Fudging the Numbers

Think Before You Roll

Fudging in TTRPGs is changing or ignoring the result of dice (or any randomly determinative element of gameplay) to avoid or alter the outcome. It’s distinguished from cheating generally in that it is the DM changing the result, and in that they are doing it with some noble intent, typically to circumvent a random outcome that is perceived as undesirable.

So why does fudging happen? DMing involves a lot of System 1 thinking. A DM makes hundreds (possibly thousands) of decisions, calls, and interpretations in a session, and it’s easy for the brain to go on autopilot, and only realize something has gone wrong after the dice have landed. Fudging is an after-the-fact fix for when this automated process goes wrong.

Acknowledging that this happens, DMs can anticipate and modify the automatic process that produces fudging. When the game reaches a point where action or reaction needs to be resolved mechanically, the DM is already taking a split second to consider (1 if a roll of the dice is called for, and (2 what kind of roll should it be. This moment of consideration should be amended to include a third question, which is “what are the extreme outcomes of this situation? And can I accept those outcomes into the game – particularly on the end of that spectrum that goes against the players?”

The Hidden Costs of Complex Systems 

There is no particular level of complexity that is “best” in TTRPGs. It’s ultimately a matter of shared preference among the players. But frequent fudgery is a strong signal that the system you use is too complex for your table.

Highly complex systems also place a (usually unstated, often-underappreciated) responsibility on the shoulders of the DM alone, as the encounter designer, to manage “fairness” and “balance” (and encounters are typically designed in more complex systems, not emergent).

A simpler system offers more transparency and reduces the urge for a DM to perform emergency engine repair while the train is in motion. Old-school D&D is not only less fudgy than new-school D&D because the style of play assumes greater lethality, but also because a simpler system with lower damage thresholds and more tightly bounded outcomes is transparent, making it plain for all to see that a particular roll of the dice could have dire consequences.

For example, many fudging stories involve critical hits. A monster that scores several critical hits in successive rounds, particularly with a multiattack, has already broken the encounter math. Gary Gygax conspicuously omitted critical hits from the AD&D 1E DMG for player survivability reasons, and the reasoning behind that decision is clearer in a system with low HP thresholds.

Next: Narrative Intervention Versus Fudging Dice