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

[iserith]

Well, I wouldn't really have had to bring the dice into play. The same thing applies to using the average damage from a monster. But even I did use the dice, it'd probably have been for the uncertainty of how much damage is dealt in general, but maybe I was hoping that the monster wouldn't crit against someone that would die from it. It's a very specific situation to design a monster that works just like regular but that can't kill someone instantly with a crit, but can crit otherwise?

I would consider average monster damage no different than the dice. The stakes are framed at the time of the attack roll: If the attack is successful, the character is knocked unconscious. If the attack is not successful, then the character is not knocked unconscious. The rules for damage nor damage rolls were a consideration because what follows after a successful hit is not uncertain in this case - the module says defeated characters are knocked unconscious and robbed.

Easier to just go ahead as normal and decide beforehand that if that scenario does happen, I'll subtract a little bit of damage from the damage roll (or average damage, if I use that). Either way, I'd have decided to ignore how things typically work in combat during a specific circumstance. Doesn't matter if dice are used or if you just use your own arbitrary rules. Same outcome.

There is nothing arbitrary about what I'm suggesting because I am using reason and a system to decide on outcomes. While the outcome I narrate would be the same as if the DM fudged the rules and dice, I am not fudging because I am not bringing the rules and dice into play and then ignoring the result they produce. I am putting the DM's judgment first, where it belongs in my view.

Edit: I will also agree that it is easier to fudge, to be a follower of rules than a master of them. But that doesn't make it a good idea in my view. I think it better to work on skills like telegraphing and stake-setting which not only allow the DM to avoid fudging, but have a number of other benefits as well.

 

[Rhenny]

I would consider average monster damage no different than the dice. The stakes are framed at the time of the attack roll: If the attack is successful, the character is knocked unconscious. If the attack is not successful, then the character is not knocked unconscious. The rules for damage nor damage rolls were a consideration because what follows after a successful hit is not uncertain in this case - the module says defeated characters are knocked unconscious and robbed.



There is nothing arbitrary about what I'm suggesting because I am using reason and a system to decide on outcomes. While the outcome I narrate would be the same as if the DM fudged the rules and dice, I am not fudging because I am not bringing the rules and dice into play and then ignoring the result they produce. I am putting the DM's judgment first, where it belongs in my view.

Edit: I will also agree that it is easier to fudge, to be a follower of rules than a master of them. But that doesn't make it a good idea in my view. I think it better to work on skills like telegraphing and stake-setting which not only allow the DM to avoid fudging, but have a number of other benefits as well.

Thanks for your clarity and insight, Iserith. You have really simplified and helped me understand. KISS. Keep it simple, stupid is an anagram for writers, and I think what you have presented does just that. DM decides if there is uncertainty. If there is, roll and play by the outcome. If not, no roll just narrate. This gives each DM discretion and the ability to run a game that includes heavy dice rolling to little to no dice rolling. Of course, knowing what players like best will also factor in, but with your explanation it is clear that "real fudging" isn't necessary.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a strawman - it's an aside. You also didn't address my point that there is no uncertainty in the game that the DM doesn't establish. Should I take that as a concession?

Of course I don't concede. The game itself establishes combat as uncertain. Every rule in combat shows that uncertainty and none show certainty. Here you chide me for opting to engage in the random roll rules and then not following those rules when I fudge, but you turn around and opt to engage the uncertain combat rules and then don;t follow those rules when you declare part of it certain.

Players trusting the rules is important in a board game, but it's not important in an RPG where the GM decides on uncertainty and which rules to apply to resolve it. In such a game, the DM's reasonably consistent rulings are what the players can use to make their decisions along with the GM's descriptions of the scene.

Wrong. It's important in an RPG as well.

I think the disagreement arises because of what you think "ruling" means. A DM is tasked with listening to what the player wants to do and then deciding on and narrating an outcome. That is a ruling. When the DM is uncertain as to the outcome, then he or she has rules to use to help make a ruling. That is the meaning of Rulings not Rules in my view - the DM decides the outcome and, if he or she can't, uses the rules to decide. It goes to the DM's judgment first, then the rules. It's not "If player describes action, then find applicable rule." It's "If player describes action, then decide if uncertain and, if so, find applicable rule. If not, just describe outcome."

Yes. You have changed the definition of ruling to fit what you think 5e is about. I don't accept altered definitions like that.

 

[iserith]

Thanks for your clarity and insight, Iserith. You have really simplified and helped me understand. KISS. Keep it simple, stupid is an anagram for writers, and I think what you have presented does just that. DM decides if there is uncertainty. If there is, roll and play by the outcome. If not, no roll just narrate. This gives each DM discretion and the ability to run a game that includes heavy dice rolling to little to no dice rolling. Of course, knowing what players like best will also factor in, but with your explanation it is clear that "real fudging" isn't necessary.

