We have clearly seen that some members have a fixed, set way D&D MUST be played and anyone who doesn't follow their way is a cheater and ruining the game for everyone. The FACT that people play differently and enjoy themselves immensely is not relevant to these people. THEIR way is THE ONLY way.
I think the biggest irony is these folks continually say that the others have a pre-written story that cannot change and that's why they "cheat" (I can't type that without a chuckle) I think it's a defense mechanism, because this entire discussion is complete in their minds and NOTHING will change their mind. [REDACTED] Not facts, that all the books dictate as rules that the DM can do X, Y or Z as they see fit. Not the facts from the OLD editions that THEY are doing wrong (thus cheating) Nope, nope, nope. These people [REDACTED]don't understand there are other people, who will follow some rules from the books that they ignore to enhance the enjoyment of the game. It's a pointless argument, as each opinion is personal. What works perfectly at my table IS legitimate D&D, follows the rules and is, for MY table, the "right" way to play. At the other side's table, it's going to be attacked (without any justification or support from any rule book) as garbage. Similarly, people form that faction, trying to run a game for my group, would be sent home and advised to not return. People from my table attending that factions settings would likely not return, unless they were looking for a big change in how their D&D experience played out.
So we have side A - THIS is the ONLY way to play and anything else is WRONG! Cheeterz!!! Side B - This is how we play at our table and here's the sections from the rulebooks that say we can and should do it this way. Side A - Your facts are not relevant, ONLY MY WAY matters.
The only part of any of this discussion that's wrong is the accusations of cheating and claiming someone's D&D is wrong. YOU don't decide what is right or wrong for my table.
Notes: Redacted personal attacks. You can debate someone's position without engaging in such behavior
I see dnd as a story ... Take dr who we all know he won't fully die but we want to see how he escapes death and damnation
D&D (it is not dnd) is NOT a TV show, with a pre-written script, where said char is a hero and can never die.
You should be more specific. YOUR D&D game is not a TV show where characters are heroes that won't die despite many plot twists and dire situations.
However, that does NOT describe all of D&D or DnD (since honestly who really cares which of the many accepted acronyms are used and this site is specifically dndbeyond :) ). Perhaps not even a significant fraction of actual D&D games since in most of the games I have run and played, player deaths are actually very infrequent and I've never run nor been a part of a TPK. On the other hand, your group has had character deaths in 6 of the last 8 sessions and one TPK. That describes a style of D&D that I, and a lot of other folks, simply do NOT play. Yet, we ARE playing D&D ... your style of game doesn't apply to anyone else except you and your group.
LOL....the wall of dead chars the cafe owner has to clear on a very regular basis. But you keep on believing that D&D is some kind of scripted show.
LOL ... my game isn't "some sort of scripted show" but if someone else prefers to play D&D that way and they are having fun then more power to them, I'm not going to tell them they are playing wrong since they aren't. Same way I won't say you are playing it wrong. It may not be the style of game I will usually run or play but how I play and run the game is no better or worse than any other DMs choice as long as their group is enjoying playing the game.
That includes whether the DM prefers to roll behind a screen and occasionally intervene in determining outcomes or if the DM rolls in the open and intervenes by adjusting some other hidden stat.
P.S. In 1e, stealth was determined by percentile rolls against a thief/assassin Move Silently/Hide in Shadows abilities depending on which was more appropriate to the circumstances. PHB 1e pg 28. Your choice to give the PC in your game a 50/50 roll to be noticed is completely ok, but it was just a DM call, it wasn't actually based on the 1e rules ... but that is ok, DMs are allowed to fudge the rules too.
On the last point, you would be dead wrong. It was 50/50, as it there was no shadows, It was merely the 50/50 roll per the DMG when it comes to the Cloak of Elvenkind in Bright/Continual Light, indoors, which is precisely 50%. And whether I roll behind a screen or not, I would roll behind a screen if it that particular roll was necessary to be unseen by the players. But I would still never cheat on a roll, as that cheats the players of the D&D experience.
Yep :) ... my apologies ... I didn't check the Cloak of Elvenkind. 50% in a brightly lit room.
Modifying a die roll is a DM call. You clearly wouldn't. I don't either these days for that matter but it isn't cheating for a DM to decide to make such adjustments in their game though it IS cheating if a player modifies the dice rolls. The rules for D&D make both of those points clear.
Cheating is typically available in all things...does not mean it should be done.
