However I tell the players things are going to work, that's what I do.  I never fudge any roll in that realm.  Naturally, that applies to all combat rolls.  It also applies to being spotted by enemies, ambushes, etc.

It also applies to certain rolls related to random encounters.  For example, I roll a d6 per some time unit (usually 3 hours of travel in wilderness or 1 hour in a dungeon environment but other factors adjust the timing), and a 1 means an encounter.  I get the 1, they get an encounter.  I don't, they don't.  Sometimes they travel all day and get lucky.  Sometimes they travel through an area that is more dense, with encounters happening more frequently, get unlucky, and get 3 random encounters in a morning.

Nor do I adjust the severity of the encounters if there are a lot or a few (even though when traveling long distance, I might roll several d6s at once for the intervals).  In a dangerous area and you get several encounters, then you get whatever table I'm using says.  We haven't had a party wipe yet from random encounters since I started with my system a few years back, but we have had a couple of times that could have gone that way if the players didn't handle it well.  Plus, they've been beat up pretty bad several times and had to retreat.

I guess I could prepare encounters beforehand, would probably makes things easier for me.

[Well, I'm currently preparing a thousand of them - a hundred for each terrain - but that's another story].

But I'm using the tables more or less RAW to see how they work.

I think this thread indicates a impression I had: even DMs that don't fudge dice rolls or HP in combat will often change random encounters, and treasure is another good example I hadn't considered.

I don't roll random treasure since I'm running published modules, but I often change hoards (and monsters) to fit my silver standard, low magic setting.

I would DEFINETELY fudge rolls if I were creating a random dungeon or something. Basically, I think what you do BEFORE play is not exactly fudging, but DURING play is another matter.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 05, 2024, 07:37:00 PM

I would DEFINETELY fudge rolls if I were creating a random dungeon or something. Basically, I think what you do BEFORE play is not exactly fudging, but DURING play is another matter.

What you do in prep is never fudging.  There's no "not exactly" about it.  Blurring that line is what gets people confused about fudging.  Or heck, let's be clear. Expanding the definition of "fudging" is what some people do to:

1. Decide that some "fudging" isn't so bad.
2. Use point #1 to excuse the fudging they want to do during play.

Where as the worst thing a GM can do with fudging is start lying to themselves about what is going on.  If you want to fudge, own it.  That leaves you a clear head to decide if the consequences are worth the pay off. 

Moreover, what you do during play is not fudging if it is improvisation.  You can't fudge improvisation.  That's just the GM making a decision in the moment, instead of before the game.  When improvising, be clear about that.

Greetings!

When I am running a game, I typically roll up most of the random encounters before the game session begins.

(1) I do this so as to familiarize myself with the various different NPC's, monsters, treasure, and other details of the particular encounters. This process of course, makes running the different encounters much smoother than if I had not pre-rolled them up, and looked over them. This process also affords me the time and opportunity to change or alter the encounters as deemed necessary. As a bonus, it also provides adequate opportunity to fit the encounters into the campaign theme or major plots that are going on, also as desired. Many encounters can of course be random, but it can also be very beneficial, and dramatic, to somehow tie them into the current plot scheme, or some significant villain or rival.

(2) Superior Time Management and Scene Direction: This dynamic is somewhat related to the above-mentioned key point; Seeking to do all that completely randomly and spontaneously *during* the game session can be a tall order, and also invites oversights, mistakes, and missed opportunities--all of which I generally want to avoid. Furthermore, and this is also important, is that embracing this minimizes *wasted time*--me thinking, scratching down notes, checking the books--and then running with the encounter cold. All of that really is not, to my mind, the best use of time, for myself, or the rest of the group.

I like to run my game sessions high-octane, on-point, and flowing constantly, promoting fun, action, and entertainment. I don't want any of that slowed down by what amounts to brainstorming, notetaking, and bookkeeping.

All of that said, I also like to always maintain quality control. Let's face it, when using various random tables, some elements are pure awesome, while other results, if embraced and implemented, are just stupid. Or at least, can very much be less optimal for the scene of what is going on. Yes, sometimes having something "Oh, SO RANDOM!" occur, or some otherwise ridiculous creature encounter, can be lots of laughs and very entertaining. Such can also be viewed as entirely stupid, nonsensical, or otherwise just doesn't fit well.

