That said, I don't particularly care how other people do things and when it comes to a random encounter table, I do view that more as a tool than a rule, so I think if the result feels off, if the GM can't figure out how to make a given encounter work or fit, it is fine to either re-roll or pick the next thing on the list. Generally though I keep whatever the result is and try to make it work. There is also sometimes an implication here that the GM should only roll on random encounter tables, and I don't think that is right either. Sometimes the GM has a good intuitive sense of what sort of encounter would be in a given area and in those instances, foregoing rolling is fine (I don't like encounters that feel like planned set pieces but encounters like this work for me, and encounters that stem from a situation like a group of NPCs trying to stage an ambush on the party are fine by me).

Also I never use GM screens

Also I think when it comes to fudging, I am reluctant to say 'never' simply because you always want the GM to be able to step in if there is some weird edge case where the system produces a result that feels extremely off. But I think in those cases, if it does arise, the GM should be above board and tell he players

I roll all combat rolls in the open, but do use a screen. Some rolls ( like thief find traps rolls) are made behind the screen. There is also the random rolls for absolutely nothing done behind the screen to keep the players guessing.

I consider knowing when to run or be stealthy just as important for a party as knowing when to go in guns blazing.