As a DM my players expect me to be fair and follow the rules (I only do Adventurer's League). This leads to some adventures not being terribly difficult and some others very tough...exactly how the game was designed with random dice rolls.
I do typically roll behind a screen to just make things easier on me and because there is some passive info that the players do not always know.
That being said if there is some instant death rolls (vorpal sword attacks for instance) I do roll that in front of the player as I feel the player should see that roll.
Cheating is typically available in all things...does not mean it should be done.
As a DM my players expect me to be fair and follow the rules (I only do Adventurer's League). This leads to some adventures not being terribly difficult and some others very tough...exactly how the game was designed with random dice rolls.
I do typically roll behind a screen to just make things easier on me and because there is some passive info that the players do not always know.
That being said if there is some instant death rolls (vorpal sword attacks for instance) I do roll that in front of the player as I feel the player should see that roll.
cheating is going outside the rules, the DM altering dice is part of the rules, a judgement call. Also dming for the adventuring league represents a different type of table and purpose.
it makes sense an adventure league dm would prioritize neutrality and rules, adventure league needs stricter rules, as in supposed to be uniform where ever you play it.
but the adventure league is still a optional game variant, with different expectations.
the point is 5e is designed to bend or change based on the table, for some tables fudging makes sense, for others it doesnt. Just like some tables allow all classes, and some allow only 6 and use gritty realism.
IE the answer to the OP, is it depends on who you are playing with and the goals of the game.
Cheating is typically available in all things...does not mean it should be done.
As a DM my players expect me to be fair and follow the rules (I only do Adventurer's League). This leads to some adventures not being terribly difficult and some others very tough...exactly how the game was designed with random dice rolls.
I do typically roll behind a screen to just make things easier on me and because there is some passive info that the players do not always know.
That being said if there is some instant death rolls (vorpal sword attacks for instance) I do roll that in front of the player as I feel the player should see that roll.
cheating is going outside the rules, the DM altering dice is part of the rules, a judgement call. Also dming for the adventuring league represents a different type of table and purpose.
it makes sense an adventure league dm would prioritize neutrality and rules, adventure league needs stricter rules, as in supposed to be uniform where ever you play it.
but the adventure league is still a optional game variant, with different expectations.
the point is 5e is designed to bend or change based on the table, for some tables fudging makes sense, for others it doesnt. Just like some tables allow all classes, and some allow only 6 and use gritty realism.
IE the answer to the OP, is it depends on who you are playing with and the goals of the game.
I can see your point. However I believe the players need to be told you will be modifying the dice rolls.
If you feel uncomfortable telling your players this then you should not do it.
"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are this accurate!" - jump to no imperial stormtrooper landing a shot for nine movies and running, because if they did the movies wouldn't be movies, they'd be short clips and there wouldn't be any story to tell.
And this is why we fudge. Because the enemies are just oh-so-very-monstrous-and-dangerous ... but we want the same main characters to hold the role throughout the trilogy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You may want that. But that is not how the game is designed. There are large quantities of the DMG dedicated to char death, and bad things happening to them them. Last night, in the game I was playing in (not DM'ing), a SEVENTH char died. I am talking dead dead. Bad things happen in a challenging campaign.
It just .... seems like you're reading a different book than the rest of us. Do you have any real concept of how hard it is for characters to actually die in 5e? For one thing, they are extremely robust compared to earlier editions. Healing is far more readily available. There are death saves. Literally (actually, not literally) there are a million and one ways for characters to avoid death.
Yet you seem hellbent on it. That's fair. It's just ... I dunno, it's really rather shady for one guy to be telling everyone else we're playing the game wrong. You've met ironclad opposition from - as far as I can tell - everyone else in this thread. Some based on narrative, some on gameplay, quite a few on RAW. And you're welcome to your view. It just feels like you don't think everyone else is entitled to theirs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Pretty sure the books go into great detail about going unconscious, death saving throws, spells that keep a corpse fresh/back from the dead/etc.
I even remember a spell with the word KILL in it.
In the end if it is a home brew situation, you do as you wish. PERSONALLY ONLY, I feel if you fudge you are cheating. It is no different than a player fudging their rolls which I bet everyone would agree is cheating. If you want to save a character from dying for whatever reason then attack a different character or grapple them or shove them or even use non lethal damage in an effort to capture them....so much better than making the dice rolls irrelevant.
If you want to save a character from dying for whatever reason then attack a different character or grapple them or shove them or even use non lethal damage in an effort to capture them....so much better than making the dice rolls irrelevant.
