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

[Hussar]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] where does it state in the 5e rules that the DM can change or ignore die results after the fact?

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] where does it state in the 5e rules that the DM can change or ignore die results after the fact?

Page 235 of the DMG under Running the Game, where it says "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the dice if you want to." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[rlor]

Your question is irrelevant. A player is not the DM. The roles and powers of the player don't allow the player to do many things that the DM can. You might as well ask if it would be wrong in the minds of DMs in favor of making encounters if it would be wrong for the players to decide to make encounters.

A player can physically do the action I'm describing. Heck they might accidentally do so by rolling a d12 instead of a d20 by mistake or just reading the numbers incorrectly due to poor eyesight. The player cannot physically make an encounter appear for the players to fight (though some of those conjuration spells come close when things go badly, I kid, I kid).

So a player (and let's assume they're not new so no excuse on that front) has just done the inconceivable and misstated their roll to be less than it was. Assuming it wasn't a mistake you'd... put it in with any other intentional rules violation regardless of motive? Or something else? I don't hold that there is one right answer here either, others have even stated they'd be fine with it. I'm just curious of your reasoning.

And I imagine it would vary table to table. A table where people rotate GMs campaign to campaign (or even mid campaign) is probably going to have a different feel than one that has a particular person as the GM the majority of the time. Out of curiosity where would your current gaming group fall on that scale?

 

[Hussar]

Page 235 of the DMG under Running the Game, where it says "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the dice if you want to." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Note, there is more to that part than that single point.

If you roll the dice where the players can see, they know that you're playing impartially and not fudging rolls.

The section you are quoting presents a number of options, not just carte blanche for fudging. I choose the first option, you don't. And that's fine. It's a play style thing. However, there is a bit more to your quote as well:

... Don't distort die rolls too often though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise your players might think they don't face any real risks - or worse, that you're playing favourites.

Even in the DMG advice, the idea of distorting die rolls comes with caveats and limitations - keep it a secret and don't do it too often. For me, and, again, purely for me, any distortion is too often and, the fact that you have to hide it says to me that it's not groovy. You only hide stuff that you know players would object to. If the players would object to something if you did it, then don't do it. AFAIC, it's that simple.

 

[S'mon]

If you've been paying attention to the railroading threads, not all railroading is bad. It depends on what it is, what the purpose is, and player buy-in. Not all fudging is bad, either. You are trying to apply absolute standards to something that is not absolute. That's why your arguments break down.

I guess railroading & fudging are natural bedfellows - if you like one you probably like the
other.

 

[rollingForInit]

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.

But there's no practical difference. In one case, you fudge the dice so they deal less damage. In the other case, you roll an attack, hit, look at the PC's HP, see that it is one, and decide that instead of dealing 10 damage the attack will knock the PC unconscious.

Both are changing the rules on the fly as it suits the DM. I do not think that this is wrong, I think it's great. But there's no difference between that and fudging rolls. The effect is exactly the same. Unless the monster stat block says that the attack made by the monster cannot ever kill a character, only knock them unconscious. But then that's a monster design, and the issue would never occur in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

A player can physically do the action I'm describing. Heck they might accidentally do so by rolling a d12 instead of a d20 by mistake or just reading the numbers incorrectly due to poor eyesight. The player cannot physically make an encounter appear for the players to fight (though some of those conjuration spells come close when things go badly, I kid, I kid).

The player can also physically punch someone. Being able to do something physically doesn't make it okay.

So a player (and let's assume they're not new so no excuse on that front) has just done the inconceivable and misstated their roll to be less than it was. Assuming it wasn't a mistake you'd... put it in with any other intentional rules violation regardless of motive? Or something else? I don't hold that there is one right answer here either, others have even stated they'd be fine with it. I'm just curious of your reasoning.

Players can cheat. The DM can't. Players have limitations built into their role in the game. The DM doesn't. They don't have the option to intentionally violate the rules without DM permission.

And I imagine it would vary table to table. A table where people rotate GMs campaign to campaign (or even mid campaign) is probably going to have a different feel than one that has a particular person as the GM the majority of the time. Out of curiosity where would your current gaming group fall on that scale?

Of the five people at my table, three of us have been DM at some point, but I DM the vast majority of the time. Yes, each of us has our own style, but there are only cosmetic differences. We have the same core gaming style.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But there's no practical difference. In one case, you fudge the dice so they deal less damage. In the other case, you roll an attack, hit, look at the PC's HP, see that it is one, and decide that instead of dealing 10 damage the attack will knock the PC unconscious.

Both are changing the rules on the fly as it suits the DM. I do not think that this is wrong, I think it's great. But there's no difference between that and fudging rolls. The effect is exactly the same. Unless the monster stat block says that the attack made by the monster cannot ever kill a character, only knock them unconscious. But then that's a monster design, and the issue would never occur in the first place.

I don't actually see this as "changing rules on the fly," and even if I did, I don't see "deciding unconsciousness instead of death" as being in any way the same as modifying HP or damage or anything else.

It's a shift in the nature of the consequence, but not in the fact of consequence. Altering a monster's HP (or any other statistic) is done to alter the fact of the consequence: a difference of kind and not degree. E.g. the monster remains a viable combatant, even though it should be removed from combat; the monster misses, even though it should hit or even crit; the speech succeeds when it should have failed; etc. These are not a shift of degree, where more-or-less the same result occurs but with modified consequences (usually long-term, e.g. unconsciousness vs. death--you're still unable to take actions, just temporarily rather than permanently); instead, it is a fundamentally different result.

That's why I don't mind, as an example, making it so that MOST crits don't need to be confirmed (saving time) but SOME do, and a few just automatically aren't confirmed. It doesn't change the fundamental nature of the event--damage is still dealt--but it ameliorates the severity thereof. Deciding that the negative (or positive!) consequence doesn't happen at all is a totally different beast.

 

[Maxperson]

Note, there is more to that part than that single point.

The rest doesn't matter. The rules allow fudging. Period. The rest is just cautionary to help the DM use the tool properly.

The section you are quoting presents a number of options, not just carte blanche for fudging. I choose the first option, you don't. And that's fine. It's a play style thing.

The section is cart blanche for fudging. There are no limitations and no limitations is what cart blanche means. That it offers other ways and cautions about abuse does not change that.

Even in the DMG advice, the idea of distorting die rolls comes with caveats and limitations - keep it a secret and don't do it too often. For me, and, again, purely for me, any distortion is too often and, the fact that you have to hide it says to me that it's not groovy. You only hide stuff that you know players would object to. If the players would object to something if you did it, then don't do it. AFAIC, it's that simple.

Advice on how not to abuse the tool is not a limitation. The "Otherwise" portion of that quote shows clearly that it's just advice and not a limitation on the DM. The "might" portion of that quote shows very clearly that you don't just hide it because it's not groovy or the players WOULD object to it. Some players would. Some wouldn't.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess railroading & fudging are natural bedfellows - if you like one you probably like the
other.

I never railroad. The DMs I play with never railroad. I'd lay good money on them most of them fudging rolls when they feel it is necessary.