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

[Hussar]

This discussion reminds me of an earlier one I was having where some people suggested that the results of a skill check should be dependent on proficiency. A proficient character would get a better result from the same score than a non-proficient character.

To me, the score is the thing. If two pc's achieve the same score then they both get identical results regardless of how that score was achieved. The dice are objective. Score X = result Y. Always.

Fudging is similar to this in that it changes the nature of rolls. They are no longer objective but become dependent on the DM. Score X no longer always gives Result Y.

Again totally a playstyle thing. But I strongly dislike the notion that the dice are subject to that level of interference from anyone at the table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A read-through of even the basic PDF should make it fairly clear that dice rolls don't always (or even often) mean what you might expect them to. The die rolls, the numbers on your character sheet, none of them ultimately mean that much - they might generally point to something about your character, create an impression, but you can't count on them to deliver anything too specific at all consistently.

That would seem to be contradicted by the "treat low numbers as fails, middling numbers as success on easy to medium tasks, and a 20+ as always successful, without even setting a DC--your players will never know" claptrap that appeared in the playtest (I dunno if it survived into the DMG or the Basic Rules PDF). That is, the numbers do in fact actually cash out--within a certain range--to particular things consistently enough that the designers can sincerely recommend "winging it" in that way.

It's not that 'discovering die rolls don't always matter' is the point of the game, it's just that die rolls aren't the point of the game.

I agree with this sentiment--but I don't think it actually contradicts the argument being made. Maps, stats, plot details, etc. are kept secret, so that they can be revealed. Why is fudging kept secret? So that it will stay secret. That seems an important, and relevant, difference.

This discussion reminds me of an earlier one I was having where some people suggested that the results of a skill check should be dependent on proficiency. A proficient character would get a better result from the same score than a non-proficient character.

To me, the score is the thing. If two pc's achieve the same score then they both get identical results regardless of how that score was achieved. The dice are objective. Score X = result Y. Always.

Fudging is similar to this in that it changes the nature of rolls. They are no longer objective but become dependent on the DM. Score X no longer always gives Result Y.

Again totally a playstyle thing. But I strongly dislike the notion that the dice are subject to that level of interference from anyone at the table.

I see this as pretty different from fudging, though perhaps I'm quibbling over details. I don't mind if trained people can accomplish tasks that untrained people can't. There are things a physically fit person is so fantastically unlikely to achieve, because they don't know the limits of the body and how to push them, that they are essentially "impossible" for that person (read: high natural Str/Dex/Con, no training in any relevant skills). Similarly, there are things that a highly trained, but out-of-shape, person can accomplish (by knowing and pushing the limits of the body), despite their lack of raw ability (read: mediocre natural Str/Dex/Con, training in a relevant skill like Acrobatics or Athletics). Similarly, there are lots of things I can do with an unknown computer program or system, because I'm a fairly clever guy--but when I took a class on how to use various office software programs (a requirement, at the college I was attending), I still learned a lot of stuff because cleverness cannot substitute for knowledge, e.g. knowing Excel syntax. I could have learned those things on my own, sure, but that would have been me "training myself."

Long story short: for someone untrained, there are some tasks that can't be accomplished, despite being trivial for someone who is trained. That's the first step toward what you're talking about: some tasks that never require a roll, because either you're Trained/Proficient/whatever and can just automatically do/know them, or you aren't Trained/Proficient/whatever and just automatically can't do/know them. If these automatic things are then made into a added-on or secondary effect of a roll (such as logging into a computer system, foraging for food, or whatever else), then you can now have a situation where the same score can get only Result A if you're untrained, but Result A+B if you're trained.

 

[rollingForInit]

Is the attacker trying to kill the PC in this case?

I think I originally used an arrow as an example, so non-lethal damage would be out of the question.

 

[rollingForInit]

I think the disconnect is the belief that the rules come first. They do not. The DM's judgement comes first, then the rules come into play IF the DM finds there is uncertainty as to the outcome. I don't advocate changing the rules. I do advocate living with the result that comes from using the rules when you bring them into play. Bring the rules and dice into play to resolve uncertainty and then ignoring the result they produce is what fudging is in my view.

But during regular attacks the outcome is always uncertain. If you hit a character with 1 HP, it's unlikely that the character will die. Even with a critical hit, it would take some bad luck to get damage that high.

 

[Imaculata]

Again totally a playstyle thing. But I strongly dislike the notion that the dice are subject to that level of interference from anyone at the table.

To me it depends in what way the fudging is being done. If I roll a stealth check, and the monster fails his perception check, but the DM decides that he still finds me then that sort of stuff pisses me off. That is cheating, because the DM made a perception roll and then ignored the result. It makes me feel like my stealth ability is useless, because regardless of how good my character is at stealth, the DM can randomly decide to render it useless.