This is worth a signal boost. I think too often DMs forget that we have control over how consequences play out, meaning we overlook the fact that we have more options than just negating the consequences as a whole. Granted, non-lethal Fireball damage is kinda hard to justify narratively, though I suppose the limiting factor there is creativity. One could, for example, say the Fireball's backdraft knocks out a player rather than the flames taking their life.
To play devil's advocate here a second, one could also say that a sudden change in a baddie's attack strategy from lethal to nonlethal damage is functionally no different from fudging the roll to achieve the same effect of not killing a PC. Rather than situationally ignoring dice, the DM might be situationally ignoring narrative fidelity. To some, that would feel less authentic than occasionally just pretending a different number was rolled. I guess it just comes down to whether you like chance or a person to be the ultimate arbiter of the story.
In the end, though, I agree with most people on this thread that the "right" thing is whatever the individual DM and table thinks is fun.
Dungeons and Dragons Rules Cyclopedia Page 266 offers 3 paragraphs on death and 4 paragraphs on keeping Characters Alive
Advanced Dungeons and Dragon 1st ed DMG page 15 Covers Death by old age, Disease and Parasitic infestation all told half a page
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd ed DMG Page 74-75 has sections for death from poison, death from massive damage, inescapable death, Raising the dead and Optional rules for hovering at deaths door
3rd edition DMG Page 41 covers the spell option you can use to bring a character back
4th edition DMG Unknown as i did not play it
5th ed the DMG Does not cover death in any great detail
What version of the game he is pulling his "Rules" from i don't know but i do know he is peddling in misinformation and that need to stop
Just want to put out a general notice to the thread that everybody is entitled to play by whatever rules suit them and their group. Let's stick to "I don't fudge because" rather than "You're wrong to fudge because". The latter is crossing a line into gatekeeping territory. Words like "cheating" are also accusatory and fall into the latter.
Thank you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Let me walk you through last session. It was MY PC that died. Second one in that campaign, of the 7 that have died.
The one player (4 player group) had the brilliant idea of infiltrating a cultist compound He wanted to pick off a patrol, steal their clothes, and then pretending one of us is a prisoner, bluff our way in. It said in and out if game it was a bad idea, but I went along with it. The fight with the cultist patrol was brutal, and my Fighter was dropped to zero as he held the line while the casters could do their thing. The casters brought me back up, and after a Short Rest, with Second Wind, my PC is now at 28 of 67 HP. I state that this is still a bad idea, but go along with the rest of the party.
Long story short, the ruse fails, the group is cornered with a narrow hallway connecting a large room with a LARGE group of bad guys, including the BBEG, to the party in a small room. Once again, my PC takes the Dodge Action to try to hold the line. But this time, when a Fireball was cast (which was the smartest thing possible), there was no way for my Fighter to avoid the blast. The layout configuration did not allow it. My PC fails the save, and is way below 0 HP, which in 5e is still 0. But there is no way anyone can save my PC. I fail the 1st death save, and after out of game discussion (this is actually another major non-no) with the Fireballer, I show him that the only way to save the rest of the party is another Fireball, right on top of me. I am dead dead.
Ultimately, another PC was put into death saves, but that PC and the other 2 got out by the skin of their teeth. And ONLY because of those Area Effect spells.
Was it terrible decision making by the players? Yes. But actions have consequences. One of those is char death. The DM merely adjudicated based on the Actions of the players. That is how the game is played. Otherwise, it is merely the DM reading a story.
That seems like a long string of questionable decisionmaking, yes. Questionable decisionmaking all the way back to character generation, because any party with the willingness to drop fireballs on their own members should pick one of the available ways to do that without damage. But ... never mind that, it's just something that would have occurred to me.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me though. It sounds like an unfun session to me, and any statement that 'decisions have consequences' would serve to only make it more unfun. Furthermore, when you push on, out of healing, out of HP and out of ressources, then that's not a question of ... I dunno, 'playing the game right' or 'decisions have consequences' - it's willful stubborness, and I frankly don't see how it works as an argument.
To me, it looks like your group is butting heads - more than it looks like you're reached enlightenment in terms of how to play. And please don't take that as pointing fingers, or telling you what you do is wrong or whatever: I know only what you've told me. But ... let's say your above story was included in a recruitment effort. I most certainly wouldn't sign up.
