This question is meant to be solely about D&D (any version,

>>48793274
Likewise, if you want a system where the players are hardier, maybe add a house rule of some kind that gives them a resource they can expend to hang on from the brink of death. That way they know ahead of time they have that if they need it, but the fact that they may have to expend it is a real risk. Maybe it even affects them mechanically, like a penalty to CON (and the ensuing lowered maximum HP) until they've rested for a certain amount of time.

If you don't want players to have any real chance of dying, don't put them in a life-threatening situation. Same for your main villain. If you don't want the rogue to pick the lock, put a bar on the other side of the door instead.

None of this is to say that fudging means you're failing as a DM or anything, but I can't see any good reason to do it unless you've ALREADY made a mistake you're trying to rectify.

(2/2)

>>48793274
The best DM principle is saying "Yes" or "Roll..." and sticking to it as best you can.

I'm fine with occasional fudging, but I'm experienced enough in a few systems to never ever do it. If it's a new system for the group I may fudge because I didn't realize the magnitude of my action as GM.

>>48793358
Well, of course. I'm not saying you should be infallible, or that you're a bad DM if you made a mistake. Just that at some point once you've been DMing a while, you shouldn't be doing it, or if you do, it should be rarely, as a response to a mistake that you can clearly identify.

>>48793274
The only time I ever fudge rolls is if enemies that were supposed to be a challenge can't hit the players for shit due to poor die rolls. Then I'll fudge one or two attacks just so that the players get to roll their defenses every once in a while.

>>48795724
What edition of D&D has defense rolls?

>>48793274
Fudging happens when the system does not meet the GM's expectations.
This can happen either because the GM made a genuine mistake or because the system is at odds with itself.

3.5 is a prime offender for the latter. It has many stupid deaths built into the system, but rewards painstaking character building that takes forever to do.

>>48793274
>Maybe they want to capture the players for information, or to sell them into slavery. That could allow for some interesting roleplay opportunities as well.

It'll also make for some interesting posts on /tg/ where butthurt players complain about how the DM stripped their characters of their loot, or saddled them with CON penalties, or whatever alternatives you suggest to "not killing the PCs".

If you put a bar behind the door, the players will go through the wall.

If you want to fudge rolls, fudge rolls, and hide it from the players. They don't know. Sure, they might go "uh, we didn't die, what?!", but unless they're questioning the nature of every fucking dice roll, fudging the occasional dice roll really doesn't matter. Do you, as a player, demand to see the encounters that the DM has planned out at the start of session, and demand that they slavishly obey them?

Sometimes you've got to hide shit from your players - sometimes you're going to give into randomness, but other times you've got to maintain the illusion of randomness when there isn't any. The trick is obviously knowing when to do it, and when not to do it too, but players have to extend some trust to the DM - the DM is going to lie to you sometimes, the DM is going to withhold information from you sometimes, the DM is going to go off his script sometimes, but they're doing it for the benefit of the game. If you're not willing to accept that, then any game is going to be pretty shitty for you as a player, because you'll be constantly waiting to be triggered by the mean ol' DM.

>>48795924
3.5 has defense rolls as an optional rule, last I checked.

>>48795955
I would recommend playing a different system if it doesn't do what you want it to.
>>48795974
>It'll also make for some interesting posts on /tg/ where butthurt players complain about how the DM stripped their characters of their loot, or saddled them with CON penalties, or whatever alternatives you suggest to "not killing the PCs".
Sounds like crybaby players. Especially in the case of the CON penalties which they willingly took because the alternative was death or whatever. D&D is a game that's meant to be a challenge. It's a game you win or lose at.

>>48796208
It's not about what the GM wants the system to do, it's about what the GM expects the system to do, based on their knowledge of the system.