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

[iserith]

The rules exist to say how the game is to be played. That applies to player and DM alike. The DM just has the authority to change, add or subtract rules if he wishes. Those are house rules. Outside of a house rule or ruling on something that is vague or the like, the DM has to follow the rules. What you are suggesting is that the DM house rule damage which is always uncertain as a general rule and only becomes certain if specific beats general, into something else, allowing him to declare uncertain damage certain when he wants to.

You sound like you're talking about a different edition of the game.

If you have to re-define what a ruling is in order to be right, there's a problem. There's a reason why people hate bench legislation by judges when they go beyond making a ruling and into the territory that you espouse here for the game.

I think that how I define "ruling" is more compatible with the D&D 5e paradigm than what you suggest. I think yours is more appropriate to another edition of the game. Which game did you play the most before D&D 5e?

I know the rules, so I don't really have to seek for one. What the player wants doesn't matter as far as the outcome is concerned unless the PC has done something to eliminate chance or just has no chance at all. That doesn't apply to damage, though. There's nothing a PC or goblin can do to prevent an arrow from killing someone once it is in flight.

What the PC or goblin wants is irrelevant here - the DM set the stakes. The failure condition is unconsciousness and robbing. That is the result of the goblin's successful attack roll against the 1-hp wizard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree with this sentiment--but I don't think it actually contradicts the argument being made. Maps, stats, plot details, etc. are kept secret, so that they can be revealed.

But, also so they can be changed on the fly. A 'plot' goes sideways, you change it. You don't tell the players who the bad guy is up front, not just because part of the point is to uncover who the bad guy is, but also because you just might want to change who it is based on how the story develops. Secrecy keeps your options open. In the end, you reveal who the bad guy is, even if it isn't the same one the notes behind the screen say it was meant to be. Likewise, if your roll behind the screen, you reveal the result (hit/miss, save/fail, etc), even if it might not be the result the rules as written might imply.

To me it depends in what way the fudging is being done. If I roll a stealth check, and the monster fails his perception check, but the DM decides that he still finds me then that sort of stuff pisses me off. That is cheating, because the DM made a perception roll and then ignored the result. It makes me feel like my stealth ability is useless, because regardless of how good my character is at stealth, the DM can randomly decide to render it useless.

How would you feel if you declared that you were going to sneak past a monster and the DM just told you that you failed? Would you feel like the ability was useful? A 5e DM is entirely within his right to do that to you any time - technically every time.

If I see the DM reroll attack rolls for monsters, even though I know the monster has only one attack, then that is unacceptable fudging too.

How do you know the monster only has one attack? Maybe it has some n/encounter 'Action Surge' style ability?

But I am not against fudging when the DM uses it as a tool to make the game more fun.

That should be virtually the only reason the DM does anything...

And to me, an olympic level jumper should not be able to be tied by a chubby man with no training just because one rolled low and one rolled high, and the resulting number was the same.

That's where the Empowered-DM ability to simply narrate results rather than roll papers over on hole in Bounded Accuracy.

Barring a rule like resistance or melee damage being allowed to knock out instead of kill, damage always is. The DM is not making a ruling if he is declaring an outcome uncertain, he is changing the rules.

You can think of a ruling as a one-time rule-change if you like. But, if it bothers you, you might want to thinking of it as a ruling, instead. Either way, whether it's deciding to whether to roll or changing the results of a roll, it's something the DM can do, one of the many ways he's Empowered in 5e.

The rules exist to say how the game is to be played. That applies to player and DM alike. The DM just has the authority to change, add or subtract rules if he wishes. Those are house rules. Outside of a house rule or ruling on something that is vague or the like, the DM has to follow the rules.

That perfectly describes the attitude towards RAW & Rule 0 in the 3.5 era. In 5e, the rules call for rulings to work at all, and the DM can make rulings notwisthstanding the rules without changing the underlying rules. The Rule of RAW has been overthrown, M in DM is back to standing for Master. ;P

 

[Imaculata]

How would you feel if you declared that you were going to sneak past a monster and the DM just told you that you failed?

That is perfectly fine, as long as a dice roll is not being ignored. If I want to sneak, and the DM does not ask for a sneak check, and then immediately declares that I fail, that's entirely valid. But I don't like rolling for something, and then having the result be ignored.

How do you know the monster only has one attack? Maybe it has some n/encounter 'Action Surge' style ability?

That's the problem, you never know for sure. But if a feeling starts to creep into the sessions that the DM is fudging a lot with his attacks, that can really ruin the fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is perfectly fine, as long as a dice roll is not being ignored. If I want to sneak, and the DM does not ask for a sneak check, and then immediately declares that I fail, that's entirely valid. But I don't like rolling for something, and then having the result be ignored.

The upshot is the same: you failed at something you had meant for your character to be good at. Besides, a roll you make isn't the sort of thing the DM will typically 'fudge.' "Nah, that's not a 16, it's a 4," isn't very credible. More likely it'd be taken behind the screen.