And to each their own and all that. Not trying to disparage you and your group. Just saying it's incompatible with how I play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
If you want to save a character from dying for whatever reason then attack a different character or grapple them or shove them or even use non lethal damage in an effort to capture them....so much better than making the dice rolls irrelevant.
This is worth a signal boost. I think too often DMs forget that we have control over how consequences play out, meaning we overlook the fact that we have more options than just negating the consequences as a whole. Granted, non-lethal Fireball damage is kinda hard to justify narratively, though I suppose the limiting factor there is creativity. One could, for example, say the Fireball's backdraft knocks out a player rather than the flames taking their life.
To play devil's advocate here a second, one could also say that a sudden change in a baddie's attack strategy from lethal to nonlethal damage is functionally no different from fudging the roll to achieve the same effect of not killing a PC. Rather than situationally ignoring dice, the DM might be situationally ignoring narrative fidelity. To some, that would feel less authentic than occasionally just pretending a different number was rolled. I guess it just comes down to whether you like chance or a person to be the ultimate arbiter of the story.
In the end, though, I agree with most people on this thread that the "right" thing is whatever the individual DM and table thinks is fun.
I see what you are saying and can agree other than the sudden change in the baddie's strategy still requires the dice rolls to accomplish it...whereas predetermining the rolls I believe goes again the games design.
If you want to save a character from dying for whatever reason then attack a different character or grapple them or shove them or even use non lethal damage in an effort to capture them....so much better than making the dice rolls irrelevant.
This is worth a signal boost. I think too often DMs forget that we have control over how consequences play out, meaning we overlook the fact that we have more options than just negating the consequences as a whole. Granted, non-lethal Fireball damage is kinda hard to justify narratively, though I suppose the limiting factor there is creativity. One could, for example, say the Fireball's backdraft knocks out a player rather than the flames taking their life.
To play devil's advocate here a second, one could also say that a sudden change in a baddie's attack strategy from lethal to nonlethal damage is functionally no different from fudging the roll to achieve the same effect of not killing a PC. Rather than situationally ignoring dice, the DM might be situationally ignoring narrative fidelity. To some, that would feel less authentic than occasionally just pretending a different number was rolled. I guess it just comes down to whether you like chance or a person to be the ultimate arbiter of the story.
In the end, though, I agree with most people on this thread that the "right" thing is whatever the individual DM and table thinks is fun.
I see what you are saying and can agree other than the sudden change in the baddie's strategy still requires the dice rolls to accomplish it...whereas predetermining the rolls I believe goes again the games design.
I think we're talking about two different things. In my head there is a tremendous distinction between knowing ahead of a roll what you will allow the outcome to be, and deciding to overlook the dice upon seeing that the outcome would not be in the best interests of the table (as opposed to the PCs). Yes, fudging is often used or abused to force the game mechanics to fit a DM's predetermined wishes, but it's painting with a broad brush to intimate that fudging exclusively serves that purpose.
When I have fudged - and I can probably count on one hand the times in all my years of DMing that I have - it was usually done to 1) correct an encounter-building miscalculation borne from my inexperience, or 2) shorten a slog of a fight that the players were going to win anyway. Once, and only once, I ignored a baddie's successful saving throw to allow a player's extremely clever and risky attempt to work, because he was long overdue for something lucky and it made an incredible moment for him and the table to enjoy.
For the most part, I let the dice have their say. But if the mood is low because my players can't catch a break (or if I have erred while planning the encounter), I personally have no qualms about telling the dice gods to take a hike. But then again, my playstyle runs more toward the "dice are there to serve the game" variety rather than the "dice are there to define the game" variety. Both are valid and fun ways to play.
Don’t fudge combat rolls. Your best players will hate it and know you are doing it. There is plenty of fudging already built into the game-when and what dc(or if there is a dc) for certain social and physical challenges. Play your combats straight up. Players remember the tough battles they won with luck and skill.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We have clearly seen that some members have a fixed, set way D&D MUST be played and anyone who doesn't follow their way is a cheater and ruining the game for everyone. The FACT that people play differently and enjoy themselves immensely is not relevant to these people. THEIR way is THE ONLY way.
