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

[Maxperson]

That is not so. Are you a Dungeon Master or a Dungeon Follower? The rules are tools that serve the DM, not the other way around.

I'm a DM. One difference between you and I is that can admit when I fudge or house rule the game. I do so all the time. The rules serve me, but they are still rules. The way you disregard them, you might as well not bother buying the books at all and just wing it.

The rules cannot tell you there is uncertainty or that they must be used in a particular instance. The DM's judgment comes first and then, if he or she decides there is uncertainty, the rules can be brought into play to resolve it.

This is not how you play D&D. I've read the books. Not in any edition, including 5e, does it say that the rules are not in play unless the DM decides uncertainty is present. It's your playstyle addition to the game.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I'm a DM. One difference between you and I is that can admit when I fudge or house rule the game. I do so all the time. The rules serve me, but they are still rules. The way you disregard them, you might as well not bother buying the books at all and just wing it.



This is not how you play D&D. I've read the books. Not in any edition, including 5e, does it say that the rules are not in play unless the DM decides uncertainty is present. It's your playstyle addition to the game.

It's right at the beginning of the book
Theu call it the basic conversation. Isterith has repeated it numerous times in this thread and others. He repeats it so often it's monotonous . That and rulings over rules. If you don't want to play that way, fine, but it is the philosophy behind 5e. And it is exactly what the Phandelver scenario says to do, regardless of PHB RAW.

 

[iserith]

I do so all the time. The rules serve me, but they are still rules. The way you disregard them, you might as well not bother buying the books at all and just wing it.

I agree - the rules serve me, but they are still rules. So when I delegate my responsibility to determine an outcome to them - which is when I decide there is uncertainty - I abide by the result they produce rather than disregard it as you claim to do. I do need the rules to help me determine outcomes that I establish as uncertain and that's why I bothered to buy the books.

This is not how you play D&D. I've read the books. Not in any edition, including 5e, does it say that the rules are not in play unless the DM decides uncertainty is present. It's your playstyle addition to the game.

The basic conversation of the game as outlined in the Basic Rules (page 3) would seem to disagree with you. It says the DM decides how to resolve actions. That might mean narrating the result, or calling for an appropriate check before doing so.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree - the rules serve me, but they are still rules. So when I delegate my responsibility to determine an outcome to them - which is when I decide there is uncertainty - I abide by the result they produce rather than disregard it as you claim to do. I do need the rules to help me determine outcomes that I establish as uncertain and that's why I bothered to buy the books.



The basic conversation of the game as outlined in the Basic Rules (page 3) would seem to disagree with you. It says the DM decides how to resolve actions. That might mean narrating the result, or calling for an appropriate check before doing so.

And the DMG page 5 backs me up. Under Master of the Rules it says that the DM is to ensure that everyone plays by the rules. There's no exception for the DM. There's nothing that says that the rules only come into play if something is uncertain. And it explicitly points out that if the player wants to attack, the DM says (not "may say", and not "if the DM doesn't declare it uncertain) "Make an attack roll."

Some things are impossible, like if a player says that his PC runs a mile in 1 round. Other things are automatic like if he says he picks up a pebble. That's what they are talking about when they say that the DM decides if something is certain or uncertain. You are misusing that tool by extending it to include things like combat. You can do that as a DM, but you are not playing the game as it was intended when you do so.

The DM is supposed to make sure that the rules are followed. Rulings need to be made when things aren't covered, and house rules can be created when things need to be changed. You have exceeded even 5e's mandate with your philosophy.

 

[iserith]

And the DMG page 5 backs me up. Under Master of the Rules it says that the DM is to ensure that everyone plays by the rules. There's no exception for the DM. There's nothing that says that the rules only come into play if something is uncertain. And it explicitly points out that if the player wants to attack, the DM says (not "may say", and not "if the DM doesn't declare it uncertain) "Make an attack roll."

