When is D&D not D&D? (Musings on DM cheating and rule zero)

[Talakeal]

As I mentioned in another thread I had a discussion with my ex DM about his method of running games.*

I said I could never run a game like that because I would feel like a cheater if I deviate that strongly from the rules.

His position was nothing the DM does can ever be considered lying, cheating, or deviating from the rules as the DMG gives the DM permission to do whatever they want or change the rules as he sees fit.

Which is, technically true, I suppose. Which got me wondering, where does this end?

1:) Is there anything the DM can do at the table constitutes cheating?

and 2:) Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D?


Would it, for example, be disingenuous if I invited my friends over to play D&D and told them we are playing D&D but using the GURPS rules rather than the D&D ones?





*Basically he determines the difficulty of tasks or applies modifiers retroactively after the dice is rolled, and considers the printed rules and dice rolls to be merely suggestions. He determines success or failure based on where he wants the narrative to go and what he thinks will be most fun for everyone involved. He claims that nothing a DM does can be dishonest or cheating and that lying, fudging dice roles, or changing rules on the spot are all allowed and encouraged by the rules and that all good DMs make use of them liberally.

(Posting in the general forum as this applies to a broad spectrum of RPGs rather than just D&D)

[TheIronGolem]

Not only is that not D&D, it's not even a game.

[Keltest]

The rules are not suggestions. If he doesn't want to play by the set given in the book, that's fine, but he should own up to it. The biggest advantage rules give is consistency. The players know that, by the rules, the Troll they are about to face has approximately X likelihood of winning. If you throw out the rules, then the players are going into every situation blind. Even Rule 0 works on the assumption that the DM is still playing by some set of rules which can be explained and/or extrapolated by the players.

There isn't really any hard and fast barrier where it becomes cheating rather than enhancing the fun, because occasionally having a monster fumble on a 2 instead of a natural 1 can lead to good things. But he should at least go by the dice as often as he fudges the results, IMO, or else I would call it cheating.

[AmbientRaven]

1:) Is there anything the DM can do at the table constitutes cheating?

As long as the players know before joining the game how he will run the game ad what rules he will bend, then no. It is when he does changes unknown that i would say its a shade of grey

2:) Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D?

Probably!

1a) Example: In my game DCs for some skills are based off of character background. We have a historian who majors in Orcish History and culture, so his history DC checks related to orcs are lower than someone elses to show his increased learning.
These are purely based off of character background story, not ingame class choices

[Aetol]

It seems your ex-DM would be better off running rule-light narrative based games, not D&D.

In D&D, the DM's power mostly lies in houserules and making calls in situations not covered by any rule. But as Keltest said, he should be consistent. No making random exceptions from established rules whenever he likes, no eyeballing every outcome instead of following the dice. If he says he is running a D&D game, that means following the D&D rules (or established houserules that supersede them) everywhere they apply, and owning up to dice rolls.

Saying that the DM can never cheat because of rule 0 is like saying the government can never do anything illegal. It's either plain wrong, or an abuse of power.

[Eldan]

I do agree that the rules are suggestions. It's what one group of people, the authors thought what the game should look like. Your group might have other ideas.

What should never happen is the DM simply deciding what happens, though. Rules can be changed, I think, but it should be a group discussion and happen before it becomes relevant in the game.

Once the rules are made, they need to stay made.

THere are some cases where I think everyone agrees. Say, drown healing: I don't think anyone would say "the rules say if I'm at negatives, I get healed when drowing and the rules are the rules and can never be changed!" Totally legit.

Then there are house rules. Say, for my campaign world I decided to make an entirely different set of knowledge skills that make more sense for the world. (I think it was something like Knowledge: Civilization, which covers history, local and nobility, plus the rituals and organizations part of Religion, Knowledge: Technical, which is things like architecture, machinery and so on, Knowledge: Occult, which covers magic, the planes, secret cults etc. and Knowledge: Wilderness.)


And then there's the rare case where something happens in game according to the rules and everyone just looks at each other and says "Yea, that was dumb, let's change that rule". That can also come up. Basically, post-hoc house rules. For these, more than anything, it's important that everyone agrees.

[Sredni Vashtar]

The rules are basically suggestions, but the oft ignored part of that is twofold: 1) you take most of those suggestions, and 2) you stick with those suggestions you take. If you don't use most of the rules, you're not really playing D&D because D&D exists as the rule set you're not using. You're just playing a new tabletop RPG. If you don't stick with the rulings you decide to use, you're probably not going to be playing very long, because the other people you need to play won't want to.

I'm a huge fan of Rule Zero, and I've fudged a die roll or two in the name of keeping the game going, but you need to be somewhat consistent with your rulings (I won't say 100% consistent because the human memory is a fickle thing.)

All that said, I still don't know how someone can cheat at D&D, PC or DM. I feel like cheating is done to win, and you don't really win or lose at D&D.

[Talakeal]

The rules are basically suggestions, but the oft ignored part of that is twofold: 1) you take most of those suggestions, and 2) you stick with those suggestions you take. If you don't use most of the rules, you're not really playing D&D because D&D exists as the rule set you're not using. You're just playing a new tabletop RPG. If you don't stick with the rulings you decide to use, you're probably not going to be playing very long, because the other people you need to play won't want to.

I'm a huge fan of Rule Zero, and I've fudged a die roll or two in the name of keeping the game going, but you need to be somewhat consistent with your rulings (I won't say 100% consistent because the human memory is a fickle thing.)

All that said, I still don't know how someone can cheat at D&D, PC or DM. I feel like cheating is done to win, and you don't really win or lose at D&D.

Well, for example, say I am making an attack and I roll the dice where no one else can see it and then pick it up and proclaim that I rolled a nat 20 despite the actual number on the dice face being 7.

My DM does this all the time and proclaims it is just good DMing.
If I did it as a player I am pretty sure I would be branded a cheater if anyone found out about it.

[Draconium]

Well, for example, say I am making an attack and I roll the dice where no one else can see it and then pick it up and proclaim that I rolled a nat 20 despite the actual number on the dice face being 7.

My DM does this all the time and proclaims it is just good DMing.
If I did it as a player I am pretty sure I would be branded a cheater if anyone found out about it.

Yeah, this sounds like bad DMing to me. I mean, I've done the opposite as a DM - rolled a Natural 20, and claimed it was actually a lower number to save a character's "life." But claiming that you rolled high when you didn't just kind of sounds like a jerk move more than anything.

I believe the job of the DM is to make sure the players have fun. If you're fudging your numbers, using Rule 0, or making up house-rules on the fly in a way that punishes the players, especially if it's uncalled for, is just being a bad DM.

[Sredni Vashtar]

Well, for example, say I am making an attack and I roll the dice where no one else can see it and then pick it up and proclaim that I rolled a nat 20 despite the actual number on the dice face being 7.

My DM does this all the time and proclaims it is just good DMing.
If I did it as a player I am pretty sure I would be branded a cheater if anyone found out about it.

I had a player who did something similar, never claiming a natural 20 though. He'd roll the dice against his hand and subtly knock it over if he didn't get a roll he liked. I noticed it before the other players, but didn't say anything because he rarely wound up with something exceptionally higher. It didn't really affect the game much, and everybody had fun anyway, so I let it slide. Eventually, one of the other players started joking about it, and he stopped. So, yeah, it was cheating, but as far as I'm aware, it never affected how fun the game was for anyone.


Yeah, this sounds like bad DMing to me. I mean, I've done the opposite as a DM - rolled a Natural 20, and claimed it was actually a lower number to save a character's "life." But claiming that you rolled high when you didn't just kind of sounds like a jerk move more than anything.

I believe the job of the DM is to make sure the players have fun. If you're fudging your numbers, using Rule 0, or making up house-rules on the fly in a way that punishes the players, especially if it's uncalled for, is just being a bad DM.

Agreed. A big part of being the DM is being a fair arbiter.

[Arbane]

All that said, I still don't know how someone can cheat at D&D, PC or DM. I feel like cheating is done to win, and you don't really win or lose at D&D.

Winning is iffy, but you can definitely lose at D&D.

As for the OP, RPGs have rules so they don't turn into Mother May I.

[Grinner]

May I ask if you've ever run a game?

I chose the word "run" very carefully, for a DM does not play the game. Being the DM is a very different experience from being a player, as he's responsible for making sure the game is entertaining. He controls the entire game world, but he controls it in order to provide entertainment for the players. In combat, he's managing entire rosters of monsters, while the player is only responsible for one character. The only thing the DM shouldn't touch is the player's character. Ideally, at least.

In every DM's career, he will encounter a particular problem, usually every session. That is, the players will throw something unexpected at him. How a DM deals with this is probably one of the best marks of his skill. The best DMs will roll with it and come up with something on the fly. However, it's unreasonable to expect a DM to have this kind of ability. The worst DMs will dictate the players' actions to the players. Most DMs will just do their best to keep things flowing smoothly, and that may entail what you call "cheating".

Without knowing more, I'd say the biggest problem was each party approaching the game with different expectations.

As for your example, yes, it would. However, I also think your example is so hyperbolic as to be disingenuous itself.

[Frozen_Feet]

1) Depends on the game. Some games are pretty firm on what the GM is or is not allowed to do; going outside those rules breaks the contract for that game and is considered cheating. Old versions of (A)D&D give a lot of leeway for the GM to come up with rulings on the spot so I do know where the interpretation of your GM comes from, but at the same time it ignores the spirit of the game rules (indeed, the spirit of having rules at all) pretty hard. 1st Edition AD&D, for example, is pretty adamant about how the GM should let dice fall where they may, how they should give PCs and monsters both a "fair chance", and talks a great deal of why the rules as they are to discourage a DM from breaking them without understanding them.

2) Yes it is, and in 1st Edition AD&D Gygax voices this concern and explains how the purpose of the whole set of books was to codify some commonly used rules so gamers would have an unified backbone to rely on across games and settings.

Yes, it would be extremely disingenous to invite a friend over to play D&D and instead play GURPS. It's like inviting a friend over to watch Bram Stoker's Dracula and instead watching Twilight. Your friend might not be able to tell they've been had if they have absolutely no idea of what Dracula is supposed to be like, but suffice to say you've still cheated them.

If you paint letters on Checker pieces and move them like they're Chess pieces, you are playing Chess, not Checkers.

[Talakeal]

May I ask if you've ever run a game?

I chose the word "run" very carefully, for a DM does not play the game. Being the DM is a very different experience from being a player, as he's responsible for making sure the game is entertaining. He controls the entire game world, but he controls it in order to provide entertainment for the players. In combat, he's managing entire rosters of monsters, while the player is only responsible for one character. The only thing the DM shouldn't touch is the player's character. Ideally, at least.

In every DM's career, he will encounter a particular problem, usually every session. That is, the players will throw something unexpected at him. How a DM deals with this is probably one of the best marks of his skill. The best DMs will roll with it and come up with something on the fly. However, it's unreasonable to expect a DM to have this kind of ability. The worst DMs will dictate the players' actions to the players. Most DMs will just do their best to keep things flowing smoothly, and that may entail what you call "cheating".

Without knowing more, I'd say the biggest problem was each party approaching the game with different expectations.

As for your example, yes, it would. However, I also think your example is so hyperbolic as to be disingenuous itself.


Yes, I have run hundreds, possibly thousands, of games*. I have been gaming regularly for 25 years now and probably DM 90% of the time.


Honestly I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make with the body of your post. I think you are saying that most DMs will run into some situations where the cleanest path is to "cheat" but it isn't really cheating if it is done in good faith? Is that about right?


And yes, I agree my example was hyperbole, however I am not sure if I would say it is disingenuous as the goal of the example is to come up with the most extreme thing I could think of to establish that there is a line, not to make an argument as to where the line lies.



*By games I mean sessions. If we go by campaigns then probably only a couple dozen.

[The Glyphstone]

While I am aware this is yet another tale of Talakeal's adventures in Bizarro Gaming Dimension, I am curious. Why does he have anyone bother to roll dice to begin with, if he's just going to retroactively alter the difficulty to determine if they succeed or fail? Do you know?

[Grinner]

Honestly I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make with the body of your post. I think you are saying that most DMs will run into some situations where the cleanest path is to "cheat" but it isn't really cheating if it is done in good faith? Is that about right?

Not exactly, but pretty close.

The idea was that some GMs must invoke Rule Zero, because they can't think of a better way out of a sticky situation that won't break suspension of disbelief. Better GMs are able to think of that better way out.

Frozen_Feet's first point hits some of the same ideas as well, I think.

[Hawkstar]

*Basically he determines the difficulty of tasks or applies modifiers retroactively after the dice is rolled, and considers the printed rules and dice rolls to be merely suggestions. He determines success or failure based on where he wants the narrative to go and what he thinks will be most fun for everyone involved. He claims that nothing a DM does can be dishonest or cheating and that lying, fudging dice roles, or changing rules on the spot are all allowed and encouraged by the rules and that all good DMs make use of them liberally.

(Posting in the general forum as this applies to a broad spectrum of RPGs rather than just D&D)Actually, per every DMG that I've read (3e, 4e, and 5e), he's right. All of these things are printed in the books. But from what I recall, your DM abuses the privilege.
Would it, for example, be disingenuous if I invited my friends over to play D&D and told them we are playing D&D but using the GURPS rules rather than the D&D ones?
Ehh... this is actually pretty valid outside of RPG connoisseurs - especially if, to your friends, "D&D" means "Tabletop Roleplaying Games", not "T specific ruleset for running a Tabletop Roleplaying Game printed by Wizards of the Coast, and branded as Dungeons&Dragons."
As for the OP, RPGs have rules so they don't turn into Mother May I.That's NOT why RPGs have rules at all. Instead, Rules are to provide a loose framework to inspire and run a game from.
While I am aware this is yet another tale of Talakeal's adventures in Bizarro Gaming Dimension, I am curious. Why does he have anyone bother to roll dice to begin with, if he's just going to retroactively alter the difficulty to determine if they succeed or fail? Do you know?Players' emotional reaction to the roll gives guidance on whether a roll should pass or fail.

[Frozen_Feet]

As for the OP, RPGs have rules so they don't turn into Mother May I.

Actually, they have rules so they don't turn into Calvinball.

Mother May I has actual rules known to all participants; Calvinball, well...

[Jay R]

and 2:) Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D?

I once read an article by Gygax in The Dragon, in which he tried to maintain simultaneously that:
a. If you deviate from the printed rules at all, you aren't "really" playing D&D, and
b. Any role-playing game, under any rules, came from his idea (which was really Arneson's idea) and was therefore "really" D&D.

That's when I stopped reading The Dragon.

Getting back to your questions:

If you trust the DM, accept the fact that any rules changes he makes have a purpose, and that you may not know enough about the situation to know what that purpose is. If you don't trust the DM, then there can never be any satisfactory answer to these questions. I won't play with a DM I don't trust.

But as your previous posts have shown, my luck with DMs is astonishingly better than yours. I've never been presented with a DM about whom I would want to ask these kinds of questions.

But can the DM cheat? I'm not sure I know what it means to "cheat" at a game that you are not playing, and in fact are in charge of. And I don't care. The DM can run a game so that I enjoy it, or so that I don't enjoy it. The latter is a game I would quit. totally apart from whether I thought it was "cheating".

But in 40 years of D&D, I have never played in a game I felt like quitting.

If you don't like what the DM does, quit the game because it isn't fun. You don't need the word "cheating" to do that. And any attempt to use the word "cheating" to change the DM's approach will fail.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, for example, say I am making an attack and I roll the dice where no one else can see it and then pick it up and proclaim that I rolled a nat 20 despite the actual number on the dice face being 7.

My DM does this all the time and proclaims it is just good DMing.
If I did it as a player I am pretty sure I would be branded a cheater if anyone found out about it.

I think of the rules as suggestions. I dislike the idea that the rules are set in stone and everyone must bow down to them. While it is true that many games, like football or Monopoly, all the players must follow the same rules. D&D, and most other RPGs are, however, not that type of game.

A DM is not just a player, a roll of the DM is much more then that. One basic difference is the player is just in the game for themselves, with a concern for others second(if any at all), and the DM is part of the game for others first and themselves second. The player limits themselves to the actions of a single character in the game world and can only effect the game in that way. A DM is in total control of the whole game world and can do anything.

A player, if they feel like it, can do positive things to keep the game running smoothly and make sure everyone is having fun, but only through the actions of their character in the game world. So if player A sees that player B is not having fun, they can have their character A befriend character B.

But it is part of the DM's job to make sure the game runs smoothly and that everyone is having fun and that everyone is engaged in the gameplay. And a DM can do anything in the game to make them happen. If the group is getting bored at some point and would like to have some combat, the DM can just open a gate right next to the players and have a monster step through for them to fight.

And just about everyone will agree that a DM can do 'anything', at least in the context of creating and having an encounter. The DM can 'suddenly' just have the PC's encounter any foe or monster of any type in any way shape or form that they wish. And the DM can have an encounter happen for any reason.

If the player of a stealthy type character feels bummed out as they have not gotten to do anything sneaky with their character, the DM can drop a stealthy encounter for that character out of the clear blue sky. The same way if the player of a wizard character is upset as they never find any new unique spells, the DM can drop such a scroll with such a spell into the very next pile of loot. And, of course, the DM can also do such things way ahead of time too.

