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

[Maxperson]

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...

According to the quote I just showed you from "your" rules, it uses each and every rule from the DMG that isn't listed expressly as optional. So while you don't need the DMG, each DM can use those non-optional DMG rules if he wants to. Most of the DMG rules are non-optional.

Your claim that the DMG isn't part of 5e rules is still absurd and factually wrong.

 

[KahlessNestor]

The DMG has no required rules in it. That was the point. They wanted everything self-contained. The DMG was released MONTHS after the PHB and Basic Rules. It has advice (not rules) on how to build a world, a campaign, and adventures. It has suggestions on how to run a table. And it gives numerous OPTIONAL rules, like Madness and playing with a grid, or tactical things like flanking. All of which are FORBIDDEN in AL except grid use (and Madness in Season 3). So no, DMG and MM are not rules, but aids. All the rules are in the PHB and Basic Rules

 

[rollingForInit]

Okay. That's not what is being argued here, though. Making a game change so that something cannot be lethal at all for mechanical reasons is different from taking a normal arrow, which is lethal, and then just arbitrarily declaring that it can't kill, because you the DM have decided on the spot that you don't want a character to die, so it is certain that the arrow cannot kill as the rules say it will.

Right. But the arrow wouldn't have to kill. Perhaps you planned the encounter to be survivable, and the PC's just had really bad luck. And usually, death is a part of D&D, but perhaps not ... you know ... during the first encounter ever.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Okay, so finally one of the three fudging threads has fallen off the first page, so I admire the tenacity of everyone still trying to make this such an issue worthy of continued discussion that two of them are remaining active. But isn't the fact they both seem to have devolved into [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] vs. The World that perhaps it's run it's course? I mean... I dropped out of the convo a while ago since I said my piece on the subject and everyone who was against me just plays the game differently than I do (so none of their reasons to explain why what I did wasn't a good course didn't actually refer to my playstyle). Is there really anything worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said (and disagreed with to no avail?)

 

[Maxperson]

The DMG has no required rules in it. That was the point. They wanted everything self-contained. The DMG was released MONTHS after the PHB and Basic Rules. It has advice (not rules) on how to build a world, a campaign, and adventures. It has suggestions on how to run a table. And it gives numerous OPTIONAL rules, like Madness and playing with a grid, or tactical things like flanking. All of which are FORBIDDEN in AL except grid use (and Madness in Season 3). So no, DMG and MM are not rules, but aids. All the rules are in the PHB and Basic Rules

Rules for a game put out later are in fact part of the rules. Magic items If rules, optional or not, are put out for 5e, they are 5e rules. That's a fact and it's not rational to dispute that. Now, those "aids" you given in the PHB. The PHB is full of rules, but it's also full of suggestions that are not listed as rules, but that virtually everyone here takes as a rule. Iserith for instance if very fond of using the introduction section of the PHB/Basic rules, which contains no real rules but is entirely descriptive, as rules. If those are rules, then so are all of the "aids" in the DMG and MM. Incidentally, the rules about monster abilities and how to run them that are not contained in the PHB are rules. The ones about legendary actions, monster equipment, and so on.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. But the arrow wouldn't have to kill. Perhaps you planned the encounter to be survivable, and the PC's just had really bad luck. And usually, death is a part of D&D, but perhaps not ... you know ... during the first encounter ever.

Exactly. The DM is free to fudge the damage roll away or just ignore it if he wants.

Just as an aside, I'd rather that my PC die in the first encounter ever and not have a chance to really become attached to the character, than to have the PC die in some random encounter somewhere at 12th level because bad luck.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, so finally one of the three fudging threads has fallen off the first page, so I admire the tenacity of everyone still trying to make this such an issue worthy of continued discussion that two of them are remaining active. But isn't the fact they both seem to have devolved into [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] vs. The World that perhaps it's run it's course? I mean... I dropped out of the convo a while ago since I said my piece on the subject and everyone who was against me just plays the game differently than I do (so none of their reasons to explain why what I did wasn't a good course didn't actually refer to my playstyle). Is there really anything worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said (and disagreed with to no avail?)

First, how does a few people constitute the world? Second, what is it to you if I and a few others want to continue engaging in debate? If you don't like it, don't read it and go to a different thread.

 

[Lanliss]

Okay, so finally one of the three fudging threads has fallen off the first page, so I admire the tenacity of everyone still trying to make this such an issue worthy of continued discussion that two of them are remaining active. But isn't the fact they both seem to have devolved into [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] vs. The World that perhaps it's run it's course? I mean... I dropped out of the convo a while ago since I said my piece on the subject and everyone who was against me just plays the game differently than I do (so none of their reasons to explain why what I did wasn't a good course didn't actually refer to my playstyle). Is there really anything worth it to say on the subject that hasn't already been said (and disagreed with to no avail?)

In case you are not caught up on the debate, it is mostly Max v. Iserith, on the subject of fudging. They both know that their play style is fine, and are not trying to convince the other to stop doing what they are doing. The subject up for debate is "What constitutes fudging?", with Maxperson declaring that Iserith fudges, while Iserith does not describe his(her? idk) actions as fudging.

 

[Hussar]

Reading through the last few pages, I got to wondering why the example of taking death off the table doesn't particularly bother me. After all, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is right - the DM is changing the outcome of the scenario outside of the established rules. Then it hit me. This example doesn't qualify as fudging.

Throughout this thread, fudging has come down to not one, but two criteria:

• Changing results.
• Keeping it a secret

And the example under discussion, while it does meet the first requirement, doesn't meet the second. If the DM simply fudged combat results so that the PC's didn't die, he would not tell the PC's (keeping fudging a secret has been strongly established). But, in this case, the DM does tell the PC's. Granted he does so after the fact, in that the PC's wake up stripped of gear and not dead. But, there is no secrecy here. It's in the open.

Fudging, according to everyone in this thread, must be kept secret. Even the advice in the DMG says to keep it from the players. But, again, this isn't kept from the players. If they die, they will not be actually killed, but will wake up instead. At that point, the players are told what happened.

In order for this to actually be fudging, the DM would instead manipulate the dice, leaving the PC's perhaps unconscious, but, not dead. And the players should never know that the DM did this.

 

[Lanliss]

Reading through the last few pages, I got to wondering why the example of taking death off the table doesn't particularly bother me. After all, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is right - the DM is changing the outcome of the scenario outside of the established rules. Then it hit me. This example doesn't qualify as fudging.

Throughout this thread, fudging has come down to not one, but two criteria:

• Changing results.
• Keeping it a secret

And the example under discussion, while it does meet the first requirement, doesn't meet the second. If the DM simply fudged combat results so that the PC's didn't die, he would not tell the PC's (keeping fudging a secret has been strongly established). But, in this case, the DM does tell the PC's. Granted he does so after the fact, in that the PC's wake up stripped of gear and not dead. But, there is no secrecy here. It's in the open.

Fudging, according to everyone in this thread, must be kept secret. Even the advice in the DMG says to keep it from the players. But, again, this isn't kept from the players. If they die, they will not be actually killed, but will wake up instead. At that point, the players are told what happened.

In order for this to actually be fudging, the DM would instead manipulate the dice, leaving the PC's perhaps unconscious, but, not dead. And the players should never know that the DM did this.

"Keep it a secret" is not a requirement for it to be fudging, simply a preference that is added on. The same as International espionage. Just because you get caught stealing country secrets does not mean it is no longer spying. If you get caught fudging, or tell your players you fudged, it is still fudging, just not a secret anymore.