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

[rollingForInit]

There is nothing stopping the DM from ruling that the PC is simply knocked out as per the module's text.

The rules do. Sure you could deal damage that would kill the character and then say that they just do not die, but I really see no practical difference in changing the game rules on the fly and fudging the die, both to achieve exactly the same effect. You either decide that 10 damage does in fact not kill the PC when, according to the rules, it should, or you decide that it really was 9 damage instead of 10. You're breaking the rules for a good reason either way.

 

[billd91]

Okay. Show me. Show me how "many"--I don't even need a majority, I don't even need a plurality. Show me ANYONE else who has their enjoyment of the game TOTALLY COMPLETELY THOROUGHLY DESTROYED by getting a map or a seeing a statblock. I look forward to it.

Because for me, fudging--of ANY kind--DOES totally, completely, thoroughly destroy my enjoyment of the game. Hence why it would make me walk--if I'd ever knowingly experienced it.

Uh, huh. So... you don't see a problem with this line of argument at all? You're holding up Maxperson's assertion, even down to a single person, as being ridiculous while asserting something just as extreme.

 

[Hussar]

The difference being [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91, that EZ's talking about himself while Maxperson is claiming that he knows the minds of "many" others.

 

[iserith]

The rules do. Sure you could deal damage that would kill the character and then say that they just do not die, but I really see no practical difference in changing the game rules on the fly and fudging the die, both to achieve exactly the same effect. You either decide that 10 damage does in fact not kill the PC when, according to the rules, it should, or you decide that it really was 9 damage instead of 10. You're breaking the rules for a good reason either way.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. The rules cannot require anything of him or her. The result of the successful attack roll is not uncertain. You don't need to roll the damage dice in this case. The 1-hp wizard is knocked unconscious after any successful attack roll because those are the failure conditions of the stakes. No fudging is occurring.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. The rules cannot require anything of him or her. The result of the successful attack roll is not uncertain. You don't need to roll the damage dice in this case. The 1-hp wizard is knocked unconscious after any successful attack roll because those are the failure conditions of the stakes. No fudging is occurring.

There is no practical difference, though. In both cases the DM is not being a slave to the rules and changing those rules on the fly. People who are up in arms because a die was involved in the rule change on the fly, but not up in arms over a rules change on the fly that does not involve a die roll are not being rational about the situation. There's nothing sacred about a die roll.

 

[iserith]

There is no practical difference, though. In both cases the DM is not being a slave to the rules and changing those rules on the fly. People who are up in arms because a die was involved in the rule change on the fly, but not up in arms over a rules change on the fly that does not involve a die roll are not being rational about the situation. There's nothing sacred about a die roll.

No rules are being changed. A damage roll is not required in this example. Defeated PCs are knocked unconscious per the stakes set forth in the module.

 

[Maxperson]

No rules are being changed. A damage roll is not required in this example. Defeated PCs are knocked unconscious per the stakes set forth in the module.

A damage roll is required by the rules for ever hit. Not doing so is a rules change.

 

[iserith]

A damage roll is required by the rules for ever hit. Not doing so is a rules change.

The rules cannot require anything of the DM. The DM brings the rules into play as needed to resolve uncertainty, so he or she can narrate an outcome. The only rule needed to bring into play is resolution of an attack roll. Damage roll is not needed here - the outcome is known.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules cannot require anything of the DM.

Yes they can. The DM just has the ability to change the rules.

The DM brings the rules into play as needed to resolve uncertainty, so he or she can narrate an outcome. The only rule needed to bring into play is resolution of an attack roll. Damage roll is not needed here - the outcome is known.

No, the outcome is not known. What we have here is a horrible DM deciding that something that is in fact, uncertain has become certain in order to avoid rolling the die. Damage from a hit is not certain. Life or death is not certain unless it's a melee attack. A DM deciding otherwise to avoid a die roll is not a good one.

 

[iserith]

Yes they can. The DM just has the ability to change the rules.

The DM acts as mediator between the rules and the players. He or she isn't bound by them. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Perhaps the influence of another edition of the game?

No, the outcome is not known. What we have here is a horrible DM deciding that something that is in fact, uncertain has become certain in order to avoid rolling the die. Damage from a hit is not certain. Life or death is not certain unless it's a melee attack. A DM deciding otherwise to avoid a die roll is not a good one.

The outcome absolutely is known, as I have explained and will again: We know that defeated characters are knocked out and robbed - them's the stakes, or more specifically, that's what's on the line if you fail. We know the wizard has 1 hp. We know that even a single hit will drop the wizard to 0 hp which is sufficient to say he or she is knocked out. Therefore, only an attack roll is required to resolve the goblin's attack. If successful, the character suffers the failure condition laid out by the module.