And the vast majority of players will say that is is OK for a DM to do such things. As this is part of the DM's job: make sure the game runs smoothly, that everyone has fun and everyone is engaged.

Though anything else, like if the DM rolls a 20 out of sight, and then says it was a 1, a lot of players think that is ''wrong''. For some odd reason. The DM can do anything else, but oddly dice rolls are set in stone. But some will say it is ''ok, but not all the time'' and must be vaguely ''only every so often''. And some will say it is ''ok, as long as the DM is consistent'', in whatever way they want to vaguely define as ''consistent''. And then your just in the pointless realm of players saying ''it's ok, as long as I like it and approve''.....

[NichG]

I would argue that framing things in terms of 'cheating' is unhelpful. If you think about a DM's behavior as 'cheating' versus 'not cheating', then if the DM alters/breaks the rules in a way that makes the experience better for everyone, it's still 'bad'; and if the DM follows the rules 100% precisely but makes everyone at the table miserable by doing it, then it's still 'okay' because the rules let him do that. By the rules, the DM is allowed to have twenty balors teleport in and slaughter a Lv1 party at the start of the campaign, but that's obviously bad DMing.

That's what's more important ultimately - not whether the DM is allowed to do something or not, but whether doing it made the game better.

[AriLance]

When a DM fudges rolls on things, sometimes it's for the better. After all, what level 1 party wants to die in their first session from several crits in a session? I think when it's done for the players' benefits, it's all right. Plus, the players don't exactly know what goes on behind the DM screen anyway. My DM knows what he's doing, so I trust his judgement on whatever he's doing behind the screen :smallsmile:

[Milo v3]

While I am aware this is yet another tale of Talakeal's adventures in Bizarro Gaming Dimension, I am curious. Why does he have anyone bother to roll dice to begin with, if he's just going to retroactively alter the difficulty to determine if they succeed or fail? Do you know?

I wonder this as well.

[Talakeal]

So as an aside, I had another conversation with the same DM tonight who went on a rant about how players think they have the right to take their character sheets home with them and how he forbids it because he fears that the players will cheat and doctor their numbers if given the opportunity. This stands in kind of a stark contrast to his demands that we trust him implicitly and insist that he always has our best interests at heart.


While I am aware this is yet another tale of Talakeal's adventures in Bizarro Gaming Dimension, I am curious. Why does he have anyone bother to roll dice to begin with, if he's just going to retroactively alter the difficulty to determine if they succeed or fail? Do you know?

I assume because he wants to maintain the illusion of impartiality and give the players the illusion of control / a sense of tension.


Actually, per every DMG that I've read (3e, 4e, and 5e), he's right. All of these things are printed in the books. But from what I recall, your DM abuses the privilege.
Ehh... this is actually pretty valid outside of RPG connoisseurs - especially if, to your friends, "D&D" means "Tabletop Roleplaying Games", not "T specific ruleset for running a Tabletop Roleplaying Game printed by Wizards of the Coast, and branded as Dungeons&Dragons."That's NOT why RPGs have rules at all. Instead, Rules are to provide a loose framework to inspire and run a game from Players' emotional reaction to the roll gives guidance on whether a roll should pass or fail.

Yeah, this is technically true in later D&D, and a lot of people read it into games where it isn't an explicit rule. I am wondering where the boundary lies.


I would argue that framing things in terms of 'cheating' is unhelpful. If you think about a DM's behavior as 'cheating' versus 'not cheating', then if the DM alters/breaks the rules in a way that makes the experience better for everyone, it's still 'bad'; and if the DM follows the rules 100% precisely but makes everyone at the table miserable by doing it, then it's still 'okay' because the rules let him do that. By the rules, the DM is allowed to have twenty balors teleport in and slaughter a Lv1 party at the start of the campaign, but that's obviously bad DMing.

That's what's more important ultimately - not whether the DM is allowed to do something or not, but whether doing it made the game better.

The problem is that not everyone knows what is best. Hell, even the players themselves don't always know what they want.


I once read an article by Gygax in The Dragon, in which he tried to maintain simultaneously that:
a. If you deviate from the printed rules at all, you aren't "really" playing D&D, and
b. Any role-playing game, under any rules, came from his idea (which was really Arneson's idea) and was therefore "really" D&D.

That's when I stopped reading The Dragon.

Getting back to your questions:

If you trust the DM, accept the fact that any rules changes he makes have a purpose, and that you may not know enough about the situation to know what that purpose is. If you don't trust the DM, then there can never be any satisfactory answer to these questions. I won't play with a DM I don't trust.

But as your previous posts have shown, my luck with DMs is astonishingly better than yours. I've never been presented with a DM about whom I would want to ask these kinds of questions.

But can the DM cheat? I'm not sure I know what it means to "cheat" at a game that you are not playing, and in fact are in charge of. And I don't care. The DM can run a game so that I enjoy it, or so that I don't enjoy it. The latter is a game I would quit. totally apart from whether I thought it was "cheating".

But in 40 years of D&D, I have never played in a game I felt like quitting.

If you don't like what the DM does, quit the game because it isn't fun. You don't need the word "cheating" to do that. And any attempt to use the word "cheating" to change the DM's approach will fail.

Personally I feel that I am cheating when I am dishonest with the players. If I pretend to roll a dice and tell them I rolled something else or am changing the established difficulty retroactively or am having my NPCs play by different rules than the players I feel that I am being dishonest and I feel that I am cheating.

Which is not to say I never fudge anything or make mistakes or need to retcon my adventure notes or change a rule on the fly. I do, however I am honest about it and I let my players know. If something involves their character I will let them make the call; rather than lying about my dice rolls to save a player from an unlucky crit I will ask the player if it is ok with them if their character is merely knocked unconscious rather than killed. And even this is a fairly rare occurance.

I have never demanded the same behavior from another DM, but then again I never dreamed I would meet a DM who feels obligated to fudge every roll either.


I think of the rules as suggestions. I dislike the idea that the rules are set in stone and everyone must bow down to them. While it is true that many games, like football or Monopoly, all the players must follow the same rules. D&D, and most other RPGs are, however, not that type of game.

A DM is not just a player, a roll of the DM is much more then that. One basic difference is the player is just in the game for themselves, with a concern for others second(if any at all), and the DM is part of the game for others first and themselves second. The player limits themselves to the actions of a single character in the game world and can only effect the game in that way. A DM is in total control of the whole game world and can do anything.

A player, if they feel like it, can do positive things to keep the game running smoothly and make sure everyone is having fun, but only through the actions of their character in the game world. So if player A sees that player B is not having fun, they can have their character A befriend character B.

But it is part of the DM's job to make sure the game runs smoothly and that everyone is having fun and that everyone is engaged in the gameplay. And a DM can do anything in the game to make them happen. If the group is getting bored at some point and would like to have some combat, the DM can just open a gate right next to the players and have a monster step through for them to fight.

And just about everyone will agree that a DM can do 'anything', at least in the context of creating and having an encounter. The DM can 'suddenly' just have the PC's encounter any foe or monster of any type in any way shape or form that they wish. And the DM can have an encounter happen for any reason.

If the player of a stealthy type character feels bummed out as they have not gotten to do anything sneaky with their character, the DM can drop a stealthy encounter for that character out of the clear blue sky. The same way if the player of a wizard character is upset as they never find any new unique spells, the DM can drop such a scroll with such a spell into the very next pile of loot. And, of course, the DM can also do such things way ahead of time too.

And the vast majority of players will say that is is OK for a DM to do such things. As this is part of the DM's job: make sure the game runs smoothly, that everyone has fun and everyone is engaged.

Though anything else, like if the DM rolls a 20 out of sight, and then says it was a 1, a lot of players think that is ''wrong''. For some odd reason. The DM can do anything else, but oddly dice rolls are set in stone. But some will say it is ''ok, but not all the time'' and must be vaguely ''only every so often''. And some will say it is ''ok, as long as the DM is consistent'', in whatever way they want to vaguely define as ''consistent''. And then your just in the pointless realm of players saying ''it's ok, as long as I like it and approve''.....

Yeah, the DM can set the stage however they want. Which makes it even more baffling as to why a DM would feel the need to "cheat". For example, if I give all the players a -1 to hit for fighting in cramped quarters but let me NPCs ignore it because I feel I need that extra +1 to hit to make a challenging encounter, that just feels dishonest and LAZY when I could have just given them masterwork weapons or weapon focus instead.

Also, it there is a matter of obfuscation. A DM who sends a balrog against a first level party is obviously a killer DM and will get quickly tossed out. A DM who sends goblins against the part and the goblins "just happen to roll 20s when it counts" can hide his killer tendencies much longer, possibly even indefinitely if he is subtle about it, but with the same results.


Also, keep in mind there is a difference between cheating and being a ****. A player who raises the numbers on their sheet between sessions is cheating, but he does not necessarily make the game less fun for others, heck he might even make it more fun if he is good about not hogging the spotlight. On the other hand a CN thief who steals from the party and attacks random NPCs is playing by the rules but would probably be a lot less fun to game with. Does that mean it is ok for the players to cheat?

[ComatosePhoenix]

1:) Is there anything the DM can do at the table constitutes cheating?

Not really, the goal of the GM is to entertain, as long as everyone at the table is having fun the DM can do whatever he wants.


2:) Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D?


That really depends on what think dungeons and dragons IS. Is it really just a set of rules? or is it worlds, setting and characters I'd say that the latter is more important. Just because the rules of D&D are reworked fairly frequently.



Would it, for example, be disingenuous if I invited my friends over to play D&D and told them we are playing D&D but using the GURPS rules rather than the D&D ones?

Not sure if disingenuous is the right word. It really depends on how much the change effects the players.

[NichG]

The problem is that not everyone knows what is best. Hell, even the players themselves don't always know what they want.


The rules also can't know what is best, so this doesn't really change anything.

My policy is, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but when things go badly or suck, confront people about it and don't listen to excuses - focus on only how they can do better next time. If a player wants to flagrantly cheat, then let's see where they're going with it. If it sucks, then it's time for them to stop. But not because it's cheating; because it's harming the game. Same for a DM - I'll follow their lead wherever and see what they want to do, but if it turns out to be terrible I'll insist they figure out how to do better.

You can't guarantee perfection, but you can move towards improvement.

[Gilphon]

My view is the there are two kinds of rule zero use: stuff that the rules don't cover, and stuff where you're overriding the rules. The former is perfectly acceptable, and indeed not using rule zero would limit the game's appeal significantly. The latter is a cudgel. That's not to say it's not sometimes appropriate to use a cudgel- sometimes the rule is causing problems. Sometimes a random street thug rolls three 20s in a row against the Chosen One. Sometimes the BBEG fumbles the attack role for his big, legendary, one-shot attack. Sometimes the players come up with a plan cool enough that you want it to work despite the 3 they just rolled. Sometimes their plan is so idiotic that the 18 they just rolled shouldn't save them. Sometimes the players are getting really bored and annoyed and probably won't notice if the baddie's saving throws suddenly get a lot worse.

But all of those things are edge cases. Most of the time, using a cudgel just leads to skulls getting bashed in.

[TheOOB]

I don't think rule 0 should be taken to do whatever you want, but rather than ultimately it is more important that the game runs smoothly and that everyone has fun then that you slave yourself to the rules. It's there so that when the rules cause a situation that just doesn't make sense you can make a command decision to fix it, and so when the rules become a burden you can expedite things.

Other than that, I think it's important for the GM of a game to follow the rules of the system they are in, and make it known to the players when they are not going to. By Gming a group you are forming a social contract with them that the rules will work the way to intend so that they can have a reasonable ability to understand the consequences of their actions.

I personally tend to follow the rules quite heavily when GMing. I pretty much never fudge rolls, and almost never make things happen that are not established either in the rules or the setting. I do occasionally roll fake rolls to throw my players off track, and I sometimes randomly determine things I had not expected(player "is there a gun in the back of this cop car?" Me "Ehh, 50/50 chance"). This means yes I sometimes kill players with "lucky" rolls, but the players understand that it was due to the rules, and their own choices as much as mine that it happened. Similarly, when I had plans for a villain to escape, but the players find a way to thwart that, I give it to them, they won that victory. The way I see it, I as the GM have the amazing power to set the scene for the story, but the story isn't ultimately mine, it's the players.

I find D&D to be a very player empowering system. By virtue of having many classes with spells, feats, abilities, and powers, the players have the power to enforce their will upon the world. When a wizard in 5e casts fireball, it deals 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft sphere. This is something that happens whether or not the DM wills or wants it. D&D has rules on combat and movement. If that orc is 20ft away, the player expects to be able to move to it and attack it in one turn, and if they can't they expect a reason why they cannot. When DMing D&D the GM is more strongly required to follow the rules than in other systems. If you say a players fireball does not work for no good reason, or that you cannot engage that orc, you have broken your social contract with your players, and you are no longer player D&D.

Some systems do offer the GM greater power, in Paranoia the players are not even allowed to have knowledge of the rules, all they know is the difficult of succeeding a task based on their skills. In that light the GM has great latitude to change the way equipment and powers work on the fly. The thing is that's part of the system, players know they can't rely on their mutant powers, and that they are lucky if that weapon is more dangerous to their foes than themselves. The randomness and unpredictability are part of the fun, and thus the GM has greater leeway to change things on the fly, and in fact is obligated to by the games social contract.

[veti]

I would argue that framing things in terms of 'cheating' is unhelpful. If you think about a DM's behavior as 'cheating' versus 'not cheating', then if the DM alters/breaks the rules in a way that makes the experience better for everyone, it's still 'bad'; and if the DM follows the rules 100% precisely but makes everyone at the table miserable by doing it, then it's still 'okay' because the rules let him do that. By the rules, the DM is allowed to have twenty balors teleport in and slaughter a Lv1 party at the start of the campaign, but that's obviously bad DMing.

That's what's more important ultimately - not whether the DM is allowed to do something or not, but whether doing it made the game better.

Well put.

The question of "cheating" is somewhere between meaningless and sparrow. The only question that matters is "are you enjoying the campaign?"

If not, then stop playing. I assume nobody holds a gun to your head.

If so, then stop fretting about the rules. The rules are there to enable you to have fun. If you're having fun, then the rules are doing their job, even if they're being largely ignored.

"Is the DM cheating?" - in so far as the question has any meaning at all, the answer to this should be "who cares?" And if you find that you do, then you're probably not enjoying the campaign. So stop playing, and stop caring.

[Florian]

While I am aware this is yet another tale of Talakeal's adventures in Bizarro Gaming Dimension, I am curious. Why does he have anyone bother to roll dice to begin with, if he's just going to retroactively alter the difficulty to determine if they succeed or fail? Do you know?

I think that is actually pretty common behaviour. There're some rpg systems out that that activelly encourage gms to focus more on the story, how it is told and reaching climax as planned, to encourage players to be emotionally engaged and "feel it". For that to work, the gm is encouraged to disregard the rules if they are in the way and "fake it" for the players sake, rolling dice and coming up with some approximatelly right results so hopefully noone will notice.

That's pretty much the antithesis to how 3E and 4E should work by empowering commonly accepted rules instead of the gm.

[Seto]

I'll admit I'm pretty unsure about this myself. I like rule-lights game with a lot of leeway and DM calls (I'm at my best when DMing Everyone's John and improvising everything, actually), and yet I DM D&D3.5. Although I'm tempted to improvise and let the story trump the rules, I generally refrain because I feel like playing D&D 3.5 is an implicit contract with the players that the rules will generally be respected. I guess I feel differently depending on the kind of Rule 0 I apply.

On houserules : I have no problem with them as long as they're consistent and I have announced them to the players from the beginning. For example, in my game everyone gets Weapon Finesse and Power attack as bonus feats, TPK is banned barring out-of-character agreement on it, psionic/magic transparency is a thing, and XP is not (the players level up at the speed of plot). I consider them entirely within my prerogatives as DM, as long as I don't make them up on the fly or spring them on players by surprise. Don't feel bad about them one bit.

On dice fudging : I have fudged some rolls in the past, both to the advantage of the players and to their disadvantage. (to avoid a TPK due to bad rolls, or to inflict some damage on the players when they're steamrolling an encounter due to the monster's bad luck and it gets boring and anticlimactic). However, I increasingly think it's a bad idea. To avoid the temptation, I now roll dice in the open in most situations (except results that the players shouldn't see, such as Perception or Disable Device rolls). I feel somewhat bad about dice fudging.

On NPC building : this is a tricky one. Should the NPCs follow the same rules as PCs or just be able to do what I want them to do even if it's not covered by the rules ? I've come to the following answer : in the interest of fairness, NPCs built for combat will follow the same rules as PCs. NPCs built for narrative purposes will not necessarily, they will have plot abilities to fulfill their purpose. The last example is a seer whom the PCs consulted : no fighting ability, no listed HP, BAB or somesuch ; only feature was "a more accurate version of Divination 5 times per day or something".
Should the PCs ever pick a fight with such a character, either I improvise (well, let's give him the HP and BAB of an Expert 8) or I let them win. I'm prepared to have such NPCs die, anyway.

