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

[iserith]

Combat is inherently uncertain, so there is nothing for the DM to decide. The to hit roll is by rule, uncertain. Damage is by rule, uncertain. The result of the damage is by rule, uncertain. If the DM decides to change that, he is rendering the combat rules unreliable, as well as changing the rule.

Nothing is inherently uncertain in the game. Each and every instance of uncertainty is established by the DM. The rules are there to resolve uncertainty if and when the DM establishes it. Welcome to the era of DM empowerment.

As well, the DMG warns us there is a significant drawback to relying on dice rolls for almost everything - roleplaying can diminish if it's the dice, rather than the players' decisions and characterizations, that usually determine success.

Were I in your game, I could not rely on my attack working like the rules say, because at any time you could just decide that I certainly hit or missed. I could not rely on my longsword doing a d8 damage, because at any time you could decide that it certainly did a specific amount of damage. I also could not rely on my damage killing a creature like it should without me opting to knock it out, because at any time you could just decide that it certainly knocked the creature out. I could rely on no rules in your combat.

No, you can't rely on the rules. But you can rely on my reasonably consistent rulings in similar situations plus my descriptions. I do not abdicate my responsibility to determine uncertainty to the rules because they cannot account for the entirety of the fictional situation that is unfolding.

I think your position would certainly be more at home in D&D 3.Xe, D&D 4e, or perhaps a board game, but I don't think it best fits the D&D 5e paradigm. Of course, play that way if it's what you and yours like - nobody's stopping you.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Modules are very much rules. If a module specifically calls out an exception to the rules, it takes precedence. That is the case with Phandelvar. It specifically says don't kill the characters. It doesn't say don't kill them UNLESS you use ranged attack and massive damage rules. It doesn't care about lethal or nonlethal. In this case all goblin damage is nonlethal. It doesn't matter what RAW says. (Or IRL, because you most certainly can do nonlethal damage with arrows).

And Dark Sun isn't homebrew. It's official setting. It's RAW. Same as no warforged in Forgotten Realms. It limits your character options by rule, taking precedent over PHB RAW, which says I can play my gnome cleric of Lathander.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing is inherently uncertain in the game. Each and every instance of uncertainty is established by the DM. The rules are there to resolve uncertainty if and when the DM establishes it. Welcome to the era of DM empowerment.

As well, the DMG warns us there is a significant drawback to relying on dice rolls for almost everything - roleplaying can diminish if it's the dice, rather than the players' decisions and characterizations, that usually determine success.

That's just a bit of a strawman. Combat relies on dice, but that is nowhere remotely close to relying on dice rolls for almost everything.

No, you can't rely on the rules. But you can rely on my reasonably consistent rulings in similar situations plus my descriptions. I do not abdicate my responsibility to determine uncertainty to the rules because they cannot account for the entirety of the fictional situation that is unfolding.

Not being able to trust the rules is a problem, even in 5e.

I think your position would certainly be more at home in D&D 3.Xe, D&D 4e, or perhaps a board game, but I don't think it best fits the D&D 5e paradigm. Of course, play that way if it's what you and yours like - nobody's stopping you.

I disagree. Rulings Over Rules has been the same from edition to edition. 5e is no different than 1e-3e.

 

[Maxperson]

And Dark Sun isn't homebrew. It's official setting. It's RAW. Same as no warforged in Forgotten Realms. It limits your character options by rule, taking precedent over PHB RAW, which says I can play my gnome cleric of Lathander.

Dark Sun contains new RAW, and homebrew. New RAW requires a rules change? What rule is changed by having no warforged in the realms or adding Thri-Kreen to Dark Sun? There is no rule that requires any given race be present in a campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Watching [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] argue that changing the results in combat is a house rule but fudging the same thing is not is ironic to say the least.

 

[rollingForInit]

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.

Not sure what you're arguing against here? If I wanted an encounter that was non-lethal, I'd have magical stun arrows/darts or something like that, instead of ordinary arrows.

 

[rollingForInit]

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.

Well, I wouldn't really have had to bring the dice into play. The same thing applies to using the average damage from a monster. But even I did use the dice, it'd probably have been for the uncertainty of how much damage is dealt in general, but maybe I was hoping that the monster wouldn't crit against someone that would die from it. It's a very specific situation to design a monster that works just like regular but that can't kill someone instantly with a crit, but can crit otherwise?

Easier to just go ahead as normal and decide beforehand that if that scenario does happen, I'll subtract a little bit of damage from the damage roll (or average damage, if I use that). Either way, I'd have decided to ignore how things typically work in combat during a specific circumstance. Doesn't matter if dice are used or if you just use your own arbitrary rules. Same outcome.

 

[Maxperson]

Watching [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] argue that changing the results in combat is a house rule but fudging the same thing is not is ironic to say the least.

Um, I argued that I do house rule when I fudge, so you're way off in that statement. However, in 5e, I later showed you where fudging is explicitly a rule in 5e. So tell me, how is something that is explicitly a D&D game rule a house rule?

Changing the rules of combat, however, is not an explicit 5e rule, so such changes are obviously house rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Not sure what you're arguing against here? If I wanted an encounter that was non-lethal, I'd have magical stun arrows/darts or something like that, instead of ordinary arrows.

Okay. That's not what is being argued here, though. Making a game change so that something cannot be lethal at all for mechanical reasons is different from taking a normal arrow, which is lethal, and then just arbitrarily declaring that it can't kill, because you the DM have decided on the spot that you don't want a character to die, so it is certain that the arrow cannot kill as the rules say it will.

 

[iserith]

That's just a bit of a strawman. Combat relies on dice, but that is nowhere remotely close to relying on dice rolls for almost everything.

It's not a strawman - it's an aside. You also didn't address my point that there is no uncertainty in the game that the DM doesn't establish. Should I take that as a concession?

Not being able to trust the rules is a problem, even in 5e.

Players trusting the rules is important in a board game, but it's not important in an RPG where the GM decides on uncertainty and which rules to apply to resolve it. In such a game, the DM's reasonably consistent rulings are what the players can use to make their decisions along with the GM's descriptions of the scene.

I disagree. Rulings Over Rules has been the same from edition to edition. 5e is no different than 1e-3e.

I think the disagreement arises because of what you think "ruling" means. A DM is tasked with listening to what the player wants to do and then deciding on and narrating an outcome. That is a ruling. When the DM is uncertain as to the outcome, then he or she has rules to use to help make a ruling. That is the meaning of Rulings not Rules in my view - the DM decides the outcome and, if he or she can't, uses the rules to decide. It goes to the DM's judgment first, then the rules. It's not "If player describes action, then find applicable rule." It's "If player describes action, then decide if uncertain and, if so, find applicable rule. If not, just describe outcome."