My pleasure - it really is very simple. A lot of it is just dropping preconceived notions from previous editions. I wouldn't make the same arguments if were talking about D&D 4e, for example, which is another game I love and play.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...just dropping preconceived notions from previous editions.

The most difficult, and most beneficial, thing that a D&D fan can do.

 

[iserith]

Of course I don't concede. The game itself establishes combat as uncertain. Every rule in combat shows that uncertainty and none show certainty. Here you chide me for opting to engage in the random roll rules and then not following those rules when I fudge, but you turn around and opt to engage the uncertain combat rules and then don;t follow those rules when you declare part of it certain.

The basic conversation of the game calls for the DM to decide whether or not rules need to be applied to resolve actions taken. The rules cannot establish anything as uncertain. You may choose to believe that any given attack in a combat situation has an uncertain outcome and apply rules to resolve it, but that's you, the DM, making those decisions. The rules can't make it for you.

I follow the rules... when I decide to bring the rules into play as is the DM's role. You appear to follow the rules and sometimes override their results when you feel like it. That is fudging, which of course I know you're okay with. I am not and so I don't do it. I don't need to as [MENTION=18333]Rhenny[/MENTION] points out.

Wrong. It's important in an RPG as well.

In a game where the DM decides on success, failure, or uncertainty based on the player's stated goal and approach relative to the fictional situation unfolding, no, not really. It may, however, be good to know as a player that your character is going to be more successful at certain things on the whole, if the stated approach falls short of outright success (but isn't outright failure).

Yes. You have changed the definition of ruling to fit what you think 5e is about. I don't accept altered definitions like that.

When it comes to using definitions more suitable to previous editions of the game, maybe you should consider it. During the playtest, I railed against DM empowerment and supported RAW above all else because I was a big proponent of D&D 4e. If there's a way to look at old WotC forum posts, you can probably find such arguments. (I didn't really post on enworld until last year despite registering some years ago.) But after a while, I realized that it just doesn't fit D&D 5e. Perhaps you'll come to the same realization some day, too.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]

If I invoke the combat rules and roll, then I don't abide by those rules and decide the result, I am fudging. If you invoke the combat rules, then don't abide by those rules and just decide the result, you are also fudging. It doesn't matter that there isn't die roll involved with your fudge, it's still fudging.

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]

If I invoke the combat rules and roll, then I don't abide by those rules and decide the result, I am fudging.

Right.

If you invoke the combat rules, then don't abide by those rules and just decide the result, you are also fudging. It doesn't matter that there isn't die roll involved with your fudge, it's still fudging.

The bit you're missing is that, just because I call for an attack roll to resolve the uncertainty of whether the arrow hits the character and knocks him or her unconscious, I am not obligated to call for a damage roll to resolve the uncertainty of how many hit points are lost as a result of the successful attack. I agree it would be fudging if I brought the rules for damage into play, rolled, and then ignored or changed the result. But that's not what I'm doing.

 

[Maxperson]

Right.

The bit you're missing is that, just because I call for an attack roll to resolve the uncertainty of whether the arrow hits the character and knocks him or her unconscious, I am not obligated to call for a damage roll to resolve the uncertainty of how many hit points are lost as a result of the successful attack. I agree it would be fudging if I brought the rules for damage into play, rolled, and then ignored or changed the result. But that's not what I'm doing.

I'm not missing anything. The combat rules are all interconnected. Once you start the chain, those rules continue until finished. When you invoke the roll to hit, the result of a hit is by rule a roll for damage. When you roll for damage, the result is by rule a loss of hit points. The death rule is a result of loss of hit points. Invoke one rule and you are invoking them all unless you house rule or fudge it away. What you are doing is every bit as much fudging as what I do.

 

[iserith]

I'm not missing anything. The combat rules are all interconnected. Once you start the chain, those rules continue until finished. When you invoke the roll to hit, the result of a hit is by rule a roll for damage. When you roll for damage, the result is by rule a loss of hit points. The death rule is a result of loss of hit points. Invoke one rule and you are invoking them all unless you house rule or fudge it away. What you are doing is every bit as much fudging as what I do.

That is not so. Are you a Dungeon Master or a Dungeon Follower? The rules are tools that serve the DM, not the other way around. The rules cannot tell you there is uncertainty or that they must be used in a particular instance. The DM's judgment comes first and then, if he or she decides there is uncertainty, the rules can be brought into play to resolve it. Bring the rules into play and then ignore the result they produce and you're fudging. That is clearly not the case with the ruling made in the particular example under discussion since the rules for damage were not brought into play. The stakes were clear: Successful attack roll = character is knocked unconscious; failed attack roll = character is not knocked unconscious. At no point do the damage rules or dice need to come into play.

Your "In for a penny, in for a pound" interpretation is laughable.