On Rule of Cool : If I think what the players want to do, and they couldn't normally do it, is really cool, I either set a relevant check and a DC ad-hoc (before the roll, obviously) or just let them do it. NPCs dont benefit from Rule of Cool, though.

On genuine errors and takebacks : If everyone forgets a bonus or a malus, or an immunity, if I'm not sure something should work and don't want to look up the rules, etc. I always rule something slightly in the players' advantage. I forgot the opponent's Power attack bonus damage ? Well, too bad, I'll have to remember it next time. The player forgot they had Resistance to Fire ? Ok, you can retroactively ignore those 10 damage, but try to remember it next time.

Tl ; dr : I wouldn't allow myself to do such things as modify the DC of a roll retroactively, but I do fudge and Rule 0 a fair bit, partly due to the sheer volume of 3.5 rules and the fact that I have trouble keeping track of them all. I have one meta-rule, though : if I'm not sure, the PCs always get the benefit of the doubt, not me. If I'm gonna be unfair, I'd rather be the kind of unfair that makes my friends happy.

[Jay R]

So as an aside, I had another conversation with the same DM tonight who went on a rant about how players think they have the right to take their character sheets home with them and how he forbids it because he fears that the players will cheat and doctor their numbers if given the opportunity. This stands in kind of a stark contrast to his demands that we trust him implicitly and insist that he always has our best interests at heart.

So he believes he has good reason to distrust the players. And one of his players (you) believes he has good reason to distrust the DM.

This is already a difficult situation without the word "cheating". Stop using that word. It doesn't give you anything of value, and it poisons the discussion.

DMs have run enjoyable games over the last four decades both ways - by changing the rules when they thought it was helpful, or by following them completely. And poor, unenjoyable games have been run by DMs both ways - by changing the rules arbitrarily, or by following them blindly.

It doesn't matter whether he's "cheating". It matters whether the players enjoy what he's doing.


I assume because he wants to maintain the illusion of impartiality and give the players the illusion of control / a sense of tension.

Don't assume. Ask.


Yeah, this is technically true in later D&D, and a lot of people read it into games where it isn't an explicit rule. I am wondering where the boundary lies.

There is no single set boundary. These are always judgment calls


The problem is that not everyone knows what is best.

That's true, but DM, who is the only person who knows what will appear next round, or next day, is the only one with the necessary information to have an informed opinion. He may be wrong, but nobody else can even know on what basis he made the call.


Personally I feel that I am cheating when I am dishonest with the players.

That's not what "cheating" means. For instance, it's very easy to be dishonest with the players while following the rules. By contrast, a player who tells everybody when he fudges his sheet is cheating, but being completely honest.

Making an accusation with a deliberately offensive word ("cheating") while changing its meaning when you do, isn't being honest with the DM.


If I pretend to roll a dice and tell them I rolled something else or am changing the established difficulty retroactively or am having my NPCs play by different rules than the players I feel that I am being dishonest and I feel that I am cheating.

A. The DM doing so is not cheating. He is not playing the game; he's running it. A, and it's his job to make it as good as he can.
B. It's dishonest only if you promised not to do so.


Which is not to say I never fudge anything or make mistakes or need to retcon my adventure notes or change a rule on the fly. I do, however I am honest about it and I let my players know.

When I need to do it, I am completely honest about it, but don't tell the players. "Honest" doesn't mean "fully disclosed". I make the decision based on my attempts to make the game work for everyone. My players trust me to make correct rulings, and do not demand to know how a decision was made.

But this requires trust on both sides, which is not present in your situation.


I have never demanded the same behavior from another DM, but then again I never dreamed I would meet a DM who feels obligated to fudge every roll either.

If the DM does this, then that's your issue.
Not "cheating".
Not "being dishonest with the players".
He runs the game with more fudged rolls than you are comfortable with.

If you are to have any chance of a favorable discussion with him, you must avoid the inflammatory words and discuss that issue directly. Don't characterize it in any way other than "Talakeal isn't comfortable with it".

[If you are not trying to fix the problem, of course, go ahead and vent to us. That's cool. Get it out of your system, then go back to the game, have fun, and don't use that kind of accusation there.]


Yeah, the DM can set the stage however they want. Which makes it even more baffling as to why a DM would feel the need to "cheat". For example, if I give all the players a -1 to hit for fighting in cramped quarters but let me NPCs ignore it because I feel I need that extra +1 to hit to make a challenging encounter, that just feels dishonest and LAZY when I could have just given them masterwork weapons or weapon focus instead.

Has this DM done this, or is this a purely hypothetical paragraph with no relevance to the topic? And if he has done it, do you know that there was no reason? [Goblins are smaller and not cramped; these are their tunnels and they are used to fighting that way, etc.] The DM should not give you the reason if the PCs don't know it.


Also, it there is a matter of obfuscation. A DM who sends a balrog against a first level party is obviously a killer DM and will get quickly tossed out. A DM who sends goblins against the part and the goblins "just happen to roll 20s when it counts" can hide his killer tendencies much longer, possibly even indefinitely if he is subtle about it, but with the same results.

So has this DM actually caused a large number of PC deaths, or is this a purely hypothetical paragraph with no relevance to the topic?


Also, keep in mind there is a difference between cheating and being a ****. A player who raises the numbers on their sheet between sessions is cheating, but he does not necessarily make the game less fun for others, heck he might even make it more fun if he is good about not hogging the spotlight. On the other hand a CN thief who steals from the party and attacks random NPCs is playing by the rules but would probably be a lot less fun to game with. Does that mean it is ok for the players to cheat?

No. It means that cheating isn't the only bad thing people can do. So the accusation of "cheating" isn't even necessary. If the DM's fudged rolls are hurting the game, it doesn't matter whether they are "cheating" or not, since, as you've just demonstrated, you can hurt the game without it.

We're a little handicapped by only hearing one side of the disagreement, so:

Are the rest of the players enjoying the game? Is this a all-players vs. DM situation, or a single player vs. DM situation?

[Milo v3]

I find it strange that people in this thread are suggesting that just because GM's run a game, means they are not playing the game.

[Cluedrew]

B. It's dishonest only if you promised not to do so.Well, I never promised you I would speak the truth to you so if I give you false information than is it still lying? I would think so.

Still as pointed out I think the real problem is not how the game is played here, but the fact that it is pretended to be played some other way. Rolling the dice creates in implicate agreement that the results of the dice roll will be used, by ignoring that the agreement is broken. Now sometimes the agreement has a very explicate exception, to keep the players from being stomped on or stomping too hard, but this kind of goes beyond that.

Ultimately I guess it is up to the group to decide what they want to play, whether it is D&D or not. But that decision is hard to arrive at when most people aren't even aware of how the game is being played.

[Grinner]

I find it strange that people in this thread are suggesting that just because GM's run a game, means they are not playing the game.

How so? whitespace

[Mr.Moron]

Can the GM "Cheat"?:
No. The GM can however provide an unsatisfactory experience. Such an experience can stem from the GMs violation of player expectations with regards to the clarity, consistency or methodology of event resolution. This something everyone should be on the same page about.

Can you change the printed rules so much you're effectively playing another game?:
Yes. However where the line is on this is 100% subjective and can be anywhere from "A single tiny change" to "A total overhaul". The distinction is meaningless.



Would it, for example, be disingenuous if I invited my friends over to play D&D and told them we are playing D&D but using the GURPS rules rather than the D&D ones?

Kind of. I mean it's not if you say "I wanna play a fantasy game, basically D&D but using another system" vs "Come over let's play D&D. (when they get there with D&D books): Wait no, I meant like a D&D universe but with GURPs rules".



I find it strange that people in this thread are suggesting that just because GM's run a game, means they are not playing the game.

Yep we're all in it for the same thing. I posted this in another thread but:

An RPG is a purely positive-sum experience where both the GM and the Players get the same thing from the sum of each other's actions: Being able to experience the game and its story however that unfolds. "Cheating" only has meaning when there are winners and losers.

[Thrudd]

Everything depends on expectations and agreements of what game is being played.

A DM who intends to ignore or fudge the dice regularly if it contradicts how he thinks the narrative should be going, or simply not use dice to determine certain outcomes, should tell the players in the beginning that this is how he runs the game. He doesn't need to reveal every time he does it, but the players need to know in general that this is a game where the DM is telling them a story and the dice and mechanics of the game are secondary.

When the DM is breaking the agreed upon or expected rules of the game (assuming there are rules other than "what I say is the law"), or is using DM fiat powers to negate the expected agency or achievements of the players, I would call that cheating.

In a game where the DM has established that his story takes priority, you can't really call it cheating if he decides his main villain survives what should be a fatal blow and escapes, or your attempts to circumvent a major plot element inexplicably and irrationally fail. It may be bad adventure design and unskillful DMing, but it isn't cheating.

If the DM claims to run the game by the book, or where the dice are the final arbiter, and then secretly fudges results and manipulates difficulties to get what he wants, that is cheating.

Disagreements and disappointments usually come about because the players believe they are meant to have more agency or a different type of agency than the DM is giving them.

[Talakeal]

Lot's of stuff

This conversation actually started with him criticizing my DMing style, not the other way round. I said I preferred to run my games by the book and with full disclosure* and then he laid into me about how terrible I was at running a game.

I never said he was cheating. I said I don't enjoy running a where I keep secrets from the players, fudge dice rolls, or ignore printed rules without letting my players know because it makes me feel like I am cheating.

I suppose one could infer the former from the latter, but that's not what I said.

Frankly cheating is way far down on my list of complaints about his DMing style, the flat out lying to and constantly belittling his players is way more of an issue. I could give more details if you really want them, but don't want this to turn into (yet another) list of reason's why Talakeal's DM is terrible thread. The examples in my previous post are just that, examples.

Again, this was him criticizing me, not vice versa. If you want I can come up with a giant list of grievances, although I don't really think that will help this discussion here.


*: Its funny, the few times this has caused a negative play experience is because the players THOUGHT I was fudging things because they had a run of bad luck or failed to pick up on a clue and assumed I was making things up to screw them over.

[Avalander]

I'd say that each table must decide where to draw the line, and I wouldn't play with a DM who decides it regardless of what the players want.

That being said, I'd like to share my view on the issue.

I think the purpose of the rules is to set a common understanding on how the things work, so the players can understand how their actions lead to different outputs. When this doesn't happen the purpose of the rules is defeated, since the choices the players make don't affect the output of their actions as they would expect.

Let's say, for instance, that a player rolls a 27 in a skill check and that skill check happens to have a DC 30 because the DM thinks it's better if the player doesn't succeed, but half an hour later the player rolls a 13 in another skill check of similar conditions and the DC happens to be 10 because the DM thinks it's better if the player succeeds, well... then it makes virtually no difference whether the player decides to develop this or that skill because it won't affect if he succeeds or fails the checks and the table would do better playing another system that suits better this playing style.

[Darth Ultron]

Yeah, the DM can set the stage however they want. Which makes it even more baffling as to why a DM would feel the need to "cheat". For example, if I give all the players a -1 to hit for fighting in cramped quarters but let me NPCs ignore it because I feel I need that extra +1 to hit to make a challenging encounter, that just feels dishonest and LAZY when I could have just given them masterwork weapons or weapon focus instead.

Right. The DM can't really cheat. If the DM wants an encounter to be ''a bit more tough'' he can change the game world to do so. The goblins can, suddenly and spontaneously, have masterwork weapons. Though the net effect is just a +1 to hit. And it does not really matter where that +1 comes from, even more so as the encounter will last a couple minutes and be forgotten.

A player is forced to pick through every single line in every single book and look for a way to get that +1. And players, that think of the DM as just a player, think the DM does that too. But that is not what a DM does.



Also, keep in mind there is a difference between cheating and being a ****. A player who raises the numbers on their sheet between sessions is cheating, but he does not necessarily make the game less fun for others, heck he might even make it more fun if he is good about not hogging the spotlight. On the other hand a CN thief who steals from the party and attacks random NPCs is playing by the rules but would probably be a lot less fun to game with. Does that mean it is ok for the players to cheat?

If a player changes anything on their character sheet, secretly, without the DM's knowledge and approval and actions in the game world. That is cheating. It makes the game pointless if the players can just randomly change whatever they want like the DM can.


I find it strange that people in this thread are suggesting that just because GM's run a game, means they are not playing the game.

It's more ac curate to say the DM is not playing the game as a player. Yes, both the DM and players are playing the game, in the vague definition of player that is ''someone playing a game''. But Player is also a term used in D&D and lots of other RPG with a definition of ''someone that controls only a limited bit of a game world, often just a single character and is bound to follow both the rules and the rulings of the DM''.




Let's say, for instance, that a player rolls a 27 in a skill check and that skill check happens to have a DC 30 because the DM thinks it's better if the player doesn't succeed, but half an hour later the player rolls a 13 in another skill check of similar conditions and the DC happens to be 10 because the DM thinks it's better if the player succeeds, well... then it makes virtually no difference whether the player decides to develop this or that skill because it won't affect if he succeeds or fails the checks and the table would do better playing another system that suits better this playing style.

This is exactly why D&D has a DM and the game is not like other games. What your talking about works both ways.

Say, for instance you have a player that always rolls low, or otherwise does something so they never make a skill check. After the 12th or so time many players will get frustrated, bored, angry or dozens of other negative emotions. The player won't be having fun, that is for sure. So, would you say the DM should just sit back and say ''tough luck dude'' and do nothing?

Or say you have one loud, obnoxious player that always bullys his way in making every skill check and forces other players to sit around and do nothing. Would you say the DM just sit back and does nothing? Or maybe does he have player 1 auto fail and then say ''player two, you want to try and unlock the door?''

In order to have drama, a story and even fun.....things need to be controlled. You can't just let ''the dice roll where they may''.

[Keltest]

Right. The DM can't really cheat. If the DM wants an encounter to be ''a bit more tough'' he can change the game world to do so. The goblins can, suddenly and spontaneously, have masterwork weapons. Though the net effect is just a +1 to hit. And it does not really matter where that +1 comes from, even more so as the encounter will last a couple minutes and be forgotten.

I think it matters. A dozen goblins attacking you with masterwork weapons means a dozen or so masterwork weapons available to loot when the goblins lose. Whether or not its especially unusual, it is something the DM should keep in mind.

[Darth Ultron]

I think it matters. A dozen goblins attacking you with masterwork weapons means a dozen or so masterwork weapons available to loot when the goblins lose. Whether or not its especially unusual, it is something the DM should keep in mind.

It is not like the masterwork weapons would evaporate after the encounter. If the DM spontaneously drops something into the game, then it is there.

A good DM would decide if he wanted the players to get their hands on a pile of masterwork weapons loot or not. After all, there are other ways to add a plus to hit. Ones that don't leave loot.

[Avalander]

This is exactly why D&D has a DM and the game is not like other games. What your talking about works both ways.

Say, for instance you have a player that always rolls low, or otherwise does something so they never make a skill check. After the 12th or so time many players will get frustrated, bored, angry or dozens of other negative emotions. The player won't be having fun, that is for sure. So, would you say the DM should just sit back and say ''tough luck dude'' and do nothing?

Or say you have one loud, obnoxious player that always bullys his way in making every skill check and forces other players to sit around and do nothing. Would you say the DM just sit back and does nothing? Or maybe does he have player 1 auto fail and then say ''player two, you want to try and unlock the door?''

In order to have drama, a story and even fun.....things need to be controlled. You can't just let ''the dice roll where they may''.

Well, "letting the dice roll where they may" might be what makes the game fun for some tables, and there's nothing wrong with it. Other tables might not find it fun, and there's nothing wrong with it.

My point of view is that D&D is a game, and most of the times people play games to have fun. The way I like to solve situations when someone in the table is not having fun, due to bad dice rolls or anything else, is to stop and talk about why it is not being fun and what can we do so everybody has an enjoyable time playing. The DM changing the rules on the fly and fudging the rolls might solve the issue sometimes and for some people, but might not for other people or in other situations.

[Keltest]

It is not like the masterwork weapons would evaporate after the encounter. If the DM spontaneously drops something into the game, then it is there.

A good DM would decide if he wanted the players to get their hands on a pile of masterwork weapons loot or not. After all, there are other ways to add a plus to hit. Ones that don't leave loot.

That's my point. If the DM wants to give the goblins +1 on their attacks, he needs to decide if the players should be able to use the same techniques.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, for example, say I am making an attack and I roll the dice where no one else can see it and then pick it up and proclaim that I rolled a nat 20 despite the actual number on the dice face being 7.

My DM does this all the time and proclaims it is just good DMing.
If I did it as a player I am pretty sure I would be branded a cheater if anyone found out about it.

As long as the guy is not super overpowered I would probably just aay that the guy in game has supernatural levels of luck. People who fudge dice tend not to be very good at games IME, and are looking to feel relevant despite this. What really is the harm then?

[Talakeal]

As long as the guy is not super overpowered I would probably just aay that the guy in game has supernatural levels of luck. People who fudge dice tend not to be very good at games IME, and are looking to feel relevant despite this. What really is the harm then?

I don't know, people are generally just wired to think of cheating as bad. Calling someone a cheater is a serious insult, and cheating at professional sports is actually a serious crime in many places.

