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

[iserith]

But who says that the dice have to follow the rules? If you improvise fights and attacks and monsters all the time to get a desired result, you can do the same with dice, and just see the dice as a guideline. "Oh, max damage, so maybe I won't kill the character even though the PC should die, I'll just almost kill the PC instead, since it was high damage".

Dice are inanimate objects, so I'm not sure what you mean. I see fudging as bringing the rules and dice into play to resolve uncertainty and then ignoring or changing the result. This raises two questions: (1) If you knew what you wanted the outcome to be in the first place, why did you bring the rules and dice into play? or (2) If you didn't know what you wanted, why did you set the stakes to include a result you wouldn't like?

The DM determines uncertainty and sets the stakes. If you do these things well (and it's easy to do), then there is no need to fudge at all.

 

[Maxperson]

I have had the displeasure in the past of playing a campaign with a DM who seemed to think that it was him versus the players. Like it was some sort of competition, where only his monsters and his npc's were supposed to come out on top. And we all had the feeling like he was fudging constantly.

That really had nothing to do with fudging, though. An adversarial DM is a bad one and will produce a game that is not enjoyable regardless of whether he fudges or not. Similarly, a non-adversarial DM could fudge a skill roll and produce an enjoyable game. I don't do that, but I could see where it could happen.

To me there's a huge difference between keeping monster stats a secret, and fudging. The first is expected of the DM, the second is discouraged.

Discouraged? The rules encourage it by pointing out that the DM can do it if he wishes and providing caution and advice so that it doesn't get out of hand and disrupt things.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, your position is based on rules first, DM judgment second. That is backward in my view and more appropriate to other editions of the game rather than D&D 5e. Fudging is when you bring the rules and dice into play, then ignore or change the result they give you. In the example under discussion, the rules you are suggesting are being changed are not being brought into play at all because there is simply no uncertainty established by the DM as to the outcome of that successful attack.

Yep! The DM has established that the sharp, pointy arrows that the goblins have fired and have no control over once in flight have certainly put on boxing gloves just before hitting the PC!

 

[Maxperson]

Dice are inanimate objects, so I'm not sure what you mean. I see fudging as bringing the rules and dice into play to resolve uncertainty and then ignoring or changing the result. This raises two questions: (1) If you knew what you wanted the outcome to be in the first place, why did you bring the rules and dice into play? or (2) If you didn't know what you wanted, why did you set the stakes to include a result you wouldn't like?

1. Sometimes the DM isn't entirely sure and/or changes his mind after the roll has happened. 2. The DM doesn't set stakes. Setting stakes is a playstyle choice that you have decided to add into your game.

 

[iserith]

I want to play a game where things make sense, and a game where creatures can just decide that deadly arrows are harmless and can't kill is ludicrous. It's bad enough that a PC using a melee weapon can re-wind time and decide that a dead creature is only knocked out AFTER the damage is rolled and it dies. That's why I house ruled that a PC with a melee weapon has to be trying to knock a creature out before he attacks, and you still can't do it at all with ranged.

DM: The goblin nimbly escapes the fighter and positions itself behind the dead horse. Drawing a black arrow from its quiver, it quickly nocks and aims for the wizard's head!
Player: Oh no, I've only got 1 hit point left!
DM: "Try not to get too much blood on her pack!" shouts one goblin in the brush. "I wants what's inside!" The goblin near the horse lowers its bow a bit and looses the arrow. *rolls*
Player: D'oh!
DM: A natural 20. The arrow sinks deep into the fleshy part of your thigh.
Player: "Undone by a foul goblin - an ignominious defeat!" I swoon.
DM: As pain shoots up your leg and shock sets in, the world around you spins and goes dark. You're unconscious, face down in the dirt. Wasting no time, the goblin from the brush dashes out and gets its filthy mitts on the wizard's backpack, known to contain her very valuable spellbook. Fighter, what do you do?

Makes fictional sense to me.

 

[iserith]

Yep! The DM has established that the sharp, pointy arrows that the goblins have fired and have no control over once in flight have certainly put on boxing gloves just before hitting the PC!

You only think that way because you're putting rules before DM judgment. If there wasn't a rule about creatures choosing to knock other creatures unconscious with melee weapons only, you likely wouldn't care. I'll add that in the example I just wrote, the goblin isn't choosing to knock the wizard unconscious and using some rule to do it. It's just what happens as a result of its successful attack and follows in a reasonable fashion from the fiction up to that point.

 

[Maxperson]

DM: The goblin nimbly escapes the fighter and positions itself behind the dead horse. Drawing a black arrow from its quiver, it quickly nocks and aims for the wizard's head!
Player: Oh no, I've only got 1 hit point left!
DM: "Try not to get too much blood on her pack!" shouts one goblin in the brush. "I wants what's inside!" The goblin near the horse lowers its bow a bit and looses the arrow. *rolls*
Player: D'oh!
DM: A natural 20. The arrow sinks deep into the fleshy part of your thigh.
Player: "Undone by a foul goblin - an ignominious defeat!" I swoon.
DM: As pain shoots up your leg and shock sets in, the world around you spins and goes dark. You're unconscious, face down in the dirt. Wasting no time, the goblin from the brush dashes out and gets its filthy mitts on the wizard's backpack, known to contain her very valuable spellbook. Fighter, what do you do?

Makes fictional sense to me.

The goblin cannot guarantee that the wizard did not shift slightly, causing the arrow to hit the femoral artery, killing the PC. Heck, the PC doesn't even have to shift. The arrow just went deeper than the goblin wanted because he couldn't control it and it hit the artery. Even an errant gust of wind can cause it to hit somewhere different.

 

[iserith]

1. Sometimes the DM isn't entirely sure and/or changes his mind after the roll has happened.

I suggest not bringing rules and dice into play until you're entirely sure then. Take a few seconds to think about it if you have to or even discuss it with your players if you can't decide.

2. The DM doesn't set stakes. Setting stakes is a playstyle choice that you have decided to add into your game.

The DM absolutely does set the stakes. They may not do it overtly as I might do, but the stakes are apparent in the fiction. The stakes of your typical combat are life and death. By putting such a challenge before the PCs, those stakes are set by him or her.

 

[iserith]

The goblin cannot guarantee that the wizard did not shift slightly, causing the arrow to hit the femoral artery, killing the PC. Heck, the PC doesn't even have to shift. The arrow just went deeper than the goblin wanted because he couldn't control it and it hit the artery. Even an errant gust of wind can cause it to hit somewhere different.

The goblin's not the one in charge of narrating the outcome of the action - the DM is.

 

[Maxperson]

You only think that way because you're putting rules before DM judgment. If there wasn't a rule about creatures choosing to knock other creatures unconscious with melee weapons only, you likely wouldn't care.

You'll note that in one of my posts this morning I house ruled that silliness out of my game. You can knock someone out with a melee weapon so long as you announce prior to the attack that you are trying to knock them out. Since it's very difficult to do in melee combat with deadly weapons, there is a -2 circumstance penalty to the attack.

I'll add that in the example I just wrote, the goblin isn't choosing to knock the wizard unconscious and using some rule to do it. It's just what happens as a result of its successful attack and follows in a reasonable fashion from the fiction up to that point.

The encounter you pointed out is designed with goblin intent in mind. Remove that intent and you remove the argument that the encounter being discussed can knock out PCs with arrows.