D&D 5E To fudge or not to fudge: that is the question

[Maxperson]

In the example of the wizard with 1 hp, if I roll the damage dice, don't like the result, then change it, I'm fudging.

If I never roll the damage dice at all and declare that the successful attack roll (crit or otherwise) takes down but doesn't kill the PC, then I'm not fudging.

You are. You have fudged the required die roll into whatever damage is enough to knock him out. Just because you are choosing the result of that die roll and not actually rolling the die, does not mean you didn't fudge it. The rules required the die roll.

Again, the rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

I agree, but you doing so is still a form of fudging. The rules require a die roll and you as the DM decided the result of that die roll instead of rolling. That's fudging the roll. There is no effective difference between the DM who rolls 10 damage and fudges it down to 1, knocking the PC out, and the DM who doesn't roll and decides that it did 1, knocking the PC out.

 

[iserith]

You are. You have fudged the required die roll into whatever damage is enough to knock him out. Just because you are choosing the result of that die roll and not actually rolling the die, does not mean you didn't fudge it. The rules required the die roll.

The rules can't require anything of the DM. They are tools to resolve uncertainty, not a process he or she is required to follow.

The stakes in the encounter are: (Success) The PCs kill, capture, or rout the goblins; or (Failure) The PCs are knocked unconscious and robbed by the goblins. Those are the two possible outcomes laid out by the module. As such, the rules are used to resolve uncertainty in these stakes. A wizard with 1 hp hit by any attack leads to unconsciousness. No damage roll is required and thus no fudging as to the damage can occur.

I agree, but you doing so is still a form of fudging. The rules require a die roll and you as the DM decided the result of that die roll instead of rolling. That's fudging the roll. There is no effective difference between the DM who rolls 10 damage and fudges it down to 1, knocking the PC out, and the DM who doesn't roll and decides that it did 1, knocking the PC out.

Yes, there is a difference, as explained above. In addition, the thread itself defines fudging in the original post and this isn't it. You just seem to have this belief that the DM is required to follow process and it's simply not true.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules can't require anything of the DM. They are tools to resolve uncertainty, not a process he or she is required to follow.

The stakes in the encounter are: (Success) The PCs kill, capture, or rout the goblins; or (Failure) The PCs are knocked unconscious and robbed by the goblins. Those are the two possible outcomes laid out by the module. As such, the rules are used to resolve uncertainty in these stakes. A wizard with 1 hp hit by any attack leads to unconsciousness. No damage roll is required and thus no fudging as to the damage can occur.

This is not D&D. In D&D combat resolves in a fashion set forth in the rules Barring house rules, anyway. It's not a game where the stakes of a combat encounter are set forth like you describe above and the module doesn't change that. It can only tell you the intent of the goblins and try to set up the encounter so accidental death doesn't happen.

Yes, there is a difference, as explained above. In addition, the thread itself defines fudging in the original post and this isn't it. You just seem to have this belief that the DM is required to follow process and it's simply not true.

The DM IS required to follow the process unless he house rules that process. The rules are the rules and they bind the DM unless he changes the rule, adds a new rule, or removes the rule. He's not a slave to the rules, but each and every time he steps outside of the rules he is engaging in a house rule.

 

[iserith]

This is not D&D. In D&D combat resolves in a fashion set forth in the rules Barring house rules, anyway. It's not a game where the stakes of a combat encounter are set forth like you describe above and the module doesn't change that. It can only tell you the intent of the goblins and try to set up the encounter so accidental death doesn't happen.

Definitely D&D. Just perhaps not the sort of D&D you prefer to play where there is overt stake-setting.

The DM IS required to follow the process unless he house rules that process. The rules are the rules and they bind the DM unless he changes the rule, adds a new rule, or removes the rule. He's not a slave to the rules, but each and every time he steps outside of the rules he is engaging in a house rule.

The DMG would seem to disagree with you.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fudging has never been cheating, because the DM literally can't cheat. The rules give the DM the power to alter rules, add rules, subtract rules from the game, or bend rules as he sees fit. Nothing he does is cheating. It's all, including fudging, part of the rules.

That doesn't mean he can't be a bad DM and make the game unfun with certain uses of that power, but it's not cheating when he does it.

As I've said before: If it's not wrong, why do people hide it? Why do people expect a large portion of players to get mad about it?

 

[Maxperson]

As I've said before: If it's not wrong, why do people hide it? Why do people expect a large portion of players to get mad about it?

So you're saying it's wrong of me to hide my maps and monster statistics?

 

[Nagol]

So you're saying it's wrong of me to hide my maps and monster statistics?

The justification for hiding maps, notes, and creature stats is D&D is a game with exploration elements and the players are expected to discover (or not) aspects of the world through their PCs.

Exploration can be a justification for hiding dice results (so as to not provide information regarding modifiers until the PCs are able to discover them), but not for changing the results.

So the question that I think more accurately reflects [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] 's concern is "Why do DMs hide their fudge?" Why not tell the players "I'm changing that result to N. It fits better with what is going on."?

 

[cmad1977]

The rules prevent it. If the crit does sufficient damage, it will have enough damage left over to equal or exceed that 8 hit point wizard's max hit points.

"When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum."

It's "when", not "If" and "you die", not "you may die." There is no option there, so unless the DM is going to flat out ignore the rules, the wizard will die.

The rules do not prevent it in any fashion. It is clearly stated that an individual may declare their damage to be non lethal if they so choose. I see no reason why a monster cannot do the same, particularly a creature with the cruel cunning of a goblin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So the question that I think more accurately reflects [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] 's concern is "Why do DMs hide their fudge?" Why not tell the players "I'm changing that result to N. It fits better with what is going on."?

Because at that point you are narrating game mechanics not story. I think most DMs who fudge care more about the story than the game mechanics underneath it. If players really wanted to do nothing but narrate mechanics, 4E would have done gangbusters because that system was custom-made for speaking entirely in mechanical terms when having fights (as is evident by so many people who were irritated by so little fluff being attached to powers almost as an afterthought.)

 

[Maxperson]

The justification for hiding maps, notes, and creature stats is D&D is a game with exploration elements and the players are expected to discover (or not) aspects of the world through their PCs.

Exploration can be a justification for hiding dice results (so as to not provide information regarding modifiers until the PCs are able to discover them), but not for changing the results.

You are not seeing the real reason for it. Exploration and discovery are not the goals. Those two game elements boil down to player enjoyment. Without those things being enjoyable to the players, they would not be used. The exact same reason applies to fudging. Fudging is done for player enjoyment. That makes it just as okay as exploration and discovery.

So the question that I think more accurately reflects [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] 's concern is "Why do DMs hide their fudge?" Why not tell the players "I'm changing that result to N. It fits better with what is going on."?

They hide it for the exact same reason as they hide maps and monster stats. Player enjoyment. If hiding one is bad, hiding the other is bad.