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

[Maxperson]

The DM is the Master of Rules - so, no, the rules do not require anything of him or her. A PC wants to do something, you decide if the outcome is certain or uncertain, and in the case of the latter invoke a rule and roll dice to resolve the uncertainty. That you decide the outcome is certain does not mean you're changing the rules of the game.

The DM is no different than a King. The King was subject to the laws of his kingdom, even though he could make and change law.

According to your interpretation, it's impossible for the DM to make any sort of house rule........ever. Everything he does is above the rules and therefore within the rules. That's nonsense. The fact that house rules exist proves that you're interpretation is mistaken.

They do that damage if I am not sure of the outcome, sure. But I am sure of it, at least in this example, so I don't need those rules and dice after the successful attack roll versus the 1-hp wizard - defeated PCs are knocked unconscious and robbed.

They do that damage always, unless another RULE says otherwise. Specific beats general. The DM cannot decide that damage is uncertain without an existing rule changing it or a house rule.

 

[Maxperson]

A "Hail Mary" plan could still turn things around. Just because the DM doesn't see a way out of a situation doesn't mean that the players might not come up with a way out. I'd just find it very odd to think that a DM knows with 100% accuracy how things would have turned out if he hadn't fudged when the reason they're fudging in the first place is because things have veered wildly away from what they thought would happen.

I may not be 100%, but only because I'm still playing the game and I suppose I might be wrong in the future. However, after 30 years I'm so close to 100% that it's not even worth considering that this time might be the first time I'm wrong about it.

 

[iserith]

The DM is no different than a King. The King was subject to the laws of his kingdom, even though he could make and change law.

According to your interpretation, it's impossible for the DM to make any sort of house rule........ever. Everything he does is above the rules and therefore within the rules. That's nonsense. The fact that house rules exist proves that you're interpretation is mistaken.

Not at all. I could make house rules and then replace the existing rules with them and use those as the basis for determining what happens when an action with an uncertain outcome is entertaining. Not bringing the rules into play when they're not needed is not house ruling. They don't come out unless the DM determines something is uncertain first. You seem to want to put the rules before the DM's judgment. That's backwards in my view.

They do that damage always, unless another RULE says otherwise. Specific beats general. The DM cannot decide that damage is uncertain without an existing rule changing it or a house rule.

The success of the attack is narrated however the DM wants to narrate it. If I'm not sure it kills the wizard, then I'll ask for a damage roll. But in this case, I'm sure it doesn't kill the wizard - because defeated PCs are knocked unconscious and robbed.

 

[Noctem]

I don't change the dice roll result when I DM. I roll in the open, in front of everyone, without a screen. I voice the modifiers out loud before rolling so that everyone at the table knows what's going on. It's the best way to play imo.

 

[iserith]

I don't change the dice roll result when I DM. I roll in the open, in front of everyone, without a screen. I voice the modifiers out loud before rolling so that everyone at the table knows what's going on. It's the best way to play imo.

Agreed. I use Roll20 when I play (online and in person), so all my rolls and modifiers are in the open. I have no reason to hide my rolls from the players. Once the stakes are set and the dice are determining which way it goes, then the result we get stands.

 

[Tony Vargas]

According to your interpretation, it's impossible for the DM to make any sort of house rule........ever. Everything he does is above the rules and therefore within the rules. That's nonsense.

Maybe under a 'Rule 0' or 'Golden Rule' philosophy, under 5e Rulings not Rules, though, it makes perfect sense. The Empowered 5e DM simply has primacy over the rules. He can change them formally, if he likes (house rules, modules), but he can still make rulings notwithstanding them.

 

[rlor]

A question for those in favor of fudging:

Would it be wrong in your mind for a player to decide on their own that they don't want to crit the monster because they want it to stay up longer or give someone else the kill, so they bluff that they rolled a 19 (or a miss) instead of a natural 20?

I don't think anyone would want a player making false claims about rolling a critical when they didn't, but if they're intentionally weakening themselves and bluffing it was the dice for the purpose of improving the game is that wrong in your eyes?

 

[DEFCON 1]

A question for those in favor of fudging:

Would it be wrong in your mind for a player to decide on their own that they don't want to crit the monster because they want it to stay up longer or give someone else the kill, so they bluff that they rolled a 19 (or a miss) instead of a natural 20?

I don't think anyone would want a player making false claims about rolling a critical when they didn't, but if they're intentionally weakening themselves and bluffing it was the dice for the purpose of improving the game is that wrong in your eyes?

I don't care. In fact, I don't even care if they player DOES claim a '20' when they only rolled a '19'. The mechanics of a fight aren't that important in our games. We improvise in and around everything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Would it be wrong in your mind for a player to decide on their own that they don't want to crit the monster

Players don't have that kind of latitude in 5e. They could chose not to attack an enemy if they want to leave 'the glory of the kill' to another, maybe Delay or Dodge or Help, instead, that's about it.

Of course, as with any other action resolution, they could ask the DM if they could 'decline the crit,' and the DM might rule that they could. Maybe even grant them inspiration if 'holding back' in the situation fit something about their character.

So, I guess you're asking, is it a goose/gander thing & is it OK for the player to 'fudge,' and the answer is, in the context of 5e, it's OK for the DM to decide if it's OK for the player to fudge on a case-by-case basis.

 

[rlor]

So, I guess you're asking, is it a goose/gander thing & is it OK for the player to 'fudge,' and the answer is, in the context of 5e, it's OK for the DM to decide if it's OK for the player to fudge on a case-by-case basis.

If, hypothetically, WotC took out that sentence on fudging in the DMG in the errata I'm assuming we'd still have about the same ratio of GMs fudging. To my reading this discussion has been more on "do you think it is 'ethical' and 'good for the game' instead of 'do the rules support it'" so I asked my question with that in mind.

At our table we rotate GMs (and game systems), to me if I trust someone in one position then I should trust them in the other.