I think the biggest irony is these folks continually say that the others have a pre-written story that cannot change and that's why they "cheat" (I can't type that without a chuckle) I think it's a defense mechanism, because this entire discussion is complete in their minds and NOTHING will change their mind. [REDACTED] Not facts, that all the books dictate as rules that the DM can do X, Y or Z as they see fit. Not the facts from the OLD editions that THEY are doing wrong (thus cheating) Nope, nope, nope. These people [REDACTED] don't understand there are other people, who will follow some rules from the books that they ignore to enhance the enjoyment of the game. It's a pointless argument, as each opinion is personal. What works perfectly at my table IS legitimate D&D, follows the rules and is, for MY table, the "right" way to play. At the other side's table, it's going to be attacked (without any justification or support from any rule book) as garbage. Similarly, people form that faction, trying to run a game for my group, would be sent home and advised to not return. People from my table attending that factions settings would likely not return, unless they were looking for a big change in how their D&D experience played out.
So we have side A - THIS is the ONLY way to play and anything else is WRONG! Cheeterz!!!
Side B - This is how we play at our table and here's the sections from the rulebooks that say we can and should do it this way.
Side A - Your facts are not relevant, ONLY MY WAY matters.
The only part of any of this discussion that's wrong is the accusations of cheating and claiming someone's D&D is wrong. YOU don't decide what is right or wrong for my table.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Yep :) ... my apologies ... I didn't check the Cloak of Elvenkind. 50% in a brightly lit room.
Modifying a die roll is a DM call. You clearly wouldn't. I don't either these days for that matter but it isn't cheating for a DM to decide to make such adjustments in their game though it IS cheating if a player modifies the dice rolls. The rules for D&D make both of those points clear.
Cheating is typically available in all things...does not mean it should be done.
As a DM my players expect me to be fair and follow the rules (I only do Adventurer's League). This leads to some adventures not being terribly difficult and some others very tough...exactly how the game was designed with random dice rolls.
I do typically roll behind a screen to just make things easier on me and because there is some passive info that the players do not always know.
That being said if there is some instant death rolls (vorpal sword attacks for instance) I do roll that in front of the player as I feel the player should see that roll.
cheating is going outside the rules, the DM altering dice is part of the rules, a judgement call. Also dming for the adventuring league represents a different type of table and purpose.
it makes sense an adventure league dm would prioritize neutrality and rules, adventure league needs stricter rules, as in supposed to be uniform where ever you play it.
but the adventure league is still a optional game variant, with different expectations.
the point is 5e is designed to bend or change based on the table, for some tables fudging makes sense, for others it doesnt. Just like some tables allow all classes, and some allow only 6 and use gritty realism.
IE the answer to the OP, is it depends on who you are playing with and the goals of the game.
I can see your point. However I believe the players need to be told you will be modifying the dice rolls.
If you feel uncomfortable telling your players this then you should not do it.
The DMG specifically says not to tell your players that you you alter dice rolls.
In the end, it's like a movie.
"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are this accurate!" - jump to no imperial stormtrooper landing a shot for nine movies and running, because if they did the movies wouldn't be movies, they'd be short clips and there wouldn't be any story to tell.
And this is why we fudge. Because the enemies are just oh-so-very-monstrous-and-dangerous ... but we want the same main characters to hold the role throughout the trilogy.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Yeah except it LITERALLY is how the game is designed. Dungeon Master's Guide page 235.
We will have to agree to disagree as we have very different outlooks on the game
It just .... seems like you're reading a different book than the rest of us. Do you have any real concept of how hard it is for characters to actually die in 5e? For one thing, they are extremely robust compared to earlier editions. Healing is far more readily available. There are death saves. Literally (actually, not literally) there are a million and one ways for characters to avoid death.
Yet you seem hellbent on it. That's fair. It's just ... I dunno, it's really rather shady for one guy to be telling everyone else we're playing the game wrong. You've met ironclad opposition from - as far as I can tell - everyone else in this thread. Some based on narrative, some on gameplay, quite a few on RAW. And you're welcome to your view. It just feels like you don't think everyone else is entitled to theirs.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Give me page number in the 5e DMG where you found the large quantities dedicated to character death
Having just done a quick skim, including looking at the bits on poison and disease, I'm not sure it mentions PC death at all.
Pretty sure the books go into great detail about going unconscious, death saving throws, spells that keep a corpse fresh/back from the dead/etc.
I even remember a spell with the word KILL in it.
In the end if it is a home brew situation, you do as you wish. PERSONALLY ONLY, I feel if you fudge you are cheating. It is no different than a player fudging their rolls which I bet everyone would agree is cheating. If you want to save a character from dying for whatever reason then attack a different character or grapple them or shove them or even use non lethal damage in an effort to capture them....so much better than making the dice rolls irrelevant.
