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

[Azurewraith]

I am concerned I don't have the...staying power, if that makes sense.

You can get pills for that my friend.

 

[Shasarak]

My rule is that I never fudge unless I need to fudge.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can get pills for that my friend.

Yeah, I expected this sort of joke. I just knew no other words to communicate the concept. It's not "tenacity" as I have the will to continue, and it's not "dedication" as I very rarely engage in a creative project that I don't strive for the best form it can possibly take. But most of my creative projects are things I do in relatively short order, a flurry of intense work lasting no more than a week or two. Accepting the indefinite long-haul commitment of DMing seems...risky, I guess, when I'm not sure that I can maintain a steady production of creative work.

 

[Imaculata]

My rule is that I never fudge unless I need to fudge.

Haha, but so true. I totally agree. I usually don't fudge, unless I feel that I need to, to make the game more fun. And I never undo what my players rolled. I only fudge the monsters, and very rarely.

Additionally, my players know that I am not against fudging. They know that I sometimes make things more fair, and they're cool with it. I think that as long as you don't feel that you need to hide it from your players, you're good.

 

[Maxperson]

The irony here considering how strongly you argued for altering the rules for success in the other thread is delicious.

Only if you failed to understand what I was saying in the other thread. I'm all for altering the rules here as well. I alter the rules to make things more enjoyable and I'm for others altering them.

 

[Azurewraith]

Yeah, I expected this sort of joke. I just knew no other words to communicate the concept. It's not "tenacity" as I have the will to continue, and it's not "dedication" as I very rarely engage in a creative project that I don't strive for the best form it can possibly take. But most of my creative projects are things I do in relatively short order, a flurry of intense work lasting no more than a week or two. Accepting the indefinite long-haul commitment of DMing seems...risky, I guess, when I'm not sure that I can maintain a steady production of creative work.

Sorry I couldn't resist. I'm totally with you I hhave to sessions of content left and I'm praying my PC's give me some direction. My issue is my brain won't settle on 1 thing so I tend to end up with lots of 1/2 campaigns

 

[Hussar]

Only if you failed to understand what I was saying in the other thread. I'm all for altering the rules here as well. I alter the rules to make things more enjoyable and I'm for others altering them.

LOL

Declaring a partial failure on a success is okay, but, declaring a partial success on a failure is fudging.

I was more laughing about this specific quote:

In both cases you've taken a roll and altered the outcome that the die roll indicated by the rules into something that isn't indicated by the rules.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...udge-that-is-the-question/page7#ixzz3uuHXFOE6

Wouldn't both be fudging?

 

[Maxperson]

LOL

Declaring a partial failure on a success is okay, but, declaring a partial success on a failure is fudging.

I was more laughing about this specific quote:

Wouldn't both be fudging?

You are aware of the exception based rules system for 5e, right? Saves for half damage are outside the normal success/failure paradigm. The rules explicitly treat that circumstance differently than success/failure of skills, the rest of saves, ability checks, attacks rolls and so on.

 

[Hussar]

You are aware of the exception based rules system for 5e, right? Saves for half damage are outside the normal success/failure paradigm. The rules explicitly treat that circumstance differently than success/failure of skills, the rest of saves, ability checks, attacks rolls and so on.

Oh totally aware.

I'm just tickled to watch the logical hoops you're trying to jump through to justify changing the paradigm to allow for different success results for a skill check but then turning around and trying to close those exact same loops to deny any change to the paradigm to exclude different failure results for a skill check.

Put it this way. If you are granting a greater success for a skill check than is allowed by the rules, or a lesser success possibly, how is that not fudging just as much as allowing a different result for a failed skill check? In both cases you are altering the results outside of the existing rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm just tickled to watch the logical hoops you're trying to jump through to justify changing the paradigm to allow for different success results for a skill check but then turning around and trying to close those exact same loops to deny any change to the paradigm to exclude different failure results for a skill check.

What are you talking about? I freely admitted to house ruling skill checks. I don't use them the way the rules set them up to be. I have been totally consistent in both threads..........at least to people who care to try to understand what I am talking about.

Put it this way. If you are granting a greater success for a skill check than is allowed by the rules, or a lesser success possibly, how is that not fudging just as much as allowing a different result for a failed skill check? In both cases you are altering the results outside of the existing rules.

Er, I already admitted to fudging. You really ought to try and keep up.