As a DM I put a lot of effort into balancing the game, someone ignoring the dice means all my work is for nothing. As another player I prefer being on a level playing field with the other players, which isn't going to happen if some of us a rolling and others fudging.

Maybe I just deal with people who are more uptight about cheating than others and am especially sensitive about it.

On one hand I take DMing very seriously and am an amateur game designer so I spend a lot of time balancing rules and scenarios don't like seeing all my hard work thrown out on a whim.

Also, I am probably a bit overly sensitive to cheating accusations and go out of my way to avoid it. My players often accuse me of fudging numbers or changing the plot to screw them when I DM even though I don't. When I was a kid my family would always accuse me of cheating at games, to the point where my dad one time thought I slipped some loaded dice into the RISK box because my dice were so hot that night; hell, about six months ago I was on a family car trip and we were playing a stupid "Think of something that starts with the letter A..." game to pass the time and my dad ragequit because I was in the back seat and he accused me of looking up the answers on the iPad.

[Amphetryon]

Well, for example, say I am making an attack and I roll the dice where no one else can see it and then pick it up and proclaim that I rolled a nat 20 despite the actual number on the dice face being 7.

My DM does this all the time and proclaims it is just good DMing.
If I did it as a player I am pretty sure I would be branded a cheater if anyone found out about it.
1. Would you call it cheating if the DM did the opposite, picking up the rolled nat 20 before anyone saw it and proclaiming it a 7, perhaps to prevent a killing Critical Hit to an unlucky PC? Why, or why not?

2. Is it your contention that the DM's role at the table is the same as that of the other Players? If so, how does an adventure happen with the DM constrained to the same set of rules as the others; if not, how should the DM's role as (for example) principal story organizer differ in his (or her) responsibility toward what the dice dictate versus what a good story, enjoyable for the majority at the table, would dictate?

3. Can you accurately quantify "all the time?" Is it literally, provably "every other roll," or is some level of hyperbole and guesswork involved on your part in making that particular claim?


Frankly cheating is way far down on my list of complaints about his DMing style, the flat out lying to and constantly belittling his players is way more of an issue. I could give more details if you really want them, but don't want this to turn into (yet another) list of reason's why Talakeal's DM is terrible thread. The examples in my previous post are just that, examples.
Having read through the thread, it looks a heck of a lot like yet another "Talakeal has to put up with/had to put up with a terrible DM (in his opinion)" thread. Are you sure that wasn't a motivating factor in posting, and in your responses?

[Talakeal]

1. Would you call it cheating if the DM did the opposite, picking up the rolled nat 20 before anyone saw it and proclaiming it a 7, perhaps to prevent a killing Critical Hit to an unlucky PC? Why, or why not?

2. Is it your contention that the DM's role at the table is the same as that of the other Players? If so, how does an adventure happen with the DM constrained to the same set of rules as the others; if not, how should the DM's role as (for example) principal story organizer differ in his (or her) responsibility toward what the dice dictate versus what a good story, enjoyable for the majority at the table, would dictate?

3. Can you accurately quantify "all the time?" Is it literally, provably "every other roll," or is some level of hyperbole and guesswork involved on your part in making that particular claim?


Having read through the thread, it looks a heck of a lot like yet another "Talakeal has to put up with/had to put up with a terrible DM (in his opinion)" thread. Are you sure that wasn't a motivating factor in posting, and in your responses?


1: Yes, I would. But that is just my opinion.

2: The DM is responsible for setting the stage and controlling the NPCs. I am not sure why having a different roll means that the DM needs to operate under different rules anymore than the guy playing as the wizard can't follow the same rules as the fighter when making a melee attack because he has the extra

3: I don't know how often he does it, but he claims that he does it very frequently, at least multiple times per session. I am sure he does not do it "every time" but I can't tell you how often he does or does not because he keeps his dice hidden behind the screen.

Does "all the time" actually mean literally every time? I thought it just meant it "happens frequently". If I rear ended a car and someone said "Don't worry about it, people get into minor accidents all the time," I wouldn't think they were saying that anytime anybody gets on the road an accident is inevitable.



Also, I posted this primarily because he made me feel bad for attacking my gaming style and calling ME a terrible DM, and that got me thinking about different gaming styles for a week and I decided it would make an interesting forum discussion. I am sure my feelings about him played a role in the discussion on subconscious level, but then what does my motivation for posting how I do have to do with the price of beans?


*Also, you are the first person to actually defend the DM in question (at least that's what I assume you mean by adding the "in your opinion"). Most people tell me "OMG get the hell out of there!" and I actually end up sticking up for him or justifying why I was still in the game, and a few people accused me of exaggerating / making the whole story up because "no one could be that bad", but no one has actually told me that he wasn't as bad (or worse) than I thought.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't know, people are generally just wired to think of cheating as bad. Calling someone a cheater is a serious insult, and cheating at professional sports is actually a serious crime in many places.

As a DM I put a lot of effort into balancing the game, someone ignoring the dice means all my work is for nothing. As another player I prefer being on a level playing field with the other players, which isn't going to happen if some of us a rolling and others fudging.


No, they are conditioned to it by competitive games. Cheating at D&D is like cheating at solitaire or the crossword puzzle. Where there is competition it gives an unearned advantage, but without a competition there is no need or benefit to dividing into earned and unearned benefits.

But you aren't. Role playing games involve separate mini games called system mastery and character optimization, which are not going to be even and punish players who don't want to play them (they may be too busy playing, you know, a roleplaying game). Letting the tables rules light roleplayer or detached murder hobo have effects in game that are similar to their envisioned character design seems a net benefit to me.

For the Oberani people: I am aware that roleplaying and optimization are not opposed. They are also not linked, they are simply unrelated. The issue is that some people only want to play one, and strictly interpreting rules attempts to push the second onto the first.

[Talakeal]

No, they are conditioned to it by competitive games. Cheating at D&D is like cheating at solitaire or the crossword puzzle. Where there is competition it gives an unearned advantage, but without a competition there is no need or benefit to dividing into earned and unearned benefits.

But you aren't. Role playing games involve separate mini games called system mastery and character optimization, which are not going to be even and punish players who don't want to play them (they may be too busy playing, you know, a roleplaying game). Letting the tables rules light roleplayer or detached murder hobo have effects in game that are similar to their envisioned character design seems a net benefit to me.

For the Oberani people: I am aware that roleplaying and optimization are not opposed. They are also not linked, they are simply unrelated. The issue is that some people only want to play one, and strictly interpreting rules attempts to push the second onto the first.

Doesn't that trample everyone else's fun though? What if two people in party both want to be "the best" at something?

[TheOOB]

The only question that matters is "are you enjoying the campaign?"

I disagree, you can enjoy anything, that doesn't mean it's good or done well. A better question is "are you getting the maximum amount of enjoyment and engagement out of the game as possible?". Just because you're having fun doesn't mean you can't be having more fun.

[Tvtyrant]

Doesn't that trample everyone else's fun though? What if two people in party both want to be "the best" at something?

So you have two players who both have ego issues and need to be the best. One of them is better than the other one at character building, so they get to have fun and the other one doesn't?

I don't really see how pandering to one particular players egoism is good, even when under the veneer of "fairness." If the player wants to play a character who "wants to be the best" then at least there is roleplaying going on, but the player is never going to have the best character anyway (Borys is).

[Talakeal]

So you have two players who both have ego issues and need to be the best. One of them is better than the other one at character building, so they get to have fun and the other one doesn't?

I don't really see how pandering to one particular players egoism is good, even when under the veneer of "fairness." If the player wants to play a character who "wants to be the best" then at least there is roleplaying going on, but the player is never going to have the best character anyway (Borys is).

Well you could help them with their build, ideally getting to the point where they are both on equal footing but operate in slightly different manners. I think this is preferable to them having a contest to see who can out "fudge" one another, especially if it forces the DM to react in kind.

Frankly the biggest problem is the dishonesty going around, that they feel like they need to "cheat" to play the character they want. Instead of being sneaky and dishonest about it, why not simply say "Hey, I want to play a character who is stronger than I can make mechanically. Would you mind if I gave my character a special ability to boost his power to where I am happy with his capabilities?" If everyone says no to that, well, they are also probably the type who are going to be put out when they discover that he has been fudging his rolls or doctoring his character sheet all along.

[Tvtyrant]

Well you could help them with their build, ideally getting to the point where they are both on equal footing but operate in slightly different manners. I think this is preferable to them having a contest to see who can out "fudge" one another, especially if it forces the DM to react in kind.

Frankly the biggest problem is the dishonesty going around, that they feel like they need to "cheat" to play the character they want. Instead of being sneaky and dishonest about it, why not simply say "Hey, I want to play a character who is stronger than I can make mechanically. Would you mind if I gave my character a special ability to boost his power to where I am happy with his capabilities?" If everyone says no to that, well, they are also probably the type who are going to be put out when they discover that he has been fudging his rolls or doctoring his character sheet all along.

This still assumes that the player has the time or interest in learning an extremely complicated character, just to be able to play a roleplaying game. D20 systems have pretty simply rules until you add in the different subsystems, and some players might not want to have to memorize 50 spells to play a decent character. I had a Factotum player who never did anything but chuck alchemists fire and nets, so eventually we just removed the rest of her abilities and gave her at-will alchemist fire and net abilities.

Changing the rules and changing dice outcomes are not different. You could easily have a player who simply takes 15 on all attacks, for instance, and call that an ability. As long as everyone knows what is going on there is nothing wrong with changing the rules or messing with the dice.

And for the player who somehow misses the point of D&D so much that they get into arms races with other player's abilities, who cares? They are the same idiot who attacks party members as Paladins or runs around murdering every NPC as a CN character, or who cannot allow someone to play an alignment how they want. If a player cannot enjoy themselves without controlling someone else then they can find a new group.

[Drynwyn]

The trouble with this sort of question is that it's VERY context dependent. In my opinion, GM "cheating" and on-the-fly rules adjustment is acceptable, so long as the players still have the ability to succeed or fail on their own merits- and use their abilities to solve problems.

For example, a frequent problem with over-controlling GM's is that they have a specific solution in mind to every problem they present the party with, and will come up with some reason why whatever plan the party has that isn't that solution doesn't work- even if that reason is spurious, or simply a sudden truckload of natural 1's rolled behind the screen. At that point, you aren't playing D&D (or any tabletop RPG, really), you're playing Secret of Monkey Island sans computer. (Metaphor chosen carefully- it's not like Secret of Monkey Island is bad, but it's not what you come to a D&D session expecting.)

[goto124]

Or pretty much any linear game with only one storyline.

Any action other than the ones scripted for get you 'You wouldn't do that for (some reason)', 'You can't seem to do that'or even no response at all.

I've tried running such a gamey storyline... in a freeform RP. Let's just say that there were way too many holes in the storyline that would not happen in a world with thinking people (like how communciation would've solved everything instantly).

[Amphetryon]

1: Yes, I would. But that is just my opinion.

2: The DM is responsible for setting the stage and controlling the NPCs. I am not sure why having a different roll means that the DM needs to operate under different rules anymore than the guy playing as the wizard can't follow the same rules as the fighter when making a melee attack because he has the extra

3: I don't know how often he does it, but he claims that he does it very frequently, at least multiple times per session. I am sure he does not do it "every time" but I can't tell you how often he does or does not because he keeps his dice hidden behind the screen.

Does "all the time" actually mean literally every time? I thought it just meant it "happens frequently". If I rear ended a car and someone said "Don't worry about it, people get into minor accidents all the time," I wouldn't think they were saying that anytime anybody gets on the road an accident is inevitable.



Also, I posted this primarily because he made me feel bad for attacking my gaming style and calling ME a terrible DM, and that got me thinking about different gaming styles for a week and I decided it would make an interesting forum discussion. I am sure my feelings about him played a role in the discussion on subconscious level, but then what does my motivation for posting how I do have to do with the price of beans?


*Also, you are the first person to actually defend the DM in question (at least that's what I assume you mean by adding the "in your opinion"). Most people tell me "OMG get the hell out of there!" and I actually end up sticking up for him or justifying why I was still in the game, and a few people accused me of exaggerating / making the whole story up because "no one could be that bad", but no one has actually told me that he wasn't as bad (or worse) than I thought.
I mounted no defense of the DM in question. I asked about whether the DM's role is different than that of another Player's role at the table (you appear to think it is not, which is - in my experience - a minority opinion, but one to which you're entitled). Asking about the DM's role, and contemplating motives for posting a thread, are not synonymous with defending the DM in question.

I put "all the time" and "every other roll" in quotes in my 3rd question because those were the specific choices you made in describing the amount of fudging going on, and I was curious as to how you gleaned that information. "All the time," "every other roll," and "multiple times per session" with the rider of "I don't know how often he does it" each give very different pictures as to the frequency of fudging, and as to the message you're interested in conveying by your particular word choices. If it is your true, honest belief that "every other roll" and "multiple times per session" indicate the same level of frequency, then suffice it to say your understanding of the terms you've chosen does not mesh with mine.

I also noted that your stated motives for creating this thread, and your statements about what you didn't want the thread to be, did not mesh with how I was reading your input in the thread, itself.

[Talakeal]

I mounted no defense of the DM in question. I asked about whether the DM's role is different than that of another Player's role at the table (you appear to think it is not, which is - in my experience - a minority opinion, but one to which you're entitled). Asking about the DM's role, and contemplating motives for posting a thread, are not synonymous with defending the DM in question.

I put "all the time" and "every other roll" in quotes in my 3rd question because those were the specific choices you made in describing the amount of fudging going on, and I was curious as to how you gleaned that information. "All the time," "every other roll," and "multiple times per session" with the rider of "I don't know how often he does it" each give very different pictures as to the frequency of fudging, and as to the message you're interested in conveying by your particular word choices. If it is your true, honest belief that "every other roll" and "multiple times per session" indicate the same level of frequency, then suffice it to say your understanding of the terms you've chosen does not mesh with mine.

I also noted that your stated motives for creating this thread, and your statements about what you didn't want the thread to be, did not mesh with how I was reading your input in the thread, itself.

To clarify: He said he does it multiple times per session. I said "all the team," which to me is a common figure of speech meaning "happens with regularity,". He rolls behind the screen and does not state the difficulty before rolling, so I have no insight on the matter beyond taking his word for it.

[Milo v3]

How so?
Well GM's still have guidelines to follow when they are running a game, that change based on what game you are playing. As stated above, when the game uses dice the assumption is that the gamemaster will acknowledge that dice have been used rather than ignore them. In 3.5e, it's assumed that GM's will generally follow the rules except when an explicit house-rule is made. In a rules-light game, the GM is expected to be allowed to do anything other than being a jerk to his fellow players.

By playing a game, you are putting in the implication that the group will be playing x game. When the GM is breaking enough guidelines that people assume, it stops being x. Now, the line between when have they broken enough is going to be subjective but still, if you open a book that is meant to be mundane slice of life and it's instead like lord of the rings, you can easily say it's not really a mundane slice of life book. If someone is using rule-zero to an extreme degree, it can easily no longer be the game that was put forward to the group.

[Kalmageddon]

The trouble with this sort of question is that it's VERY context dependent. In my opinion, GM "cheating" and on-the-fly rules adjustment is acceptable, so long as the players still have the ability to succeed or fail on their own merits- and use their abilities to solve problems.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject, but of course people still debate the matter in absolute terms.

[goto124]

Talakeal IRL appears to be surrounded by obnoxious, rude, egoistic people who think they're unfailable.

Especially the GM. Which is why Talakeal makes every effort to be open to his players. Am I right to say that you roll dice in the open and don't fudge dice? Or that you let your players know when you fudge?

Would something like a Fate point system help? Instead of fudging, use a Fate point?

Talakeal, have you looked at the section of these forums dedicated to playing PbP games? Even if PbP games tend to die off at some point, "no game" is better than "a bad game".

[Talakeal]

Changing the rules and changing dice outcomes are not different. You could easily have a player who simply takes 15 on all attacks, for instance, and call that an ability. As long as everyone knows what is going on there is nothing wrong with changing the rules or messing with the dice.

I think we are talking past one another here. When I say "cheating" I am talking about lying to the other players about what you rolled, not about being open about it and asking for some special accommodations.


If a player cannot enjoy themselves without controlling someone else then they can find a new group.

Ironically I think this is the DM in question's problem to a T.

[themaque]

Wow, I've had some really big arguments with friends over just this very concept. I have two friends who both play D&D on polar opposits of the spectrum. As with most arguments, it's all about communication.

F plays Pathfinder. He likes how there is a set rules system for everything and everyone. The GM and the Player all are using the same rules. The same laws affect everyone like the laws of physics affect us in the real world. He knows what to expect when he does X and he has a rough idea what's going to happen when an enemy does X. There is an element of luck with die rolls but the world makes sense.

A plays with his heart. The rules are only there as a suggestion and the GM is the real decider as to what is going to happen in the world. The players have a mostly set of rules but NPC's and monsters are in no way beholden to those. NPC's and Monsters are beholden to the story first and foremost. Things change and flow with the narrative. It's the GM's world to tell an engaging story.


If F was playing in A's world he would say A was cheating.