This is worth a signal boost. I think too often DMs forget that we have control over how consequences play out, meaning we overlook the fact that we have more options than just negating the consequences as a whole. Granted, non-lethal Fireball damage is kinda hard to justify narratively, though I suppose the limiting factor there is creativity. One could, for example, say the Fireball's backdraft knocks out a player rather than the flames taking their life.
To play devil's advocate here a second, one could also say that a sudden change in a baddie's attack strategy from lethal to nonlethal damage is functionally no different from fudging the roll to achieve the same effect of not killing a PC. Rather than situationally ignoring dice, the DM might be situationally ignoring narrative fidelity. To some, that would feel less authentic than occasionally just pretending a different number was rolled. I guess it just comes down to whether you like chance or a person to be the ultimate arbiter of the story.
In the end, though, I agree with most people on this thread that the "right" thing is whatever the individual DM and table thinks is fun.
Dungeons and Dragons Rules Cyclopedia Page 266 offers 3 paragraphs on death and 4 paragraphs on keeping Characters Alive
Advanced Dungeons and Dragon 1st ed DMG page 15 Covers Death by old age, Disease and Parasitic infestation all told half a page
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd ed DMG Page 74-75 has sections for death from poison, death from massive damage, inescapable death, Raising the dead and Optional rules for hovering at deaths door
3rd edition DMG Page 41 covers the spell option you can use to bring a character back
4th edition DMG Unknown as i did not play it
5th ed the DMG Does not cover death in any great detail
What version of the game he is pulling his "Rules" from i don't know but i do know he is peddling in misinformation and that need to stop
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorJust want to put out a general notice to the thread that everybody is entitled to play by whatever rules suit them and their group. Let's stick to "I don't fudge because" rather than "You're wrong to fudge because". The latter is crossing a line into gatekeeping territory. Words like "cheating" are also accusatory and fall into the latter.
Thank you.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
That seems like a long string of questionable decisionmaking, yes. Questionable decisionmaking all the way back to character generation, because any party with the willingness to drop fireballs on their own members should pick one of the available ways to do that without damage. But ... never mind that, it's just something that would have occurred to me.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me though. It sounds like an unfun session to me, and any statement that 'decisions have consequences' would serve to only make it more unfun. Furthermore, when you push on, out of healing, out of HP and out of ressources, then that's not a question of ... I dunno, 'playing the game right' or 'decisions have consequences' - it's willful stubborness, and I frankly don't see how it works as an argument.
To me, it looks like your group is butting heads - more than it looks like you're reached enlightenment in terms of how to play. And please don't take that as pointing fingers, or telling you what you do is wrong or whatever: I know only what you've told me. But ... let's say your above story was included in a recruitment effort. I most certainly wouldn't sign up.
And to each their own and all that. Not trying to disparage you and your group. Just saying it's incompatible with how I play.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I see what you are saying and can agree other than the sudden change in the baddie's strategy still requires the dice rolls to accomplish it...whereas predetermining the rolls I believe goes again the games design.
I think we're talking about two different things. In my head there is a tremendous distinction between knowing ahead of a roll what you will allow the outcome to be, and deciding to overlook the dice upon seeing that the outcome would not be in the best interests of the table (as opposed to the PCs). Yes, fudging is often used or abused to force the game mechanics to fit a DM's predetermined wishes, but it's painting with a broad brush to intimate that fudging exclusively serves that purpose.
When I have fudged - and I can probably count on one hand the times in all my years of DMing that I have - it was usually done to 1) correct an encounter-building miscalculation borne from my inexperience, or 2) shorten a slog of a fight that the players were going to win anyway. Once, and only once, I ignored a baddie's successful saving throw to allow a player's extremely clever and risky attempt to work, because he was long overdue for something lucky and it made an incredible moment for him and the table to enjoy.
For the most part, I let the dice have their say. But if the mood is low because my players can't catch a break (or if I have erred while planning the encounter), I personally have no qualms about telling the dice gods to take a hike. But then again, my playstyle runs more toward the "dice are there to serve the game" variety rather than the "dice are there to define the game" variety. Both are valid and fun ways to play.
Don’t fudge combat rolls. Your best players will hate it and know you are doing it. There is plenty of fudging already built into the game-when and what dc(or if there is a dc) for certain social and physical challenges. Play your combats straight up. Players remember the tough battles they won with luck and skill.