If I see the DM reroll attack rolls for monsters, even though I know the monster has only one attack, then that is unacceptable fudging too. I don't like it when DM's just keep rerolling till they get the result they want. That negates the point of having defenses. If the monster misses, then that's tough luck for him.

But I am not against fudging when the DM uses it as a tool to make the game more fun. If the players are suffering from a series of unfortunate crits from monsters, and are hurting bad, then I don't mind if the DM secretly changes one of the crits to a normal hit. And he does not need to tell us. I am also not against it when a DM declares a monster dead, when it really still had 1 hit point left. This is what I like to call the "Logue versus the dragonlich" example:

I play a barbarian called Logue, and the whole party is on its last legs as they are fighting a Dragonlich. We know the creature will kill us in the next round, because none of us have any hitpoints, healing potions or spells left. So in a moment of glory, Logue casts off all of his armor, and charged at the creature completely naked. He figures that if this were to be his last moment, he would go down in style defending his friends. I roll a crit for Logue, I roll a lot of damage on top of that (regardless of the crit, because it is an undead), and the beast dies with that last blow. Beautiful moment! Everyone cheers! But did the DM fudge? I will never know. Do I care? Not really.

 

[Maxperson]

To me, the score is the thing. If two pc's achieve the same score then they both get identical results regardless of how that score was achieved. The dice are objective. Score X = result Y. Always.

And to me, an olympic level jumper should not be able to be tied by a chubby man with no training just because one rolled low and one rolled high, and the resulting number was the same. The only way that could ever happen in real life is if the olympic level jumper injured himself while running for that jump. I like my game to make as much sense as possible.

 

[iserith]

But during regular attacks the outcome is always uncertain. If you hit a character with 1 HP, it's unlikely that the character will die. Even with a critical hit, it would take some bad luck to get damage that high.

Only the DM can decide if the outcome is uncertain. There is nothing in the game that is always uncertain. It may certainly be the case that hitting a defending creature will generally be ruled to have an uncertain outcome, as well as any resulting damage from a successful hit - it is in my games - but it's not always the case.

 

[Maxperson]

Only the DM can decide if the outcome is uncertain. There is nothing in the game that is always uncertain.

Barring a rule like resistance or melee damage being allowed to knock out instead of kill, damage always is. The DM is not making a ruling if he is declaring an outcome uncertain, he is changing the rules. A ruling is the DM making a logical choice based on the situation and the rule in question. Vague rules are the prime reason in 5e to make a ruling. Damage being rolled when you hit is not vague, so no ruling is needed.

 

[iserith]

Barring a rule like resistance or melee damage being allowed to knock out instead of kill, damage always is.

The rules can't tell the DM what is or isn't uncertain. The DM determines whether there is uncertainty and, if he or she decides there is, applies a rule to resolve it.

The DM is not making a ruling if he is declaring an outcome uncertain, he is changing the rules. A ruling is the DM making a logical choice based on the situation and the rule in question. Vague rules are the prime reason in 5e to make a ruling. Damage being rolled when you hit is not vague, so no ruling is needed.

I defined "ruling" here from my point of view and I think it works a lot better than how you think of it in a D&D 5e context. Your definition only works if the rules come first and I don't think that's how things go in D&D 5e - DM judgement comes first, then rules (if needed).

Do you play the game where if a player describes an action, you seek to find a rule that applies to it or do you think about whether what the player wants to have the character do is successful, unsuccessful, or has an uncertain outcome first?

 

[Maxperson]

The rules can't tell the DM what is or isn't uncertain. The DM determines whether there is uncertainty and, if he or she decides there is, applies a rule to resolve it.

The rules exist to say how the game is to be played. That applies to player and DM alike. The DM just has the authority to change, add or subtract rules if he wishes. Those are house rules. Outside of a house rule or ruling on something that is vague or the like, the DM has to follow the rules. What you are suggesting is that the DM house rule damage which is always uncertain as a general rule and only becomes certain if specific beats general, into something else, allowing him to declare uncertain damage certain when he wants to.

I defined "ruling" here from my point of view and I think it works a lot better than how you think of it in a D&D 5e context. Your definition only works if the rules come first and I don't think that's how things go in D&D 5e - DM judgement comes first, then rules (if needed).

If you have to re-define what a ruling is in order to be right, there's a problem. There's a reason why people hate bench legislation by judges when they go beyond making a ruling and into the territory that you espouse here for the game.

Do you play the game where if a player describes an action, you seek to find a rule that applies to it or do you think about whether what the player wants to have the character do is successful, unsuccessful, or has an uncertain outcome first?

I know the rules, so I don't really have to seek for one. What the player wants doesn't matter as far as the outcome is concerned unless the PC has done something to eliminate chance or just has no chance at all. That doesn't apply to damage, though. There's nothing a PC or goblin can do to prevent an arrow from killing someone once it is in flight.