As for the DM "Fudging" dice rolls? I can't say that I do that. Generally, I prefer rolling the dice, and letting the results stand, good, bad, or indifferent. That random element is what creates much of the drama, as well as heroism, and fun that unfolds in the campaign. Again though, having said that, I wear the Viking Hat, so as the DM, I'm not "Cheating" or "Fudging" anything if I deem something is stupid and deem to change it. I like random rolls, random charts and tables--I love them! However, I am not keen on letting a random dice rolled result totally gum up what I may have spent days working on. A player's choices or actions? All good. But I am not going to be slavishly obedient to a random encounter table if I think it is stupid, or otherwise is bad for the game. I always reserve my right and authority as DM to supervise and control the parameters of the game, and the dynamics within.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

My problem of rolling encounters beforehand and changing results is that:

- You are not playing RAW.
- You'd be tempted (or even willing) to match the encounter to your PCs.

And I would advise against changing encounter difficulty to match you PCs level, because:

- It makes the setting feel "fake", as if it was built around the PCs.
- It robs the players of the satisfaction of finally facing stronger creatures that were once too powerful for them.
- It misrepresents the (RAW) danger of wilderness travel.

I don't think I ever did random encounters RAW. As a kid I started with modules and the random tables were all meh. I'd re-roll a few times until something was interesting. When i started writing up my own stuff I gave the random encounters the same level of detail as regular encounters. By the time I knew what I was doing there really weren't a lot of dungeon crawls.

I make my own random encounter tables and use my own reaction table. Even so, I reserve the right to fudge on those rolls. If we had wolves on the last two encounter rolls, i probably don't want them yet again. If I do get a repeat I might make the encounter automatically hostile as they are probably responding to calls they heard from the previous encounter.

1. I NEVER roll random encounters because they are almost always boring as shit.

I do have premade random encounters that are like mini adventures.  I actually compiled some of them into a book that I sell on DrivethruRPG.

If you're interested...

https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/462161/Not-So-Random-Encounters-Volume-1?affiliate_id=514197

2. And then reaction? RAW?

Depends.  NOt really though.

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

Not really.

4. Which system?

All homebrew.  All the time.

It took me some experience to learn the value of having some pre-gens I could at least pick from, if not randomly select one. Back when I started, I despised random encounters tables because "I don't want to roll some boring 1d4 goblins, I want my players to fight a cockatrice!" So I would pick the more exotic monsters from the Monstrous Manual and fudge my rolls when I noticed I put the players against something too strong. When the desire for consistent dungeons and environments started to be stronger than the desire to use shiny new (to me) monsters, I started to appreciate a well made random encounter table and the need to fudge the dice during combat disappeared.

Creating content via random prompts is one thing. This gives results that need to be contextualized to be actualized. Some fabricated tables contain results that so conflict with contexts that the result is unresolvable incoherence. That's an issue of a table not calibrated to the task. That's a preparation problem, and sometimes we don't have the time to recalibrate the tool, however we can guesstimate a close enough answer now. Learn to put the tool's results aside as necessary during outliers.

Rejecting a resolution from a judgment you deemed fair enough to consult randomness at all is another. Here, learn how to judge better as a GM, especially that it is OK to not consult randomness each and every time. If you have a plausible idea that make contextual sense go with that. If you have five good answers and need to pick one, go ahead an add randomness to avoid any further bias. But once you commit, commit: strike with conviction, even if you choose to strike blind (using randomness).

Not fudging is way more fun.

Let the dice fall where they may.

And sit back and enjoy the show!

Quote from: Spinachcat on March 16, 2024, 02:16:03 AM
Not fudging is way more fun.

Let the dice fall where they may.

And sit back and enjoy the show!

My impression too.

Is there any real distinction? You choose which random tables to use, you choose what's on the tables, and so on. Everything that exists in a game is there because the DM decided it is, regardless of whether he rolled for it.