(Aside: 5e actually goes into a lot of detail with stealth, perception, and 'becoming Hidden.' It's not a great candidate for taking behind the screen & fudging the way it's written.)

That's the problem, you never know for sure.

That's kind of the point. 5e, like classic D&D, delivers some of its 'feel' by keeping players in the dark. The DM gains degrees of freedom from that, he can see what the players do and how things develop before deciding on how he's going to narrate certain details.
If a group isn't comfortable with that, they need to figure it out early on and settle on table conventions - make house rules and 'standing rulings' about how various things will be resolved ahead of time, and stick to them so that things can play out reasonably well above-board. Hopefully there's a few things such a group could handle being behind the screen (monster stats, for instance, or at least, monster hps) or handled off the cuff by DM ruling, so the DM will have /some/ latitude.

But, that's a certain sort of group, all with similar feelings about playstyle.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, there is an irony here in my own opinion. While I strongly object to DM fudging, and even Tony Vargas' example of simply telling the player, "Nope, your stealth check failed" without even a roll, IME, leads to some pretty strong reactions at tables, even though that's technically allowed by the rules, I have zero problems with systems that make fudging a player resource. I adore these mechanics. Bennies, Fate Points, Action Points, whatever the system calls them, they are discrete mechanics that let the players change the game outside of their specific character.

For me, the difference is, there is no deception going on. When a player uses a Bennie, everyone at the table knows what he or she is doing and why. There's no hiding it. Making it a player resource means that the players have to be really sure they want to fudge "this time" because they might need that bit of "luck" later on down the line. Great. Adds lots to the game.

 

[iserith]

Heh, there is an irony here in my own opinion. While I strongly object to DM fudging, and even Tony Vargas' example of simply telling the player, "Nope, your stealth check failed" without even a roll, IME, leads to some pretty strong reactions at tables, even though that's technically allowed by the rules

In your experience, do players ask to make ability checks?

 

[Hussar]

In your experience, do players ask to make ability checks?

You mean like skill checks and the like? Yes, certainly. "Can I make a strength check to break open this door" is pretty standard AFAIC. Why wouldn't they?

 

[iserith]

You mean like skill checks and the like? Yes, certainly. "Can I make a strength check to break open this door" is pretty standard AFAIC. Why wouldn't they?

Because asking to make a roll is asking to leave your fate to the fickle d20. In a game where the DM can decide on automatic success based on your approach to a goal, aiming for automatic success may be the best way to go, provided your DM is fair and consistent.

If players feel like they are entitled to an ability check due to the habits of the table, then I can understand why they might be miffed if the DM says their approach to a goal automatically fails without an ability check. Creating an expectation that players should only describe what they want to do and leave whether there needs to be an ability check to the DM is a way to obviate this issue.

 

[Hussar]

Because asking to make a roll is asking to leave your fate to the fickle d20. In a game where the DM can decide on automatic success based on your approach to a goal, aiming for automatic success may be the best way to go, provided your DM is fair and consistent.

If players feel like they are entitled to an ability check due to the habits of the table, then I can understand why they might be miffed if the DM says their approach to a goal automatically fails without an ability check. Creating an expectation that players should only describe what they want to do and leave whether there needs to be an ability check to the DM is a way to obviate this issue.

Isn't that generally how things are run? Player states he wants to try to do X. He can't simply state he succeeds. DM judges the difficulty of X and the player makes a roll (or not depending if the task is so easy or so hard) to determine success of that action. Player then role plays out that success or failure, using the dice as a guide to the play.

I'm thinking you're talking about times when the DM grants success based on the player's performance. The player makes a really good speech to the NPC, so, Diplomacy automatically succeeds. Is that right? If it is, yeah, that's not for me. Roll first, AFAIC.

 

[iserith]

Isn't that generally how things are run? Player states he wants to try to do X. He can't simply state he succeeds. DM judges the difficulty of X and the player makes a roll (or not depending if the task is so easy or so hard) to determine success of that action. Player then role plays out that success or failure, using the dice as a guide to the play.

You suggested players say something like, "Can I make a strength check to break open this door?"

I would answer such a question by asking how they go about breaking open that door because without that information I cannot determine whether the attempt is successful, unsuccessful, or has an uncertain outcome. Only in the case of the latter, will I ask for an appropriate ability check.

It's the players that feel entitled to request and be granted ability checks that may be upset when the DM rules outright success or failure, given the player's stated approach to the goal in the context of the fictional situation.

I'm thinking you're talking about times when the DM grants success based on the player's performance. The player makes a really good speech to the NPC, so, Diplomacy automatically succeeds. Is that right? If it is, yeah, that's not for me. Roll first, AFAIC.

A statement of goal and approach is sufficient to determine success, failure, or uncertainty. A "really good speech" performed by the player is nice, but not required. It may be worth Inspiration, if doing so plays into an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.