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

[Maxperson]

What about the hypothetical actual play example I posted above makes no sense? It seems like some reasonable (and fun!) fiction to me.

It might be fun fiction, but it creates unreliability with the rules and players should be able to rely on the rules. When the rules change on the fly at the DMs discretion, the player can't trust that anything he wants to do or thinks will happen, will happen the way the rules set forth.

The module says nothing about the goblins' intent to knock them out. It just says defeat means they're knocked unconscious and robbed. The goblins could intend to kill them, but simply botch the job.

Okay. I'll take your word on that. I haven't seen it, but I trust you

That said, it still makes the entire combat system something the players can never rely on. That's a very bad thing in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't expect I'll convince Maxperson to change his or her paradigm, but maybe I'll persuade some folks reading the exchange.

His. I got that nickname from my high school biology teacher who didn't think my name was politically correct

 

[iserith]

It might be fun fiction, but it creates unreliability with the rules and players should be able to rely on the rules. When the rules change on the fly at the DMs discretion, the player can't trust that anything he wants to do or thinks will happen, will happen the way the rules set forth.

The rules didn't change - they just didn't get used in that particular instance because there was no uncertainty.

Okay. I'll take your word on that. I haven't seen it, but I trust you

That said, it still makes the entire combat system something the players can never rely on. That's a very bad thing in my opinion.

Players have no recourse to the rules, only to the DM. To that end, decisions are made based on the DM's description and reasonably consistent rulings.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules didn't change - they just didn't get used in that particular instance because there was no uncertainty.

Yes they did, because there is no certainty in the rules there. You added that to the rule that says you roll damage, thereby negating that rule and making the damage roll rule unreliable. The rule is that whenever you hit, you roll damage. Period. The damage rule says if you roll enough damage to take the target down to negative its max hit points, it dies. Period. If you don't roll damage, the rule has been negated or changed. If the creature does not die, the rules has been negated or changed.

Players have no recourse to the rules, only to the DM. To that end, decisions are made based on the DM's description and reasonably consistent rulings.

The rules exist to inform the players how the game runs and to be relied upon.

 

[iserith]

Yes they did, because there is no certainty in the rules there. You added that to the rule that says you roll damage, thereby negating that rule and making the damage roll rule unreliable. The rule is that whenever you hit, you roll damage. Period. The damage rule says if you roll enough damage to take the target down to negative its max hit points, it dies. Period. If you don't roll damage, the rule has been negated or changed. If the creature does not die, the rules has been negated or changed.

When the DM is establishing uncertainty, it is in reference to the uncertain outcome of the fictional situation, regardless of the rules. If the fictional outcome is uncertain, then rules are applied to resolve it. The rules cannot tell the DM what is or isn't uncertain when it comes to fictional outcomes. Only the DM may decide. I don't need to roll damage if I know the outcome of the successful attack is unconsciousness.

The rules exist to inform the players how the game runs and to be relied upon.

The rules are tools that serve the DM to help him or her pursue the goals of play. The players rely on the DM's reasonably consistent rulings and descriptions.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I think specific beats general in the goblin situation from Phandelver.

General: Damage to negative max hit points auto kills. Can't do nonlethal damage with range weapons (Digression: a rather stupid rule, imo. John Reece kneecaps people pretty effectively all the time)

Specific: the module expressly says they don't die.

I think we forget that modules ARE rules. They define RAW in that adventure whenever they overrule the PHB (adness, anyone?). Same with campaign settings. I can't play a gnome in Dark Sun regardless of what the PHB RAW says, because DS RAW saus no. Same with clerics and deities.

Specific (the adventure ) beats general.

As far as fudging, I would prefer not, and don't do it myself. I do use a screen though, mostly because they're useful with rules info on the inside. If I want to save the PCs, I'll use hero points and injury tables to do that.

 

[Rhenny]

I've been thinking a lot about this thread and the concept of fudging in general.

As I've matured as a DM, I have found that I don't fudge as a rule. I am actually becoming persuaded to even say that DMs should avoid fudging. It seems that if DMs and players become better at improvisation and truly reacting to what happens in a game session, there is no need to fudge. Death is not so permanent as there are a number of ways to revive or raise dead PCs, and in a number of cases, even players who are killed, turned to stone, disintegrated, etc enjoy telling the stories about how that happened to their characters.

Ok...I've finally changed my mind. I don't think any DM should fudge...

Yet, as a DM, I still want the flexibility to fudge if I deem it is necessary. To me, fudging is like telling a white lie in an appropriate situation... like when your wife or girlfriend asks you if her dress makes her look fat. Keep it to yourself. Use it only when absolutely necessary.

 

[Maxperson]

When the DM is establishing uncertainty, it is in reference to the uncertain outcome of the fictional situation, regardless of the rules. If the fictional outcome is uncertain, then rules are applied to resolve it. The rules cannot tell the DM what is or isn't uncertain when it comes to fictional outcomes. Only the DM may decide. I don't need to roll damage if I know the outcome of the successful attack is unconsciousness.

Combat is inherently uncertain, so there is nothing for the DM to decide. The to hit roll is by rule, uncertain. Damage is by rule, uncertain. The result of the damage is by rule, uncertain. If the DM decides to change that, he is rendering the combat rules unreliable, as well as changing the rule.

Were I in your game, I could not rely on my attack working like the rules say, because at any time you could just decide that I certainly hit or missed. I could not rely on my longsword doing a d8 damage, because at any time you could decide that it certainly did a specific amount of damage. I also could not rely on my damage killing a creature like it should without me opting to knock it out, because at any time you could just decide that it certainly knocked the creature out. I could rely on no rules in your combat.

 

[Maxperson]

I think specific beats general in the goblin situation from Phandelver.

General: Damage to negative max hit points auto kills. Can't do nonlethal damage with range weapons (Digression: a rather stupid rule, imo. John Reece kneecaps people pretty effectively all the time)

Specific: the module expressly says they don't die.

Except that it's not a rule.

I think we forget that modules ARE rules. They define RAW in that adventure whenever they overrule the PHB (adness, anyone?). Same with campaign settings. I can't play a gnome in Dark Sun regardless of what the PHB RAW says, because DS RAW saus no. Same with clerics and deities.

Specific (the adventure ) beats general.

As far as fudging, I would prefer not, and don't do it myself. I do use a screen though, mostly because they're useful with rules info on the inside. If I want to save the PCs, I'll use hero points and injury tables to do that.

Modules are not rules. Your example about Dark Sun is perfect. Home brew is altering which races are available. The mechanics of the race are rules. The clerics in Dark Sun have specifically altered mechanics, so those are rules.

With the goblin encounter, no mechanics are specifically altered.

 

[Hussar]

Now that I'll disagree on. Modules have often included rules for adjudicating specific scenarios that aren't included in the core rules.

For example, in the Savage Tide Adventure Path there is a "defend your home" scenario. Players are given a limited time the prepare the defence and each success scores a number of Victory Points. The scenario is resolved by tallying these points and different outcomes result from different scores ranging from abject failure to stunning success and several points in between.

I would certainly say that those are rules for that scenario. And this is something encouraged in 5e. The AL module Shackles of Blood contain a specific set of mechanics for resolving a scenario centred around an arena fight. The expectation that the DM will use these mechanics in this scenario is obviously there and not using the new mechanics would make it virtually impossible to run the scenario.

Modules can and certainly do have specific rules for those modules.