If A was playing in F's world he would find it harsh and restrictive.

Neither players/GM style is wrong provided everything was clearly laid out in the beginning. I can understand why the GM rolls dice, then ignores them, but if he isn't open about the fact he fudges rolls for the story, then that is cheating and dishonest.


1:) Is there anything the DM can do at the table constitutes cheating?

Yes. IMO.

If a GM contradicts himself knowingly or to the detriment of his players. Let's say the players come up with a clever plan to trap the villain. The GM didn't see this coming at ALL and neither did his BBEG, and he has future plans for the BBEG. IS it cheating for the GM to have him suddenly escape? He makes every roll or suddenly a rare magic item appears that allows him to escape.

I believe so because it removes player agency. Players should be rewarded for being clever and allowed to win, even if it makes the GM change his plans. Otherwise the players are just the audience to the GM's story, and occasionally allowed to put in a few lines of dialog but not able to really change events.


2:) Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D?

Yes, But that is fine so long as you are honest and up front about it.

If I was offered to play Pathfinder but when I showed up they said "Oh but we have no magic, no classes, we are using a card based system instead of dice" I would be upset. Not because they are playing something different but because that's not what I was sold on.

Communication is Key.

One last point. One of the reasons F hates the free form gaming is TRUST. He moves around a lot being in the military and he has trouble developing a trusting relationship with GM's he hasn't met.

It requires a decent amount of trust to put the entire game in the GM's hands, and a firmer rules system kind of... levels the playing field.

That is what A hates about it. He feels a level playing field limits his storytelling and players like F just want to be Mini-GM's in their own right.

I think Talakeal's GM has obvious trust issues with his players. (Anyone bringing home a Character sheet is a cheater? I would find that insulting) Yet, he demands absolute trust for running the game himself.

Perhaps it's also a power issue? I don't know the man.

LD:DR
It's fine provided everyone knows what he is doing and are enjoying themselves.
If he SAYS he is using X rules then ignoring them or putting greater hardships at random on the players than that is cheating.

[Alex12]

I am, in general, against most forms of cheating. As far as I'm concerned, the primary reason for Rule 0 is for situations the rules don't cover. When I GM, I typically roll the dice openly (there are some rolls I don't, mostly those where the players won't necessarily see the results immediately, but attack and damage rolls in combat are always in the open).
If I'm running an AP or something, and a player asks me a question I don't know the answer to but their character should know (example: what are the primary exports of this city? Knowledge(local) *roll* total is 32), I will either look it up, or else tell them I don't know, but to write it down on their sheet and if it comes up, they know it.
That said, there are situations where something like cheating is acceptable. In the event that the players encounter a prepared enemy who, I feel, is meaningfully smarter than I am, I allow a certain level of leeway in terms of build, items, and the like, in order to more accurately represent, for example, the paranoid defenses of a high-level wizard with literally superhuman intelligence. Similarly, I have in the past allowed players to make minor retroactive changes (mainly to equipment) based on something their characters should have known/realized, but the players didn't know or forgot.

[Mr Beer]

It's not cheating because the DM can basically do what he wants but it sounds like a case of bad DM-ing.

When the game stops being D&D is a 'how many sticks make a pile?'-type question. One stick isn't a pile, nor is two, 20 sticks are clearly a pile, in between you can argue about it and it doesn't really matter.

To answer the meta-question, Talakeal this can be resolved if you stop playing RPGs with jerks.

[Douche]

*Basically he determines the difficulty of tasks or applies modifiers retroactively after the dice is rolled, and considers the printed rules and dice rolls to be merely suggestions. He determines success or failure based on where he wants the narrative to go and what he thinks will be most fun for everyone involved. He claims that nothing a DM does can be dishonest or cheating and that lying, fudging dice roles, or changing rules on the spot are all allowed and encouraged by the rules and that all good DMs make use of them liberally.

(Posting in the general forum as this applies to a broad spectrum of RPGs rather than just D&D)

This sounds like that scene in "Big Daddy" where the kid invents a card game called 'I Win' and he just automatically wins no matter what his hand is, even when Jon Stewart had the same winning hand the kid had earlier. That's not a game, that's just being someones whipping boy for his own amusement.

Sounds like an immature DM. If he wants his game to just be a power trip where he arbitrarily decides - after the fact - whether someone succeeds or not, then forget about it. He's probably got deeper issues than just lying about what his dice rolled.

[Airk]

It seems your ex-DM would be better off running rule-light narrative based games, not D&D.


Actually, most more narrative games have less patience for this nonsense than D&D does, because they don't have a "rule zero" tradition to be beholden to, and generally invest less authority in the GM. Also, most of them have few enough rules with broad enough scope that they don't need a rule zero to cover "cases outside the rules" or weird fringe case interactions. So they'd probably be awful this guy, and probably lead to ACTUAL cheating. (As in, breaking the rules when the GM is specifically told to follow them as written.)


As for the OP, RPGs have rules so they don't turn into Mother May I.

Which is exactly what happens when the GM starts adjusting things to his whim.


In every DM's career, he will encounter a particular problem, usually every session. That is, the players will throw something unexpected at him. How a DM deals with this is probably one of the best marks of his skill. The best DMs will roll with it and come up with something on the fly. However, it's unreasonable to expect a DM to have this kind of ability. The worst DMs will dictate the players' actions to the players. Most DMs will just do their best to keep things flowing smoothly, and that may entail what you call "cheating".


I can't help but disagree. If you can't manage to keep the story moving without changing the rules on the fly, you are a bad DM and should hand the hat over to someone else. And your stories are probably bad anyway, because if you've designed something that can be stymied by the rules, it's gotta be a mess.


The trouble with this sort of question is that it's VERY context dependent. In my opinion, GM "cheating" and on-the-fly rules adjustment is acceptable, so long as the players still have the ability to succeed or fail on their own merits- and use their abilities to solve problems.

Which is exactly what you deny them the instant you start fudging dice or anything like that. "You guys didn't win that fight because of your teamwork, you only won because I decided that that last hit wasn't a crit".

Basically, my opinion is:

If the GM has to change something, he should ask himself "Would the players agree to this if I told them outright?" If the answer is "No" then he probably shouldn't do it, and if the answer is "Yes" then why shouldn't you just tell them outright?

Edit: Oh, and for an "official" take, this fellow did a bit of a study of different D&D editions and how they approached this. http://geek-related.com/2013/10/12/rule-zero-over-the-years/

[Knaight]

It seems your ex-DM would be better off running rule-light narrative based games, not D&D.

Heck no. Part of the point of D&D having so many rules is to provide an understandable framework and prevent blatant railroading from bad DMs. Rules light games tend to work assuming that the GM is reasonably competent and can make fair judgement calls. This guy needs to be kept well away from that.

[Talakeal]

If the GM has to change something, he should ask himself "Would the players agree to this if I told them outright?" If the answer is "No" then he probably shouldn't do it, and if the answer is "Yes" then why shouldn't you just tell them outright?

Its funny, this is almost exactly what I said in the first place that prompted my DM to go on his rant about fudging dice.

[Hawkstar]

A good DM can bend and ignore rules, make up and change DCs on the fly, fudge rolls, etc.

The problem is that Talak's DM has the logic backward, and thinks that because he does all that, he's a Good DM. It's the artistic equivalent of splashing paint on a canvas and calling yourself Jackson Pollock.

He might be right about your other DM doing all this, though, which only reinforces the point.

[Cikomyr]

Can a GM cheat?

Yes. But not by not following the "rules". You dont cheat the rules, you merely not follow them.

You are cheating someone. Your players. Denying your players a victory because of smart thinking or good luck with the dice is cheating them of the feeling of accomplishment they deserve.

Personally, i do not play a role playing game for the purpose of a tactical simulator. If i want hard-ruled combat tactic simulator, id play a video game.

That should not mean the rules arent important. Or the die roll is meaningless. These are merely the patterns upon which you weave your game. It gives a sense of direction, expectation and purpose to your players.

This is why i usually try to move away from a pure success/failure binary outcome. Say with the example previously mentionned in this thread. The PC rolls a 27 on his knowledge, thats impressive. That should be a moment of rejoicing at the table, with players celebrating the lucky roll (or grumbling they " wasted" a good roll on such a silly knowledge test).

It does not matter what i believe the DC should have been. What matters is meeting my players' expectations, prevent the game from grinding to a halt (for plot-critical info).

Probably why i prefer less.. Additive game system than D20. It allows for players to occasionally roll very low, even if they are good at what they do. There are hardly 5s rolled in d20 when you get sufficiently high level.

Now, its important the players dont realize you are.. Playing them. A good GM is akin to a magician; use and abuse the Schrodinger's plot points, and yet insist that "man, i am SO glad you succeeded X, my campaign depended on it!", and for the few times you are 100% stuck, be honest about it do your players believe its possible to surprise you (it just does not happen often).

It is a.hard mental job. Its about playing your players, making sure they have fun. And i find this way easier to do than running a Battle Simulator to perfect precision.

(Also, do not believe my players.never die in my game. I just make sure its not a stupid anticlimax that leaves bitter taste.)

Bad dice rolls are as important to the experience of RPG as awesome ones, and they should count as well. No game is complete without a player lamenting on his poor luck. Thats all part of the fun, in my opinion.

[Talakeal]

@Airk Great article.

Its funny, the editions really go back and forth. I find myself somewhere between 1 e AD&D and BECMI and disagree most strongly with PF, so that puts a bit of the "old school vs. new school" argument into a new light.

Its also funny, a few of them actually do use the term "cheating" in regards to the DM, even if they dont neccessarily say its a bad thing.

[Airk]

@Airk Great article.

Its funny, the editions really go back and forth. I find myself somewhere between 1 e AD&D and BECMI and disagree most strongly with PF, so that puts a bit of the "old school vs. new school" argument into a new light.

Its also funny, a few of them actually do use the term "cheating" in regards to the DM, even if they dont neccessarily say its a bad thing.

Because without an explicitly stated "Rule 0" (and no, "implied rule zero" doesn't count) it -is- cheating. If the rules don't say "These rules don't apply to this one person" and that one person assumes that for some reason the rules don't apply to them, that's cheating.

And no, not all RPGs even have an implied Rule 0, and playing them as if they do causes problems.

[Drynwyn]

Which is exactly what you deny them the instant you start fudging dice or anything like that. "You guys didn't win that fight because of your teamwork, you only won because I decided that that last hit wasn't a crit".


I strongly disagree. First of all, saying the PC's "only" won because a single hit wasn't a crit is usually false- the party likely did a lot of careful planning and strategizing just to get to that point, which a number of other bad dice rolls were likely required to lead up to. The party might have lost the fight had the monster's attack not been a miss in the final round of combat, but that doesn't mean that miss or series of misses was the ONLY REASON THEY WON. Saying that it is like saying is that the only reason forum posts happen is because people type into keyboards. People typing into keyboards is the necessary final step, but it is not the only part of the process.

Now, if your players makes stupid decisions and you fudge the dice to keep them alive, you would be correct. At that point, you are denying them of the chance to solve problems. Similarly, if you always fudge the dice so your PC's succeed when they have a plan, you're denying yourself and your players interesting twists and new, unexpected problems to solve.

However, if my players have a good plan, think well on their feet, and do everything that can be expected of them to prepare for possible complications? You bet your ass I'm not going to kill them all just because a lump of plastic landed on a 20 four or five times in a row.

[Airk]

However, if my players have a good plan, think well on their feet, and do everything that can be expected of them to prepare for possible complications? You bet your ass I'm not going to kill them all just because a lump of plastic landed on a 20 four or five times in a row.

This is a whole different problem. If this is how you game, why are you rolling dice at all? It sounds like you don't actually have any interest in randomness being a part of your game, because if your PCs do all the planning right, you make sure they are GUARANTEED to win. So why have dice? Habit? You clearly don't actually WANT the randomness they introduce because you disregard it doesn't agree with your predefined notion of how things should go.

Basically, if you're not going to pay attention to the dice, why bother having them? If you don't want failure to be an option for your group is they "do everything right" then why are you using a game that forces you to break the rules in order to ensure that style of play? If you are using dice, the implication is that the dice MEAN something, and that yes, even if the party does everything right, they could still have some unaccounted for failure and lose. Otherwise, there is no reason for you to roll at all.

Why would you do this? Is it because you want the game to be "heroic" so the PCs are "Expected" to win? There are systems that support that without you needing to ignore the rules. Is it because you really believe that it's possible to make a plan so perfect that it should guarantee success? Do you believe that you have modeled the world down to the least detail so that there is absolutely nothing that could possibly happen to derail that plan?

Why do you have dice? Heck, playing like that, I'm not even sure you need rules.

[Keltest]

This is a whole different problem. If this is how you game, why are you rolling dice at all? It sounds like you don't actually have any interest in randomness being a part of your game, because if your PCs do all the planning right, you make sure they are GUARANTEED to win. So why have dice? Habit? You clearly don't actually WANT the randomness they introduce because you disregard it doesn't agree with your predefined notion of how things should go.

Basically, if you're not going to pay attention to the dice, why bother having them? If you don't want failure to be an option for your group is they "do everything right" then why are you using a game that forces you to break the rules in order to ensure that style of play? If you are using dice, the implication is that the dice MEAN something, and that yes, even if the party does everything right, they could still have some unaccounted for failure and lose. Otherwise, there is no reason for you to roll at all.

Why would you do this? Is it because you want the game to be "heroic" so the PCs are "Expected" to win? There are systems that support that without you needing to ignore the rules. Is it because you really believe that it's possible to make a plan so perfect that it should guarantee success? Do you believe that you have modeled the world down to the least detail so that there is absolutely nothing that could possibly happen to derail that plan?

Why do you have dice? Heck, playing like that, I'm not even sure you need rules.

There is a rather substantial difference between totally ignoring the rolls of the dice and preventing the party's work being for nothing because of some bad luck they couldn't have possibly accounted for. He isn't guaranteeing they will win, he is guaranteeing they wont lose because they forgot to sacrifice a goat to the dice gods that morning when they go out of bed.

[Airk]

There is a rather substantial difference between totally ignoring the rolls of the dice and preventing the party's work being for nothing because of some bad luck they couldn't have possibly accounted for. He isn't guaranteeing they will win, he is guaranteeing they wont lose because they forgot to sacrifice a goat to the dice gods that morning when they go out of bed.

I disagree that this is a meaningful difference. Because if he is ensuring that they win if they "do everything that can be expected" then that is all they have to do. He is guaranteeing their win as long as they satisfy his arbitrary requirements for "what they need to do" in order to win.

[Keltest]

I disagree that this is a meaningful difference. Because if he is ensuring that they win if they "do everything that can be expected" then that is all they have to do. He is guaranteeing their win as long as they satisfy his arbitrary requirements for "what they need to do" in order to win.

No, he is not guaranteeing their win. He never said or even implied that. What he is doing is preventing them from getting killed by something stupid that they could never have expected or prepared for.

[Avalander]

However, if my players have a good plan, think well on their feet, and do everything that can be expected of them to prepare for possible complications? You bet your ass I'm not going to kill them all just because a lump of plastic landed on a 20 four or five times in a row.


I disagree that this is a meaningful difference. Because if he is ensuring that they win if they "do everything that can be expected" then that is all they have to do. He is guaranteeing their win as long as they satisfy his arbitrary requirements for "what they need to do" in order to win.

Man, if winning means not getting a TPK you like playing really hardcore.

[Talakeal]

The odds of dice going so badly that there is nothing the PCs can do to plan for it is extremely unlikely and will probably never come up in the game.

It would be like planning a heist and failing because you forgot to put in contingencies for being struck by lightning or having multiple members of the team suffer simultaneous heart attacks during the job.

But yeah, sometimes wacky stuff happens, and sometimes people lose when they should have won. I personally think this makes for a more fun and more realistic game; even in fiction sometimes some times the good guys lose.

But it really depends on your players. My old gaming group had a well over 90% success ratio, but the 1/10 times when they did fail at their goal one of them always threw a fit about it (and it wasn't always the same person) while the other five were more or less ok with it. Still, even though that means that you have each player throwing a fit once every 40 sessions that means that someone threw a fit every 6 weeks, which was enough to produce the endless stream of gaming horror stories I am famous for.

Ironically, they always thought that I was out to get them and got mad at me for fudging / cheating / retconning too much because they were always looking to shift responsibility for the loss onto the other players.

[Drynwyn]

I won't bother quoting here because most of the salient points have been made, but:

I usually won't fudge the dice so the party succeed, I'll do it so they don't all die. Chances are that if I'm fudging the dice, they've already failed in their objective, and are now just trying to survive the Charlie Foxtrot.

I WILL keep random bad rolls that are NOT immediately lethal to the party but instead force them to think on their feet and present new options. (A guard saw them sneaking in, should they try and kill him fast and hide the body, Dominate/Charm him, or offer a bribe?)

I WILL keep random bad rolls that result in the death of a single character. (Usually.)

Mind you- much of this goes out the window if I'm playing a game like 7th Sea, CORTEX, or D&D with Action Points, where players have a meta-currency that represents their centrality to the plot and the degree of general good fortune that this endows. In that sort of situation, it becomes a player responsibility to manage the normally DM-side task of adjusting fate to suit the plot. I'm a fan of such things.

