D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[Maxperson]

He's not? He's not deciding that, in this case, a crit doesn't happen when a specific number appears on a die? He's not deciding that, in this case, a tie goes to the defender rather than the attacker? How is that NOT a call on how a rule works?? Perhaps you could clarify what "making a call on how a rule works" means?

Umpires aren't changing anything. They are making a call on a situation, like when a DM makes a call on how a rule works. Fudging is an active change to the situation. The DM is not making a call on how a rule works. When a DM fudges, there was never any chance in the game world of the situation being any different. Additionally, specific beats general. In 5e fudging is a specific rule that supersedes the general combat rule regarding whether something hit or not. Lastly, the umpire would be cheating and the DM would not. There are clear differences between an umpire deliberately making the wrong call and a DM fudging.

Examples.

A player slides into base and the umpire makes a call on whether he's out or safe. Whether the umpire gets the call right or not, even if he deliberately calls it wrong, the truth of the matter can be shown by instant replay and/or the eyes of the crowd. The umpire has not changed reality with his ruling.

A DM fudges a hit into a miss. There was never any chance after the fudging for that attack to be a hit. In the game world the attack is a miss and nobody, even if they had instant replay, would see otherwise. The DM has changed reality with his ruling.

Except I was saying I *do* see some difference: house ruling is consistent and pre-defined, "rulings over rules" is neither consistent (because it is purely contextual) nor pre-defined (because it only happens when the DM decides to, not because of a specified trigger). Those are some pretty big distinctions to me!

A house rule is pre-defined. A ruling is not consistent and depends on context. Rulings Over Rules is what 5e calls the DM's ability to do both. The DM had the ability to do both granted to him by Rule 0 in previous editions. Rule 0 has just been put in nice new pretty packaging for 5e called Rulings Over Rules.

...how can you harm the party...without causing some amount of harm to at least one member of it? I don't understand.

Party and/or PC =/= player. You can harm a PC or party member without harming a player.

 

[Maxperson]

If he's fudging he's not applying a rule at all (unless "You can fudge" is a rule in the book.) He's certainly not applying the critical hit rules.

It is explicitly a 5e rule that the DM can fudge if he wants to.

 

[Quartz]

Well, while these examples are a bit extreme for the kinds of things I've talked about,

Well, I had the MM open at the page. But the key to good fudging is to foreshadow the possibility. Mention or show the bulette earlier. If the PCs do their research, they'll learn that some of the guards have augmented senses.

Or use the fudge as foreshadowing. There was a thread a while back where an earthquake was used to rescue the PCs. This was then used as foreshadowing for the activity of an evil elemental earth cult.

 

[Nytmare]

This question is like asking if I want an umpire to intentionally miss a call. After all, calling a runner out at the plate in a tie game allows for a more dramatic game, right?

The difference would be that in the game of D&D that most if not all of the Fudging DMs are talking about, the DM isn't an umpire, he's an author writing a story about a game of baseball being played.

 

[iserith]

This is too meta for my taste. I prefer freeform storytelling. There's enough meta in battles already, I'd prefer not to include any in the RP.

I'm not sure what you mean - battles include roleplaying since you're making decisions your character might also make. Inspiration is just a reward for making decisions consistent with established characterization (specifically, personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws from backgrounds). For example, if the soldier fighter has a flaw of "My hatred for my enemies is blind and unreasoning," then rushing headlong into a nasty fight without preparation means the player is roleplaying consistent with established characterization - and that's worthy of Inspiration in my view. If that's a thing one wants in the game, then creating an incentive to do it makes sense. If you don't want the DM to sit in judgment of it (or, if you're like me, and don't want to keep track of 12 to 16 background traits), however, then you can leave it to players acting in good faith to award it to themselves.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The difference would be that in the game of D&D that most if not all of the Fudging DMs are talking about, the DM isn't an umpire, he's an author writing a story about a game of baseball being played.

Not in any game, I want to play in. There's areason the dm was originally called the "referee."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Examples.

A player slides into base and the umpire makes a call on whether he's out or safe. Whether the umpire gets the call right or not, even if he deliberately calls it wrong, the truth of the matter can be shown by instant replay and/or the eyes of the crowd. The umpire has not changed reality with his ruling.

Except that he has. He has turned an out into a run or a perfect game into a one hitter - nah, that could never happen.

 

[Zak S]

Except that fudging does not equal you winning, so your saying it does is a serious mischaracterization of the tool.

Incorrect. Fudging means something that would have gone against you goes for your or vice versa.

At no point did I claim it must always equal 'you winning.'

What I said was it removes challenge--because challenge proceeds from the knowledge that your decisions matter. Fudging changes the degree to which they matter, thus lowering the amount of challenge whether its win or lose or just adding difficulty or reducing difficulty.

 

[Nytmare]

Not in any game, I want to play in. There's areason the dm was originally called the "referee."

And maybe a reason why they call the DM a storyteller and referee now?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

And maybe a reason why they call the DM a storyteller and referee now?

Who is they?

Edited for snarkiness.