D&D 5E (2014) To fudge or not to fudge: that is the question

[Maxperson]

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

Right, nothing prevents the DM from narrating silliness. It's absurd to think or narrate that a sharp arrow that crits has no chance of being deadly.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

I have never set stakes. They might be present because of the way the game is written, but if I don't formally declare what the stakes are, I have not set them. In your example above, the game has set the stakes as life or death, not me.

Edit: That's not true. I sometimes will set success/failure stakes for an action, but not formally as "stakes". However, it's the same difference in those rare occasions.

 

[iserith]

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.

And that proves that you house rule and I don't? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

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.

Not in the slightest. The goblin wants to loot the wizard. It doesn't care if the wizard is dead or not. It shoots her in the thigh and, as it happens, this knocks her unconscious.

 

[Maxperson]

And that proves that you house rule and I don't? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The point was that your statement that I only care because of the melee rule is incorrect. I care because I care about the game making sense.

Not in the slightest. The goblin wants to loot the wizard. It doesn't care if the wizard is dead or not. It shoots her in the thigh and, as it happens, this knocks her unconscious.

Not according to the encounter you listed. According to that encounter, the arrows knock people out because the goblins intend to knock them out and rob them.

 

[iserith]

Right, nothing prevents the DM from narrating silliness. It's absurd to think or narrate that a sharp arrow that crits has no chance of being deadly.

Again, you're putting the rules ahead of the DM's judgment. That is why you end up having to fudge sometimes.

I have never set stakes. They might be present because of the way the game is written, but if I don't formally declare what the stakes are, I have not set them. In your example above, the game has set the stakes as life or death, not me.

Edit: That's not true. I sometimes will set success/failure stakes for an action, but not formally as "stakes". However, it's the same difference in those rare occasions.

You do set the stakes, just perhaps not overtly (or perhaps creatively) as I might. Every challenge has win and loss conditions - the stakes - which is part and parcel of being a game. The module sets the stakes for this challenge quite clearly - success means the goblins are killed, captured, or routed; failure means the goblins knock the PCs unconscious and rob them.

 

[iserith]

The point was that your statement that I only care because of the melee rule is incorrect. I care because I care about the game making sense.

What about the hypothetical actual play example I posted above makes no sense? It seems like some reasonable (and fun!) fiction to me.

Not according to the encounter you listed. According to that encounter, the arrows knock people out because the goblins intend to knock them out and rob them.

The module says nothing about the goblins' intent to knock them out. It just says defeat means they're knocked unconscious and robbed. The goblins could intend to kill them, but simply botch the job.

 

[Noctem]

I have to give it to you for trying iserith.

 

[iserith]

I have to give it to you for trying iserith.

I don't expect I'll convince Maxperson to change his or her paradigm, but maybe I'll persuade some folks reading the exchange.

And Jeff Albertson's Laughs have put me in the Top 20 of Funniest People on Enworld. Loving it!

 

[Noctem]

My small contribution

 

[Neutromancer]

So, I'm going to have to say, hell no. Fudging is bad, nobody should do it. It ruins the fun for everyone. Everything must be fair and whatever happens, happens.

Then, obviously, I'm going to vote yes when nobody is looking.