It's also dependent on what kind of game I'm running. If I'm running heroic fantasty, I'm much more likely to fudge the dice then if I'm running gritty low fantasy, for example.

In general though, claiming that "if you ever fudge dice to prevent TPK you may as well not use them" is not something that is a reasonable claim.

[Darth Ultron]

Why do you have dice? Heck, playing like that, I'm not even sure you need rules.

Very few games will ever just ''let the dice roll as they may''. Very few games are lethal games, and even fewer are random meaningless lethal games. For example, few games would allow a PC to die in the first ten minutes of game play from a lucky goblin arrow. Very, very, very few DM's would say to a player ''Oh that character you carefully worked on and built for weeks is now dead and gone forever.''


Heck no. Part of the point of D&D having so many rules is to provide an understandable framework and prevent blatant railroading from bad DMs. Rules light games tend to work assuming that the GM is reasonably competent and can make fair judgement calls. This guy needs to be kept well away from that.

Though with D&D you only get tons of rules for combat, and just about none for nothing else. So if you play D&D as pure Hack and Slash with only a vague roll for anything else, D&D works great.



If the GM has to change something, he should ask himself "Would the players agree to this if I told them outright?" If the answer is "No" then he probably shouldn't do it, and if the answer is "Yes" then why shouldn't you just tell them outright?

For the same reason the players go on the adventure blindly. It is no fun to play an RPG type game if you know all the details. A player knows the DM is creating and controlling the game, but tries to not to think about it too much. In fact, most players then to think ''the game'' has some type of ''life'' of it's own and the DM is not really doing anything. Though, of course, the DM is doing everything in the game. Every single thing that happens to a character is because a DM says it happens. A player can only say ''my character opens the door'', but the DM is the one that decides what happens next.




If a GM contradicts himself knowingly or to the detriment of his players. Let's say the players come up with a clever plan to trap the villain. The GM didn't see this coming at ALL and neither did his BBEG, and he has future plans for the BBEG. IS it cheating for the GM to have him suddenly escape? He makes every roll or suddenly a rare magic item appears that allows him to escape.

Ok, so now say the DM creates the BBEG an escape route two weeks before the game. So even though the DM did not see the clever plan of the players, the BBEG already has a foolproof escape. So if the players are having fun and are engaged in the game and having a great time....is it wrong for the DM to have the BBEG ''forget'' to escape? Would you say that unless the players directly foil the per-planned escape, that the BBEG will always get away? Is it wrong for the DM to toss out the escape route and let the players trap the BBEG just to make the players happy, have a sense of accomplishment and have fun?

[themaque]

Ok, so now say the DM creates the BBEG an escape route two weeks before the game. So even though the DM did not see the clever plan of the players, the BBEG already has a foolproof escape. So if the players are having fun and are engaged in the game and having a great time....is it wrong for the DM to have the BBEG ''forget'' to escape? Would you say that unless the players directly foil the per-planned escape, that the BBEG will always get away? Is it wrong for the DM to toss out the escape route and let the players trap the BBEG just to make the players happy, have a sense of accomplishment and have fun?

I don't think it would be wrong for the BBEG to escape in the scenario you have provided. But neither do I think it would be wrong to have the hero's win in this scenario as well.

My listed example was something where the GM "cheated" in order to make his own life easier. As in my first line you quoted, he contradicted himself against the players for the sole purpose of artificially creating greater tension. In your example he had something prepared already and had things well in hand.

Now in my example, a really good GM might be able to explain or make it believable that the players missed something, but it was still "cheating". The end effect of how the player and the game moves on determines if it was worth it.

In your second example, it's actually "cheating" as well just in the players favor. Which I'm not nearly as against for reasons you specified.

Both are "cheating" but one can foster good will and the other just makes people annoyed.

Random Thinking/Typing: I am biased due to a number of poor GM's who would pull stuff like that. Love to pull random "Ah HA! He succeeds because of THIS!" and the way they reacted in game makes it clear they is making this stuff up as they went compared to the rest of the adventure.

I've had GM's who pulled the same thing, but their play style allowed for me to believe it was planed out from the start.

So yes a GM can "cheat" IMO, but it's a tool that can be used for good or ill.

[hifidelity2]

For D&D I rarely fudge die (esp once the PC’s get to a reasonable level as there are less one shot kills) but I still will

1st Adventure, new campaign
e.g. Party of 5 1st Level PCs – made up of say (2 x FTRs, 1 Rogue, 1 x MU, 1 x Cleric – so a standard Party)
They are surprised by 5 x Kobolds.
FTRs (& Maybe Cleric) charge
Kobolds will fire 1 round of arrows at charging PCs
I roll openly who gets arrows shot at them (so no one feels picked on) and 1 Ftr gets 3 arrows shot at him.
I roll my To Hit and Damage behind my screen
No Fudge – I roll 2 crits and 1 hit against the same fighter – he dies – what’s the fun in that
Fudge – I still roll 2 Crits and 1 hit but change (Fudge) it down to 1 Crit and 2 hits with minimal damage – fighter is seriously wounded but still on his feet

The party now has options, the tension is ramped up (will they / wont they survive) and everyone has fun

However I will not fudge for stupidity – e.g Party advised an Army of Kobolds is coming and decide they can take it on single handed

We do play D&D (Mainly 2nd Ed with a good number of house rules) but mainly more lethal systems (GURPS, RQ , SPM, RM, etc) where you can kill even experienced PCs with a good hit so fudging is required. For me at the end of climatic fight the PC’s should be staggering out, maybe with the odd unconscious PC being dragged and the BBEG defeated

[Satinavian]

1:) Is there anything the DM can do at the table constitutes cheating?Yes.

As soon as he does anything against whatever rules the table has about the role and power of the DM, he is cheating.


It only becomes unclear, if the table never actually discussed the role of the DM and different people have different assumptions



and 2:) Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D? Certainly.

As soon as the number of houserules makes the game as different from D&D as typical RPGs are from each other, it is no longer D&D.



One of the table rules in all of my different groups over very different systems is "Rules are group decisions. The GM can't change them unilateraly. Everyone can suggest something but the decision has to be democratic. A GM can make rulings if no rules are at hand (or no one can be bothered to look them up), but has to do it openly and if it is either important (at least one player thinks it is) or probably recurring, it will be a houserule decision of the whole group"


That works extremely well. Yes, it is not how D&D does things traditionally.

[LudicSavant]

His position was nothing the DM does can ever be considered lying, cheating, or deviating from the rules as the DMG gives the DM permission to do whatever they want or change the rules as he sees fit. Cheating? Maybe (though I tend to subscribe to what Satinavian just said: DM needs to follow the social agreement as to the role and power of the DM). Lying? Hell no, if you tell a lie it's a lie. Rule zero doesn't say anything about that. That's not the kind of thing that's defined by game rules.


Would it, for example, be disingenuous if I invited my friends over to play D&D and told them we are playing D&D but using the GURPS rules rather than the D&D ones? Yes. I think it should be pretty obvious that that's misleading.


Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D?

Roughly the point where, if you invite a person over to your house to play D&D, and when you show them what you're going to play, they seem surprised and say something to the effect of "Hey, I thought we were going to play D&D."

[Lord Torath]

Cheating? Maybe (though I tend to subscribe to what Satinavian just said: DM needs to follow the social agreement as to the role and power of the DM). Lying? Hell no, if you tell a lie it's a lie. Rule zero doesn't say anything about that. That's not the kind of thing that's defined by game rules."I agree with this. The DM should never lie to his (or her) players. He can certainly have NPCs lie to them, but whenever he's speaking as DM, he should tell the truth. He's the only way the PCs experience the world, and if the players can't trust him, they can't trust anything.

Whenever I hear about DMs spontaneously changing rules, I'm reminded of Trekkin's DM (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275152).

[Talakeal]

I agree with this. The DM should never lie to his (or her) players. He can certainly have NPCs lie to them, but whenever he's speaking as DM, he should tell the truth. He's the only way the PCs experience the world, and if the players can't trust him, they can't trust anything.

Whenever I hear about DMs spontaneously changing rules, I'm reminded of Trekkin's DM (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275152).

Basically the guy I was talking to was unable to grasp the distinction between ooc and ic lying or between fiction and dishonesty. He said that RPing is all about pretending things you make up are real, and therefore it is all lying or none of it is. Now, whether he legitametly believes this or was just playing obtuse to win an argument I cant be sure.

[Darth Ultron]

My listed example was something where the GM "cheated" in order to make his own life easier. As in my first line you quoted, he contradicted himself against the players for the sole purpose of artificially creating greater tension. In your example he had something prepared already and had things well in hand.

Though that does take you to the awkward place of it is OK if you like and agree with the DM, but it is not OK if you disagree.

[LudicSavant]

Now, whether he legitametly believes this or was just playing obtuse to win an argument I cant be sure.

Both possibilities are awful.

[Amphetryon]

The odds of dice going so badly that there is nothing the PCs can do to plan for it is extremely unlikely and will probably never come up in the game.


Having seen it come up more often than I care to count - from both sides of the screen - I'm really curious as to how you came to this conclusion.

[Talakeal]

Having seen it come up more often than I care to count - from both sides of the screen - I'm really curious as to how you came to this conclusion.

In short, my point was that unlucky rolls can easily turn poor or even average tactics into a loss, or turn exceptionally tactics into a protracted slog with lots of wasted resources and maybe even a few casualties, but I have never seen dice so cold that they turned an exceptional plan into an out and out loss.

The initial point I was responding to was:


However, if my players have a good plan, think well on their feet, and do everything that can be expected of them to prepare for possible complications? You bet your ass I'm not going to kill them all just because a lump of plastic landed on a 20 four or five times in a row.

Now, I the big question here is what is "expected" and how broadly he meant "everything". If "everything that can be expected" just means not acting like dumbasses and running in guns (or swords) blazing, then yeah I can see that.

But I read that more along the lines dice so bad that there is nothing they could have done to change the outcome.

Imagine, for example, the PCs research their enemy, make sure they attack in favorable conditions / terrain, get the element of surprise, use attacks that target their enemies weaknesses, use defenses that negate their enemies attacks, bring along plenty of consumables and contingency plans if things go to poop, use excellent battlefield tactics, and maybe even bring in some extra muscle in the form of mercenaries or allies.

In this situation they have gone above and beyond standard play, and I cannot realistically fathom dice going so cold that it could turn this into a failure; a close fight maybe, but not a failure. Unless of course they were fighting something so far out of their league that typical tactics would have resulted in an utter massacre.

Obviously, it also depends on which rules system you are using and how much latitude the campaign structure gives for the PCs to plan and prepare.

[Cluedrew]

Basically the guy I was talking to was unable to grasp the distinction between ooc and ic lying or between fiction and dishonesty. He said that RPing is all about pretending things you make up are real, and therefore it is all lying or none of it is. Now, whether he legitametly believes this or was just playing obtuse to win an argument I cant be sure.I've actually hear that outlook before from people who... are slightly more creditable. I took a creative writing course once and we were given an essay called "The Not-So-Deadly Sin" that basically made that argument. It was framed differently in the essay than here.

I will agree with Lord Torath however that this person strikes me as someone who would quickly form a long-held option to support an argument. Still having only second hand evidence that doesn't say to much, but it brings me to my next point.

The Game Master can cheat if the don't play by the rules the group lays out, almost independently of the rules the system lays out. On occasion I hear stories of long time GM's pulling things off that would be probably not cool for a GM of a new group to try. But if the group hands control to the GM and says "take us on a journey" then the GM can do whatever, but before that point there are rules that have to be followed.

[Darth Ultron]

The Game Master can cheat if the don't play by the rules the group lays out, almost independently of the rules the system lays out. On occasion I hear stories of long time GM's pulling things off that would be probably not cool for a GM of a new group to try. But if the group hands control to the GM and says "take us on a journey" then the GM can do whatever, but before that point there are rules that have to be followed.

I wonder what ''rules'' people are talking about? Most RPG's don't have ''rules'' for what a DM can do? A player in an RPG can only control their character, in some very limited ways, an only with the DM's consent and approval. For example, a player can't say ''my character walks into the room, draws a sword +5 from nowhere and attacks''. A player can not just alter the game reality at will.

A DM can do anything at any time. The DM is not limited by what they can do. A DM can have an NPC draw a magic sword out of nowhere. The DM can have the whole NPC appear from nowhere.

So what ''rules'' are being talked about when a DM can do anything?

[Talakeal]

I wonder what ''rules'' people are talking about? Most RPG's don't have ''rules'' for what a DM can do? A player in an RPG can only control their character, in some very limited ways, an only with the DM's consent and approval. For example, a player can't say ''my character walks into the room, draws a sword +5 from nowhere and attacks''. A player can not just alter the game reality at will.

A DM can do anything at any time. The DM is not limited by what they can do. A DM can have an NPC draw a magic sword out of nowhere. The DM can have the whole NPC appear from nowhere.

So what ''rules'' are being talked about when a DM can do anything?

Thats all well and good in thoery, although few RPG books are that blunt about it.

In reality the DM who does that will not be a DM much longer. Anyone can make a statement about altering the game world if the rest of the table will go along with it.

I have had groups walk out because of an NPCs equipment setup before, and I have players hold the game hostage until I gave them more loot, my status as DM meant nothing as the players could revoke it at any time.

[Darth Ultron]

In reality the DM who does that will not be a DM much longer. Anyone can make a statement about altering the game world if the rest of the table will go along with it.

Except the reality is this is how most RPG's work and are played. The DM can do anything.

Though it is interesting that many people only see the negative side. When they hear ''the DM can do anything'', they immediately go to a bad or jerk DM doing something like ''rocks fall and your character dies''. But it also includes all of the things a DM has to make up on the spot during normal game play. No DM can cover every square inch of a game world, so when the players turn left the DM has to ''just make stuff up on the fly''. All the time.




I have had groups walk out because of an NPCs equipment setup before, and I have players hold the game hostage until I gave them more loot, my status as DM meant nothing as the players could revoke it at any time.

There are just as many bad players and jerk players as there are DMs, or people in general.

[Thrudd]

I wonder what ''rules'' people are talking about? Most RPG's don't have ''rules'' for what a DM can do? A player in an RPG can only control their character, in some very limited ways, an only with the DM's consent and approval. For example, a player can't say ''my character walks into the room, draws a sword +5 from nowhere and attacks''. A player can not just alter the game reality at will.

A DM can do anything at any time. The DM is not limited by what they can do. A DM can have an NPC draw a magic sword out of nowhere. The DM can have the whole NPC appear from nowhere.

So what ''rules'' are being talked about when a DM can do anything?

The rules of the game being played. The DM can't do "anything". The DM has a responsibility to establish a setting which is coherent and adjudicate the game fairly and predictably regarding the agency of the players and their interactions with that setting.
If the game rules say it takes a 15 to hit AC 5, the DM can't decide in the middle of the game that an enemy hits you even though he rolled a 12. That is cheating. The DM can decide an NPC has a +3 weapon, and if the players defeat the NPC that means they will have the +3 weapon. A consistent environment which reacts in a sensible way the players can predict and plan for. To decide at the last minute that a monster should appear, or before a fight decide an NPC should have a magic item is not necessarily cheating. Deciding after the monster appears and the fight begins that its AC should be 20 instead of 18 or that it suddenly has 50 extra hp because players are winning too easily is cheating.

A DM who does "anything at any time" with no consideration for setting coherence, clear and understood game rules or player agency is a poor DM, and is likely to be cheating the game.

[Cluedrew]

To: Darth Ultron

Well, was my point in a way, I'm talking about the "rules" not the rules. The implicate rules that exist between people in a group and not those written down in a rule book. I will admit my view may be slanted a bit from my background of forum role-play (not play-by-post, systemless freeform collaborative writing style role-playing) where the only rule is "does it make sense given what we have said about the story so far". If you look closely you will notice that is a question not a rule. There were times when things that just did not make sense would happen, but we would go with it anyways because someone said it would come together later.

Actually this was more often on of the players than the Mod (GM equitant) because the Mod had the entire role-play set-up, setting information and any extras they wanted to lead up to there twists. The players had not nearly the same amount of content, especially if you wanted something to happen earlier in the story.

(Also in the post preview I see that I've been double sword-saged, but I don't think that changes anything I have to say.)

[Darth Ultron]

The rules of the game being played. The DM can't do "anything". The DM has a responsibility to establish a setting which is coherent and adjudicate the game fairly and predictably regarding the agency of the players and their interactions with that setting.

Note ''having a responsibility'' is not a rule.



If the game rules say it takes a 15 to hit AC 5, the DM can't decide in the middle of the game that an enemy hits you even though he rolled a 12. That is cheating.

Except, in the middle of the game, the DM can decide an enemy has a +5 to hit from any game effect they want. The DM can just spontaneously create an orc with an 18 strength, masterwork weapon and weapon focus for the +5 and then the rolled 12 hits.



The DM can decide an NPC has a +3 weapon, and if the players defeat the NPC that means they will have the +3 weapon.

This is not true. There are tons and tons of ways, within the rules, to prevent PC's from using a foes loot. There are also tons of ways to give foes temporary bonuses, an NPC spellcaster casting magic weapon for example.