You seem confused. I'm not advocating not playing by the rules.

Some things are impossible, like if a player says that his PC runs a mile in 1 round. Other things are automatic like if he says he picks up a pebble. That's what they are talking about when they say that the DM decides if something is certain or uncertain.

The DM decides if something is certain or uncertain. That is the first step in adjudication. It's probably safe to say that many DMs treat most actions in combat as uncertain because someone is defending against that attack. But it doesn't mean it is always uncertain. The DM must decide.

The DM is supposed to make sure that the rules are followed.

I agree - the DM should make sure the rules are followed... when he or she decides that something is uncertain and invokes a rule to resolve it.

 

[Maxperson]

You seem confused. I'm not advocating not playing by the rules.

You aren't playing by the rules when the rules say an action is uncertain and you change it. The rules regarding uncertainty weren't intended for those sorts of things and the 5e DMG says that everyone, which includes the DM, should play by the rules. You are house ruling that tool into something that it isn't. That's fine, but it's not the way it was intended to be used.

The DM decides if something is certain or uncertain. That is the first step in adjudication. It's probably safe to say that many DMs treat most actions in combat as uncertain because someone is defending against that attack. But it doesn't mean it is always uncertain. The DM must decide.

And the DM uses the rules to help him determine of that thing is uncertain. Combat tells you that attacks, damage and the resulting hit point losses are uncertain by their very nature, so that's the way you are supposed to rule.

 

[iserith]

You aren't playing by the rules when the rules say an action is uncertain and you change it.

The rules can't tell the DM what is and isn't uncertain. It's the DM's role to make that determination.

And the DM uses the rules to help him determine of that thing is uncertain. Combat tells you that attacks, damage and the resulting hit point losses are uncertain by their very nature, so that's the way you are supposed to rule.

The circumstances of the fictional situation and the player's stated approach to the goal informs the DM as to whether the outcome is uncertain. The rules help the DM resolve it when the decision is made by the DM that the outcome is indeed uncertain.

 

[KahlessNestor]

And the DMG page 5 backs me up. Under Master of the Rules it says that the DM is to ensure that everyone plays by the rules. There's no exception for the DM. There's nothing that says that the rules only come into play if something is uncertain. And it explicitly points out that if the player wants to attack, the DM says (not "may say", and not "if the DM doesn't declare it uncertain) "Make an attack roll."

Some things are impossible, like if a player says that his PC runs a mile in 1 round. Other things are automatic like if he says he picks up a pebble. That's what they are talking about when they say that the DM decides if something is certain or uncertain. You are misusing that tool by extending it to include things like combat. You can do that as a DM, but you are not playing the game as it was intended when you do so.

The DM is supposed to make sure that the rules are followed. Rulings need to be made when things aren't covered, and house rules can be created when things need to be changed. You have exceeded even 5e's mandate with your philosophy.

Um...you do realize that the DMG actually IS NOT part of the rules in 5e. Everything in the DMG (and MM) are suggestions or optional rules (house rules). The DMG isn't even legal in Adventure League play.

 

[Maxperson]

Um...you do realize that the DMG actually IS NOT part of the rules in 5e. Everything in the DMG (and MM) are suggestions or optional rules (house rules). The DMG isn't even legal in Adventure League play.

Um, you should know what you are talking about before you speak that way to someone. From the AL rules.

"Rules for Dungeon Masters
The variant rules for “Playing on a Grid” in the D&D Basic Rules and Player’s Handbook can be used if you and your players wish. Dungeon Masters should feel free to use the Dungeon Masters Guide to help run games if they so choose. However, D&D Adventurers League play does not use any other optional or variant rules as presented in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."

The idea that the DMG is not part of the 5e rules is absurd.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Doesn't use any of the rules other than grid play. Also there are severe restictions on when access is even granted. The Basic Rules, which is all you need to play, don't include any of that stuff.

So yeah, feel free to use it...but only the one single thing we allow...