D&D (2024) Free Rules Updated with DMG content.

ad_hoc

(she/her)
I don't fudge dice often, minimally at most, and I've never done it to preserve some pre-written narrative that I prepared. But when I did, I never really thought of it as lying, but I can see how some would see it as such. I can't ever remember discussing this at session 0, it just seemed like something everyone just assumed happened every so often, and I never had players accuse me of it, or say they felt their fun of the game was compromised. Character death was always an expected possibility at any given time. My campaigns aren't particularly deadly either, and in combat I roll out in the open for the most part. If I fudge a roll or give a player a mulligan it's because I didn't clearly explain the situation, the player didn't understand fully what I explained, the rule involved in the situation resolution, or I followed a rule too much to the letter and it made for a really bad or stupid outcome. So, for me it's a case-by-case basis, if I screwed up, I'll tell the players but if it's something rather insignificant that has little impact on the overall game, I don't bother and just keep on going.

I would not consider correcting a rules mistake or misunderstanding as fudging.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
I see a "retcon" about the water elemental plane and now this is a sea with a sky. My opinion this change is right because it helps the plane to be more playable.
In 2e, where the Plane of Water met the Plane of Ice, it was a "topped" with the infinite glacier (which then peaked as it stabbed into the Plane of Air). Water also became a swamp as it neared Ooze, and a bubbly, aerated mixture as it neared Steam, and a salty brine as it neared Salt (giving it a "bottom," too).

I think I kind of prefer that. No reason a plane of water has to be the same as an ocean in the world.
 

R_J_K75

Legend
I would not consider correcting a rules mistake or misunderstanding as fudging.
Yeah, probably but I think it depends on what one considers fudging, which I'd suspect might be different from one person to the next. That's not a discussion for this thread I don't think.
 

R_J_K75

Legend
My friend made a PC using D&DB free rules, said it was a random or quick build PC. On his printed .pdf character sheet under species traits it lists the trait then BR with a number after it. Does anyone know what BR means? When I made a quick character the day of DMG rules upload faux pas my species traits on my pdf corresponded corrected with the PHB page numbers. I'm a bit confused.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
My friend made a PC using D&DB free rules, said it was a random or quick build PC. On his printed .pdf character sheet under species traits it lists the trait then BR with a number after it. Does anyone know what BR means? When I made a quick character the day of DMG rules upload faux pas my species traits on my pdf corresponded corrected with the PHB page numbers. I'm a bit confused.
Basic Rules and the page number? Id guess.
 


Iosue

Legend
@Morrus

Things happen. I was actually quite happy with the amount out there. But I get people felt bait and switched.
When I saw the initial release, I'll admit, I was happy in an abstract way that WotC was making so much of the game free, but I was also thinking, "Damn, if I knew it was going to be like that, I wouldn't have bought my digital copy of the DMG. I don't need Bastions that much, and I have plenty of magic items from the 2014 DMG."

With the re-release, I now feel I got something for what I paid for. Though of course I am sympathetic for those who thought they had a pretty comprehensive set of free DM rules, and now find them essentially gutted.
 



gorice

Hero
While I make every roll in the open as a DM, I have no issue playing with a DM who keeps rolls behind the screen.
I think there are some cases (e.g. perception or investigation) where rolling in secret is actually better. My complaint isn't about secret vs. open rolls, it's about trust.

Anyway, let me reiterate my previous concern: the official advice for DMs in the book for DMs for the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons The World's Greatest Roleplaying Game is that DM's should railroad their players, while still pretending that this is somehow compatible with player agency*. It then advises DMs that outright lying to their players is one way of achieving this.

2014 at least tried to hedge and offered alternative approaches, however poorly. 2024 is going to teach a new generation of DMs that illusionism** is the correct way to run a game.

Even if you like railroads, I think it should be obvious that people need to opt in to that style of play, not be told that they have agency while the DM plays shenanigans. The fact that this is apparently still controversial in the Year of Our Lord 2024 is saddening.


*This is the infamous 'impossible thing before breakfast', i.e. the claim that one person can control the story while others control their characters. If one person has agency, then the other cannot have compete control!

**For those not familiar with ancient jargon: this is when the DM/GM railroads the players but pretends that they have agency.
 

Remove ads

Top