A consistent environment which reacts in a sensible way the players can predict and plan for. To decide at the last minute that a monster should appear, or before a fight decide an NPC should have a magic item is not necessarily cheating. Deciding after the monster appears and the fight begins that its AC should be 20 instead of 18 or that it suddenly has 50 extra hp because players are winning too easily is cheating.

Though, this is just nit picking. If the DM makes the monster at 6PM with 100 hit points, you'd say it was ok. But if they do it at 6:30, your going to say it is wrong for random reasons.

And again, there are plenty of ways to do things within the rules too. A NPC can simply have a feat or ability or spell or magic item.



A DM who does "anything at any time" with no consideration for setting coherence, clear and understood game rules or player agency is a poor DM, and is likely to be cheating the game.

Well, ''coherence'' is a matter of point of view. If the players try to break into a vault and fail, the DM might say ''they double the guard'', but the players might not agree with that point of view.

And ''player agency'' is just a myth. The DM controls everything.

[Cluedrew]

Correction, the GM can control everything, but if the players don't let the GM than they can't. If they try to anyways then we get posts to the world GM thread (or worst player thread depending on who visits the site).

[Darth Ultron]

Correction, the GM can control everything, but if the players don't let the GM than they can't. If they try to anyways then we get posts to the world GM thread (or worst player thread depending on who visits the site).

Yes, you can go around in circles saying ''who has the power''. But you still can't get away from the basic fact: a player agrees to give up all control in the game to play a single character. This is done willingly. The player makes a character, and then just wants to play that character in a game.

And sure, the players can freak out at any time and end the game just as they don't like that the DM had a kobold wearing chain mail armor...or anything else.




Actually this was more often on of the players than the Mod (GM equitant) because the Mod had the entire role-play set-up, setting information and any extras they wanted to lead up to there twists. The players had not nearly the same amount of content, especially if you wanted something to happen earlier in the story.


This is the classic role play problem. The DM knows X and Y and Z. The players know nothing. So when the players find something that does not make any sense, form their view point of no information or context, they can get all offended and bent out of shape and get upset and go crazy.

[Cluedrew]

I agree on the "go in circles" bit and considering how it is an interpersonal power it probably changes from group to group. I speak from the experiences I got in my group.

I will disagree an the "basic fact" however, that is common but not always true. In the forum games we would often take control of NPCs and on occasion other PCs. What of GM-less games? Or games where the basic unit is not a single character but a family dynasty or something similar.

Your other points are also true but I don't think you quite understood what I meant. I'm not taking about players arguing with the GM, I'm taking about players adding to and modifying the game beyond what the "rules" say in ways that are usually handled by the GM.

Example: I participated in a game where the Mod set up a large amount of setting in formation in advance, it was partly barrowed from an existing universe but it explained all the pseudo tech in the world, some history and generally the 'rules' of the game. I submitted a character that broke quite a few of them (or maybe just one multiple times) and ran it. Sure the Mod could have asked me to use a different character (I would have, I respect the work they put into it) but they didn't. That wasn't something they controlled and if they had tried to take control of it the game would have probably been a little bit less than it was.

Unfortunately the game never got far enough so no one else, including the Mod, ever found out the justification for why my character could break the rules.

[Amphetryon]

In short, my point was that unlucky rolls can easily turn poor or even average tactics into a loss, or turn exceptionally tactics into a protracted slog with lots of wasted resources and maybe even a few casualties, but I have never seen dice so cold that they turned an exceptional plan into an out and out loss.

That may have been your point, but what you said was that a string of bad luck on one side of the DM screen or the other that results in a TPK, regardless of planning "will probably never come up in a game." Not that you hadn't seen it; not that it was a rarity; that it will probably never come up in a game. As a consequence, any of us who have seen otherwise become branded as exaggerators or liars by that metric, since we're claiming something which "will probably never come up in a game" has happened in our games, even more than once.

[Thrudd]

Note ''having a responsibility'' is not a rule.

And ''player agency'' is just a myth. The DM controls everything.

The responsibility isn't a mechanical rule, but it is an agreement necessary for the game to function and one that is usually expressed in some form in the rule book in the DM section on how to run games.

Player agency is not a myth. It is possible, and preferable, for the players' actions and decisions in the game to have consequence and dictate the direction and outcomes. Without this, there is hardly a game at all.

The DM creates the environment in which the game takes place and presents the scenarios that pose challenges to the players. The players must have agency to address those challenges and succeed or fail on their own merits within the rules of the game. Otherwise, what is the point of the whole activity?

It may be true that the DM has the ability to trick players into thinking they have agency, when in fact the DM is making all decisions and deciding all outcomes. My opinion is that this behavior is dishonest and contrary to the spirit of the game. The coherence may only be seen by the DM, and the players just need to trust that everything is on the up and up. The DM needs to be someone they can trust to be adhering to a sense of integrity and fairness and consistency. When there is no such trust, more arguments happen.

[Talakeal]

That may have been your point, but what you said was that a string of bad luck on one side of the DM screen or the other that results in a TPK, regardless of planning "will probably never come up in a game." Not that you hadn't seen it; not that it was a rarity; that it will probably never come up in a game. As a consequence, any of us who have seen otherwise become branded as exaggerators or liars by that metric, since we're claiming something which "will probably never come up in a game" has happened in our games, even more than once.

You seem to be going out of your way in this thread to twist my words into something you can take offense at. Why is that?

Saying something is so rare that it will probably never happen is not the same as calling other people liars. Most people will probably never be struck by lightning or win the lottery, but there are still plenty of people out there who are and I am not saying they are lying or exaggerating their claims, merely that I believe that their experiences are a statistical anomaly.

Now, as you quoted earlier, I said "The odds of dice going so badly that there is nothing the PCs can do to plan for it is extremely unlikely and will probably never come up in the game," and I stand by that. Obviously the game system and style you are using have some effect in this manner, but the odds of dice going so poorly that NOTHING the players did could have countered it is extremely unlikely.



And ''player agency'' is just a myth. The DM controls everything.

One could just as easily say "DM control is just a myth, the players can refuse his demands at any time," but at that point we are getting into philosophical discussions rather than gameplay discussions.

Anyone can attempt to do anything they like at the table as long as they keep it subtle enough that nobody calls BS on it. The DM can change the monsters HP mid session, and as long as they keep it quit they will probably get away with it, of course the players can do the same thing with their PC. If anyone else found out about it there would likely be a confrontation, but if you keep it secret...

Also, I don't think that improve is solely the domain of the DM. For example, if someone asked me IC where my father was born I would have to make up an answer on the spot as that is not something I have already established, but is still well within my rights to decide. This works as long as the rest of the table goes along with it, I probably couldn't add a +5 sword to my inventory on the fly unless I kept it secret, the rest of the group would object. Likewise the DM can give the monsters whatever equipment they like, but if every orc can pull +5 sword out of their bum when they need to the DM will probably have to keep it a secret or else find their players migrating to another table without them.

There was a very long thread about this on these boards some years ago:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?191678-There-is-no-quot-Rule-Zero-quot-!

And it basically went in circles with no real consensus. I probably should have realized this thread would go down the same path before starting it.


As a last aside, a lot of people (like my current DM) are huge control freaks and only play the game for the power rush of being able to tell everyone else what to do. These are the people who really cling to "rule zero," and are, imo, the absolute worst sort of DM. Its a bit like the Douglas Adams quote about how anyone being capable of being elected to high office is amongst the least suitable to actually perform the job.

[goto124]

Player agency is not a myth. It is possible, and preferable, for the players' actions and decisions in the game to have consequence and dictate the direction and outcomes. Without this, there is hardly a game at all.

[snip] It may be true that the DM has the ability to trick players into thinking they have agency, when in fact the DM is making all decisions and deciding all outcomes. My opinion is that this behavior is dishonest and contrary to the spirit of the game. The coherence may only be seen by the DM, and the players just need to trust that everything is on the up and up. The DM needs to be someone they can trust to be adhering to a sense of integrity and fairness and consistency. When there is no such trust, more arguments happen.

I would argue that player agency is the point of playing a tabletop roleplaying game. If someone wanted a linear story, there's always novels and video games.

[DuxAstrorum]

As a GM, I will admit I have bent the rules a few times to allow for some mechanics to work a bit better, or to make the social side of things a bit easier on a party without a social character. However, I only do a bend here and there to help things go a little more smoothly, never to completely change the game or to punish players.

As a player I understand that some house rulings can be necessary across all game systems, but there is always a line that needs to be respected. In my group most modifications to the rules are discussed and agreed upon by the WHOLE group. We do agree that the GM should have complete control of the setting and of the NPCs around us, but there should always be some true reasoning to each effect on the party.

[Sir Chuckles]

Really, are we absolutely certain that Darth Ultron is not Orcus in disguise?

A DM's power in dependant on the player's agreement to play. A DM with no players...something something lewd joke about palms.

Anyway, on topic, I believe that a DM can cheat, but "cheating" and "fudging" have different connotations. I have absolutely seen brilliant plans completely and utterly ruined by a string a natural 1s, hence why I no longer use auto-fail 1s.
I both love and hate the randomness of combat. Without careful planning, you can quickly lose enjoyment in a game. Just recently, I lost a player in pbp due to a fight that turned into him and the enemy hitting nothing but air for a straight twelve rounds. Both combatant used various ways of not making the fight swing-swing-swing. Such as tumbling back and using readied actions. I even had the enemy stop using Combat Expertise a few rounds in.

What I'm saying is that there are times when it is appropriate for a DM to take a step back and start smearing that decadent chocolate paste on the dice. Whether or not this is cheating is a bit subjective, but a decent amount of players would agree that it's not, or at least a benign form of it.

[Satinavian]

In short, my point was that unlucky rolls can easily turn poor or even average tactics into a loss, or turn exceptionally tactics into a protracted slog with lots of wasted resources and maybe even a few casualties, but I have never seen dice so cold that they turned an exceptional plan into an out and out loss.

Obviously, it also depends on which rules system you are using and how much latitude the campaign structure gives for the PCs to plan and prepare.
Your last sentence basically is your answer.

You see, D&D has makes stabilizing of dropped PCs is, has completely reliable healing magic, has reliable and reasonable prized potions, doesn't bother with wound infestations, has even abilities to bring people back from the dead. Some other systems has none of that and instead "fun" fumble tables, which makes every enemy attack and sometimes even your own attacks potentially deadly for you.

D&D also has (in most cases) guidelines for challanges meant to make the PCs usually win. Most other systems don't, some do but make the average challange even in the sense of 50% loss (some systems attached to wargames like to do that).

Finally D&D has characters with a wide array of utility abilities, many of them supernatural, that can change the constraints of a fight. Many other systems don't.

Then many games are based around the assumption that NPCs try to act every bit as tactically competent as PCs. Researching their enemies, adjusting gear and tactics for them, hide weaknesses, plant wrong intelligenge, try to get the upper hand concerning allies, try to dictate terrain ... pretty much every tool used by PCs is also used by (sentient) NPCs and vice versa. That is not the basic assumption for D&D but pretty common in sandboxy political games. SO PCs are not guaranteed to have the better plan even half of the time (except when the DM is bad ad making plans and thus can only come up with flawed ones for his NPCs)


But system is not everything. The more important question is "How challanging are the adventures actually ?". And here is a wide array of answers possible. There are (quite a lot) players out there, who are bored if the chance to fail is to small if they have a very good plan. Who want tension and uncertainty while carrying out good plans and pretty much auto fail for bad plans. (Of course, if you have such players in the group : never change the dice rolls to help the group win)


So yes, there are many, many options for the PCs loosing to a series of bad rolls in average scenarios in many groups. Which is sometimes exactly the kind of game the players want to play.


How to make it work for risk-affin and risk-avers players in the same group is some other thing and has given me some headaches in the last year.



I wonder what ''rules'' people are talking about? Most RPG's don't have ''rules'' for what a DM can do?There are quite a number of systems with explicit written rules what the DM can do and what he can't. It was all the hype in indie games roughly a decade ago to make rules not simulation behavior in the gema word or story but instead to make rules about who can change the gameworld and what is happening when and to what extend.

But yes, the mayority of the systems don't have rules for the power of the DM. But even then this doesn't mean he can do everything he wants. Only that this is a matter left to the table. Some games are nowadays even explicit about it providing lists of common arguments about what a GM can or can't do and tell the players to discuss those prior to the game.

It's not everything D&D and as far as i can tell, the rule zero becomes a minority across the systems.

[NichG]

Player agency doesn't mean complete narrative control, it just means that the outcomes differ depending on the player's choices. They could differ a little bit (you end up with 12hp remaining instead of 15hp remaining, okay...) or differ a lot ("choose the form of the destroyer") - and correspondingly, the player may feel that they have very little agency or very much.

It is also possible to construct illusions which create the impression of having more agency than actually exists, and in general this is something done at every level of the game. The reason for that is that in general, people like the experience of having agency, and if you can augment that for free (as long as it isn't so obvious that it becomes noticed), it makes things feel more open and more real. If there is some place where a player would expect that agency should be possible in the real world, often there's a practical constraint from the structure of the game that might prevent that, and so an illusion is constructed to soften that rough edge (this is more often used in video games, since tabletop games are inherently more flexible, but it does exist in tabletops too).

All of this can be independent from whether or not the DM fudges the dice. While fudging can interact with agency, it isn't automatically a reduction, and in many cases can actually increase player agency. The reasoning here is that when the player chooses an action, they are trying to influence the outcome. In cases where that action can fail based on a die roll, such that the result is as if no action was taken, then the randomness of the dice is actually a factor which on its own decreases agency. It presents a barrier between an attempt for the player to affect the outcome and that effect actually going through. So in such a case, if the DM fudged in favor of the player, they would be in effect increasing their agency.

Now, you can construct counter-examples as well, given certain chains of logic. The player cast a buff to make their chances better, but the DM fudged to 100% so the buff didn't matter, etc. My point isn't that there's never an alteration in the agency structure of the game - sure, there can be. But when player agency is decreased by fudging, it is not because of a hidden rules change or because of eliminating randomness, its because in that particular situation, the DM was trying to make a particular outcome happen independent of the player's will, and in a situation where the player's will would normally be able to have influence. If the DM and player want the same outcome and the DM fudges, that isn't a decrease of agency. If the player is making a passive roll and the DM fudges, the player hasn't made a choice here, so there's no change in agency. Etc.

[themaque]

Though that does take you to the awkward place of it is OK if you like and agree with the DM, but it is not OK if you disagree.

If you wanted to keep everything fair and balanced you keep everyone to the rules and let the dice fall where they may. I know people who prefer playing that way.

I've had GM's do things I didn't LIKE or AGREE with but I felt they where fair. That's why I still call it "cheating", it's nudging the machine to keep things on track.

But as has been said, So long as the "social contract" between players and GM is kept whole than things SHOULD be fine.

[Quertus]

How to make it work for risk-affin and risk-avers players in the same group is some other thing and has given me some headaches in the last year.

Have the risk-seekers play the really weak, fragile characters with minimal agency. Have the risk-averse players play indestructible tanks. Then the challenge-seekers will be constantly challenged, while the risk-averse players will suffer no risk. :smallwink: Substitute with appropriate counterparts as needed - diplomatic immunity vs cortex bomb already implanted, etc.

[Darth Ultron]

I will disagree an the "basic fact" however, that is common but not always true. In the forum games we would often take control of NPCs and on occasion other PCs. What of GM-less games? Or games where the basic unit is not a single character but a family dynasty or something similar.

The question is when is D&D not D&D, not what about all them other RPGs. Sure there are tons of RPGs with no DM or where each player is a ''country''. But that goes way beyond the question.




Example: I participated in a game where the Mod set up a large amount of setting in formation in advance, it was partly barrowed from an existing universe but it explained all the pseudo tech in the world, some history and generally the 'rules' of the game. I submitted a character that broke quite a few of them (or maybe just one multiple times) and ran it. Sure the Mod could have asked me to use a different character (I would have, I respect the work they put into it) but they didn't. That wasn't something they controlled and if they had tried to take control of it the game would have probably been a little bit less than it was.

Unfortunately the game never got far enough so no one else, including the Mod, ever found out the justification for why my character could break the rules.

But does not your saying that the ''mod'' could have done something admit that they are the one in control? The mod let you get away with your rule breaking, it is not like you just did it.




Player agency is not a myth. It is possible, and preferable, for the players' actions and decisions in the game to have consequence and dictate the direction and outcomes. Without this, there is hardly a game at all.

Except in a game like D&D the players can't do anything without the DM's approval and direct control over everything. Sure lots of DM's like to pretend they are back seat drivers, but the reality is that they control everything. No matter what a player ''chooses'' to do, the DM is the one that says what happens.



The DM creates the environment in which the game takes place and presents the scenarios that pose challenges to the players. The players must have agency to address those challenges and succeed or fail on their own merits within the rules of the game. Otherwise, what is the point of the whole activity?

And this is the idea of back seat DMing. The DM will pretend the game has a life of it's own and that they have no control over anything and they are just there to roll dice for the NPCs. The DM controls everything, even when they pretend they don't.



