D&D General D&D isn't a simulation game, so what is???

[Manbearcat]

Or ... I could just state what my preference is and that it doesn't affect anyone else and they should do what works for them. Unfortunately that isn't good enough.

Have some xp for the most Oofta reply ever!

Ok, not exactly true. You didn't fit in "you like what you like", but pretty damn close to MAXIMUM OOFTA.

You can keep your xp!

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, fudging means choosing a result based on what the fudging person wants, rather than because the mechanics say so.

That's pretty much what I said -- you have a mechanical answer which you ignore and replace with what you want. This is not the same thing as when the mechanics don't have an answer and you establish one.

So, fighter runs up to the opponent and attacks. Next, the wizard asks if he can cast fireball so it hits two opponents but not the fighter. In TotM, that answer has as much to do with whatever the DM feels like at the time rather than anything remotely associated with mechanics. Since TotM play means that no one has any real idea, other than in the broadest sense - melee range, ranged attack range is about it - the answer is pretty much whatever the DM feels like making up at the time.

No, the answer is "check the established fiction," and then "extrapolate from there," and then "GM makes a call if it's unclear."

Thus, fudging. The DM decides that the fireball will hit the ally, not because there's any actual evidence that it will, but, because the DM wants to increase the difficulty of the challenge and doesn't want the wizard to end the fight just yet. Or, maybe the DM just wants to get on with this fight because it's not really all that important, so, he decides, sure, why not? The wizard can hit the two targets without hitting the fighter.

No, because there's no mechanical answer here to fudge. The issue here is ambiguity and authority to resolve that ambiguity. You've smuggled in assumptions about play not present before your argument -- effectively begging the question here.

IOW, the answer to "Will this fireball hit my ally" is largely dependent on factors that have nothing to do with in game fiction or simulation or anything like that and everything to do with what the DM feels like at the time. After all, in exactly the same set up next session, it could easily go the other way.

It better have something to do with the game fiction. If the GM is violating the established fiction, that's not fudging either, it's a different thing because there's still no mechanical answer here. You aren't overriding a game mechanic, you're retconning the situation.

See, fudging is largely invisible because the GM is doing this while hiding the outcome of the mechanics so the players have trouble noticing the change. What you're describing is just willy-nilly changing established fiction because you want to. That's obvious -- every was there when it was established, it's known, and now it's something different. If we use fudging to describe this, then we're mixing two different concepts into the same term, and you might as well just replace fudging with cheating, because that's largely where you're going with this.

Note, at no point does the DM TELL the players about this. The decision making process is kept entirely secret, thus satisfying your definition for fudging, chooses to ignore the mechanics (not using any sort of representation to clarify the battle) and hinges entirely on the DM choosing an answer based on what the DM wants at the time. So, no, I'm not devaluing the use of the term. I'm applying your term pretty much exactly as you defined it. The only part missing is maybe using a mechanic and choosing a different non-mechanical outcome. But, since we've already in very vague territory with very little mechanical heft anyway simply by choosing TotM, a little variance is understandable.

Okay, if it wasn't openly established where the PCs are in relation to the bad guys, then there was no violation. This seems to revolve around "the GM had an idea, but didn't speak it aloud, and then changed their mind and spoke aloud a different idea, and that is fudging." This means that almost every GM fudging all the time while developing prep, because they think and refine and change their mind. Nothing is "real" until it enters play. An individual may prefer to cleave to prep and not alter it, but that's a choice, not a requirement for anything. Until it's shared, it's not part of play.

 

[Oofta]

Have some xp for the most Oofta reply ever!

Ok, not exactly true. You didn't fit in "you like what you like", but pretty damn close to MAXIMUM OOFTA.

You can keep your xp!

You would rather that I pretend to agree with people? After all, people like what they like.

 

[Krachek]

It is still a wonder for me.
We play in fantasy universe, with demon, teleportation, planar travel,
and on a specific game rule, the fantasy is gone,
a character can’t fully heal overnight,
a gnome with 20 str can’t be strong as a half Orc with the same str score,
50 years ago, people buy that Vulcan in Star Trek were much stronger than human and today we debate that a gnome with 20 str can’t be that strong, that make me wonder!

 

[Vaalingrade]

There has always been a strogn faction of removing the fantastic from speculative fiction. They never liked it. They just have a bullhorn now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, you prefer to use a grid. But 5e isn't assumed to use a grid. After all, 11 and pixelated circles don't exist in 5e. The grid in 5e is even weirder than the grid in 4e because in 5e, when I move diagonally, I don't count 11 - I can move 6 squares diagonally with no problems. But, if I cast a spell or use any sort of area affect, then I have to use a straight up circle that isn't actually correct on the grid.

It's this weird mishmash of Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry, and, apparently, this is better for simulation? If you valued accuracy, why are you using the 5e system? It's less accurate than 4e was. At least in 4e, everything was wrong by the same amount. But, I can escape a web faster by moving diagonally than by moving orthogonally in 5e. It's just totally bizarre.

And this doesn't bother you?

I really wish diagonals were represented more accurately in 5e. It certainly bothers me.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry. It's early and I haven't finished my caffeine yet. When I use a grid diagonals count 5-10-5. If you cast a fireball, I pull out an old wire template that you can get from paizo. It's not 100% accurate but it's closer. So I have no clue what you're talking about.

For my home game I use a hex map which has it's own issues with 10 ft hallways, but we make it work. Beyond that? Why are we still beating this dead horse started by a comment about degrees of simulation? No game will ever have perfect simulation, it would require a supercomputer to crunch all the variables.

I’m talking about the fact that you are using rules that don’t exist in 5e.

 

[pemerton]

I'd have to agree there. Weather control seems to be one of those SF things that you see all the time.

Sure. I'm not saying it's uncommon as a trope. Just that I find it fairly bizarre: before we get to the energy involved, and the mechanism of delivery (look at the amount of energy humans have hard to burn to increase global temperatures by 1 or 2 degrees!), what about the maths of the necessary weather forecasting? How would Classic Traveller's computers even handle that?

Whereas there is at least a surface-level consistency between having air/rafts with their grav modules, having starship with anti-grav manoeuvre drives and grav plates, and having jump drives.

 

[Oofta]

I’m talking about the fact that you are using rules that don’t exist in 5e.

DMG Running the Game, specifically Areas of Effect and Optional Rule: Diagonals for movement. Starts on page 251.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Any RPG style game should not be good at simulation, but rather be good at role play.
if you find one it would be a Simulation game, wrongly called a RPG.

Wow, thanks for absolutely nothing....