One could just as easily say "DM control is just a myth, the players can refuse his demands at any time," but at that point we are getting into philosophical discussions rather than gameplay discussions.

Except it is not a myth. The only things a player can do if they don't like something is complain or leave the game.



Anyone can attempt to do anything they like at the table as long as they keep it subtle enough that nobody calls BS on it. The DM can change the monsters HP mid session, and as long as they keep it quit they will probably get away with it, of course the players can do the same thing with their PC. If anyone else found out about it there would likely be a confrontation, but if you keep it secret...

The player can't change things mid game, that is cheating. The player agrees to ''not make up stuff at will'' when they say they want to be a player. A DM can make up stuff at will.



Also, I don't think that improve is solely the domain of the DM. For example, if someone asked me IC where my father was born I would have to make up an answer on the spot as that is not something I have already established, but is still well within my rights to decide. This works as long as the rest of the table goes along with it, I probably couldn't add a +5 sword to my inventory on the fly unless I kept it secret, the rest of the group would object. Likewise the DM can give the monsters whatever equipment they like, but if every orc can pull +5 sword out of their bum when they need to the DM will probably have to keep it a secret or else find their players migrating to another table without them.

I'd note you said a player needs ''approval from the table'' to do something. A DM does not.

Most DM's don't approve of a player just making things up on the spot. For a player to just say mid game ''oh, my dad is the king'' and expect that to be game reality is cheating. The player can ask the DM for permission to have a dad king, but they can't just do it.

And most DM's keep track of characters stats. So they would notice an extra ''+5'', stop the game and call the player out on it.

[Talakeal]

The question is when is D&D not D&D, not what about all them other RPGs. Sure there are tons of RPGs with no DM or where each player is a ''country''. But that goes way beyond the question.




But does not your saying that the ''mod'' could have done something admit that they are the one in control? The mod let you get away with your rule breaking, it is not like you just did it.



Except in a game like D&D the players can't do anything without the DM's approval and direct control over everything. Sure lots of DM's like to pretend they are back seat drivers, but the reality is that they control everything. No matter what a player ''chooses'' to do, the DM is the one that says what happens.



And this is the idea of back seat DMing. The DM will pretend the game has a life of it's own and that they have no control over anything and they are just there to roll dice for the NPCs. The DM controls everything, even when they pretend they don't.



Except it is not a myth. The only things a player can do if they don't like something is complain or leave the game.



The player can't change things mid game, that is cheating. The player agrees to ''not make up stuff at will'' when they say they want to be a player. A DM can make up stuff at will.



I'd note you said a player needs ''approval from the table'' to do something. A DM does not.

Most DM's don't approve of a player just making things up on the spot. For a player to just say mid game ''oh, my dad is the king'' and expect that to be game reality is cheating. The player can ask the DM for permission to have a dad king, but they can't just do it.

And most DM's keep track of characters stats. So they would notice an extra ''+5'', stop the game and call the player out on it.

Your argument is founded on a lot of assumptions. Very few games actually state any of the restrictions you place on players or the powers you give the DM, yet you claim that all games do and those that explicitly don't are just pretending otherwise?

So, might I ask what would happen if the DM made some decree that all the players thought was ridiculous, they laughed at him, and continued RPing together without taking his pronouncements into account?* What is they simply tell him to be quiet and then decide that someone else is now the DM?

Again, this your argument is entirely circular, and one could turn it around on you. The nature of power dynamics is a very complex branch of philosophy, and you are making it out to be black and white and ignoring any ideas that run contrary to your own.


And most DM's keep track of characters stats. So they would notice an extra ''+5'', stop the game and call the player out on it.

Sure would. And if the DM gives a monster a +5 bonus there is a decent chance that the players will notice and stop the game to call the DM out on it. My players do so all the time when I give a monster a non-standard ability.


*: I actually had this happen once. Admittedly it was a strange situation, two of the PCs wanted to engage in PVP combat, I tried to keep the party together by introducing external threats that would force them to work together, and they simply ignored me to keep their PVP fight going.


Your last sentence basically is your answer.

Answer to what? The only question I asked was why Amphetyron was trying to find personal offense in my statement.

Keep in mind, my initial statement was that dice going so cold that there is NOTHING the players can do to prevent it is exceedingly rare. In my experience the more lethal systems are actually more strategy dependent, not less. In a game like Shadowrun a perfectly executed plan wouldn't even give the enemy a chance to roll dice as they would be dealt with before they ever even saw the PCs, and in a game like Call of Cthulhu if you are fighting the monsters your plan wasn't that good to begin with.

I was more thinking something like early D&D where you start in the dungeon and cannot leave and only have d6 HP.

[Darth Ultron]

Your argument is founded on a lot of assumptions. Very few games actually state any of the restrictions you place on players or the powers you give the DM, yet you claim that all games do and those that explicitly don't are just pretending otherwise?

Most games like D&D are very clear about the limits of a players. A player can't just mid game say ''my character has a sword +5'', for example(unless the DM approves and allows it). I wonder why you'd think otherwise. In your own responses you state the DM (or ''the table'') must approve things that the players do, right?



So, might I ask what would happen if the DM made some decree that all the players thought was ridiculous, they laughed at him, and continued RPing together without taking his pronouncements into account?* What is they simply tell him to be quiet and then decide that someone else is now the DM?

Like I said, players only have two options: Complain or leave the game. If the PC's walk into a cave and the DM says ''it's full of kobolds and they attack'', the players can't just ignore that. That is not playing D&D. The DM specifically has to power to create and run encounters. So if a DM says kobolds attack, they do. The same way the DM has the power to create the whole game world. If the DM says ''the dead kobold has a pouch with five gold coins in it'', then the kobold has that on him. A player can't just ignore the DM and say ''I loot the kobold body and find 1000 gold coins''. Again, that is not playing D&D.



Again, this your argument is entirely circular, and one could turn it around on you. The nature of power dynamics is a very complex branch of philosophy, and you are making it out to be black and white and ignoring any ideas that run contrary to your own.

How so? Players agree to give up just about all there power. This is basic 101 for RPG's like D&D.



Sure would. And if the DM gives a monster a +5 bonus there is a decent chance that the players will notice and stop the game to call the DM out on it. My players do so all the time when I give a monster a non-standard ability.


Of course, bad players do this all the time. But good players know enough to not nit pick and ruin the game. When the players are so bad that they have the ''players vs DM'' mentality, that is a good example of not playing D&D.

For example, say the PC's encounter a goblin with a breath weapon. Good players know there are plenty of ways this is possible(like a template, for example). But bad players will stop and ruin the game by going all crazy and saying ''goblins don't have breath weapons! the DM is cheating!''



*: I actually had this happen once. Admittedly it was a strange situation, two of the PCs wanted to engage in PVP combat, I tried to keep the party together by introducing external threats that would force them to work together, and they simply ignored me to keep their PVP fight going.

This could happen for sure, but then the players are not playing D&D again. If two players choose to ignore a DM and play a duo PVP battle, then that is not D&D.

The whole basis of D&D is that the powerless players have to ask the DM about everything constantly. That is how the game works. The Players say ''our characters enter the Forgotten forest''. A place the DM created. When a player rolls a spot check, the DM tells them what their character sees. No matter what a character does, the DM is the one that decides what happens.

[themaque]

Except in a game like D&D the players can't do anything without the DM's approval and direct control over everything. Sure lots of DM's like to pretend they are back seat drivers, but the reality is that they control everything. No matter what a player ''chooses'' to do, the DM is the one that says what happens. \

The game has a long list of set things that players can do.

If a GM just says "No, that fails" and makes up reasons for why it happens he is cheating. We play these games to hang out with friends, tell interesting stories, and overcome challenges. Not just have the GM play with himself for a few hours.

Now, in all fairness you are correct, from a certain point of view. The GM interprets the reactions and explains the details. But your description and denial of player agency is where we are divergent. For the way you describe things the player could say

"I want to sell this emerald"

and the GM could reply

"You sell it to some kid along the side of the road for three beans"

Player
"Uhm... no Why would I do that?"

GM
"Because, your character was fooled into thinking they are magic?"

Player
"When?"

GM
"It doesn't matter. So you plant the beans in your Garden..."

That isn't a GM that's a dictator. And you are correct. The only thing the player can do is complain or leave. And once he leaves the GM is sitting along in the room with no one to hear how AWESOME his story is.

The player has Control over one persona and his actions. The GM's job is to fairly interpret the worlds reactions around him. This isn't an illusion nor a lie. It's part of the expectation of players that they are part of a game not just story hour for the GM's unpublished fantasy novel. Yeah GM is King, but you got to give the player peasants something before they revolt.

For the record, I don't keep track of my players stats that closely. I tend to trust my players these days as I play with friends. I always found it insulting as a player when I was told I was not worthy of keeping my own character sheet. It didn't happen often and generally under GM's I had little desire to stay under.

[Thrudd]

Except in a game like D&D the players can't do anything without the DM's approval and direct control over everything. Sure lots of DM's like to pretend they are back seat drivers, but the reality is that they control everything. No matter what a player ''chooses'' to do, the DM is the one that says what happens.

And this is the idea of back seat DMing. The DM will pretend the game has a life of it's own and that they have no control over anything and they are just there to roll dice for the NPCs. The DM controls everything, even when they pretend they don't.


These statements are not true, when a game is following the rules.

The DM does not control the results of the dice rolls. The rules and the dice say what happens in many important cases, such as the results of combat and skill tests. The DM sets the scenarios, and then the players' actions and the rules of the game decide what happens. If the DM is ignoring the dice and the rules to decide everything, then they are either cheating or not playing D&D, or both.

The DM only needs to "say what happens" when the rules and the dice don't make it clear.

[Cluedrew]

The question is when is D&D not D&D, not what about all them other RPGs. Sure there are tons of RPGs with no DM or where each player is a ''country''. But that goes way beyond the question.Fair, perhaps I'm over generalizing.


But does not your saying that the ''mod'' could have done something admit that they are the one in control? The mod let you get away with your rule breaking, it is not like you just did it.... There is a somewhat awkward point where I have to admit I'm to really sure. There are very few instances were anyone had to revise anything they submitted. Where that did come up most of the time they just misunderstood something and when that was pointed out to them they fixed it themselves.

Yes the mod had more power than a player, but it wasn't that much more (hard to measure something abstract like that). The mod could have asked me to submit a new character, but could they force me to play the character they wanted? No that they couldn't do.


This could happen for sure, but then the players are not playing D&D again. If two players choose to ignore a DM and play a duo PVP battle, then that is not D&D.So D&D is not D&D when the DM has anything less than complete and total control over the game?

I think I understand where that comes from, harkens back to the times when the DM was a living embodiment of the game itself ("What the DM says is the rule set"). Still I think that level of control is an illusion, more so than player agency (you mentioned that earlier). Consider this, everyone around the table has the power, even if they don't want to exert it, to walk away at any point. If they don't have that power there are... other issues to be discussed first.

If one player drops that is a problem but the game can continue with a party of one less. If the DM drops someone else has to step up to that role and the game continues with a stutter in the story and one less party member. If all the players drop then the game is done, that's it go home. Factor in recruiting I think you will still find replacing 1 person is easier than 4-5. So by this metric the DM has power between that of a single player and that of all the players. In other words 49% or less, hardly absolute.

[Darth Ultron]

If a GM just says "No, that fails" and makes up reasons for why it happens he is cheating. We play these games to hang out with friends, tell interesting stories, and overcome challenges. Not just have the GM play with himself for a few hours.

So you'd say that a DM can't ''just say'' something fails. But a DM can just create something so something else fails, right? A DM creates everything in the game, and if they want something to happen or not happen they can make it so.

For example you would say it is wrong for a DM to say ''your attempt to pick the lock fail'' for no reason. But a DM can say ''your knock spell fails as the door is within an anti magical area.



"I want to sell this emerald"

and the GM could reply

"You sell it to some kid along the side of the road for three beans"

Player
"Uhm... no Why would I do that?"

GM
"Because, your character was fooled into thinking they are magic?"

Player
"When?"

GM
"It doesn't matter. So you plant the beans in your Garden..."

This is much more an example of bad Dming. And worse it is a horrible example of the third person play style. And I really dislike that style. It's also an example of the DM doing an auto and taking control of a PC. But the DM can sure have a kid with a high bluff skill or even illusions and other magical effects to trick the character.



For the record, I don't keep track of my players stats that closely. I tend to trust my players these days as I play with friends. I always found it insulting as a player when I was told I was not worthy of keeping my own character sheet. It didn't happen often and generally under GM's I had little desire to stay under.

There are other reasons for a DM to keep track of the Pc's stats. It speeds up the game if the DM can just look over the stats and say ''the spell does not effect character B'' instead of asking the players for character details for every effect. It also lets the DM catch mistakes, especially by newer players.


These statements are not true, when a game is following the rules.

The DM does not control the results of the dice rolls. The rules and the dice say what happens in many important cases, such as the results of combat and skill tests. The DM sets the scenarios, and then the players' actions and the rules of the game decide what happens. If the DM is ignoring the dice and the rules to decide everything, then they are either cheating or not playing D&D, or both.

The DM only needs to "say what happens" when the rules and the dice don't make it clear.

A DM does not control the dice true, but they do control the results. The DM, for example, sets the DC for any task a Pc wishes to do. And the DM can set the DC high enough so the Pc can't roll over it. It's not controlling the dice, but it is controlling the results.

And how do the ''rules'' decide what happens, when the DM controls everything. There are no ''rules'' on how a DM controls NPC's or foes. A DM could have all the goblin archers fire at the wizard, for example. Or the DM can have an NPC wizard cast web and not fireball.

[Frozen_Feet]

The most common rule for GMs in roleplaying games is that of Ontological Inertia: once a thing has been established as existing in the game, it can't be made non-existent on a whim. In D&D, this applies to rulings made during a session: DMs have the right to come up with whatever new rules they like to cover gaps in the rules, but once a ruling has been made, it should stay the same for the that session. "Game master has the final word", as inherited from wargames, really did stress that final part; waffling back and forth about a ruling is against the spirit of a GM's position.

And this is why coming up with an encounter on the spot is seen as distinct to changing a pre-planned encounter's traits on the fly. In the former case, there is no pre-established ruling to go against, so the GM is free to do as they will. In the latter case, it's, on a certain level, going back on one's word, which is against the spirit of the rules, even if it is allowed by their letter.

[Drynwyn]

These statements are not true, when a game is following the rules.

The DM does not control the results of the dice rolls. The rules and the dice say what happens in many important cases, such as the results of combat and skill tests. The DM sets the scenarios, and then the players' actions and the rules of the game decide what happens. If the DM is ignoring the dice and the rules to decide everything, then they are either cheating or not playing D&D, or both.

.

Except that the rules of most RPG's- including D&D- include explicit provisions for the DM ignoring the dice and the rules other than Rule Zero to decide things as they see fit. Obviously, if they were LITERALLY deciding EVERYTHING without paying attention to the dice or rules, they would no longer be playing D&D- but within the rules of the game there are specific provisions for the DM to override the rules and dice. (The word "override" chosen specifically because he's not actually BREAKING the rules as a whole body, merely using one rule that allows him to ignore another.)

[Svata]

While I am aware this is yet another tale of Talakeal's adventures in Bizarro Gaming Dimension, I am curious. Why does he have anyone bother to roll dice to begin with, if he's just going to retroactively alter the difficulty to determine if they succeed or fail? Do you know?

To give an illusikn of agency, perhaps? *reads on* Oh, I've not been so sad to be right in a while.


Note ''having a responsibility'' is not a rule.



Except, in the middle of the game, the DM can decide an enemy has a +5 to hit from any game effect they want. The DM can just spontaneously create an orc with an 18 strength, masterwork weapon and weapon focus for the +5 and then the rolled 12 hits.



This is not true. There are tons and tons of ways, within the rules, to prevent PC's from using a foes loot. There are also tons of ways to give foes temporary bonuses, an NPC spellcaster casting magic weapon for example.



Though, this is just nit picking. If the DM makes the monster at 6PM with 100 hit points, you'd say it was ok. But if they do it at 6:30, your going to say it is wrong for random reasons.

And again, there are plenty of ways to do things within the rules too. A NPC can simply have a feat or ability or spell or magic item.



Well, ''coherence'' is a matter of point of view. If the players try to break into a vault and fail, the DM might say ''they double the guard'', but the players might not agree with that point of view.

And ''player agency'' is just a myth. The DM controls everything.

S-Sithsnape? Is that you?

[Thrudd]

Except that the rules of most RPG's- including D&D- include explicit provisions for the DM ignoring the dice and the rules other than Rule Zero to decide things as they see fit. Obviously, if they were LITERALLY deciding EVERYTHING without paying attention to the dice or rules, they would no longer be playing D&D- but within the rules of the game there are specific provisions for the DM to override the rules and dice. (The word "override" chosen specifically because he's not actually BREAKING the rules as a whole body, merely using one rule that allows him to ignore another.)

The later editions which include such suggestions are responsible for ruining the game, to some extent, or at least transforming it in such a way that it allows the BS Darth Ultron is talking about. The DM can create rules, change rules and interpret unclear rules, but they should still be following those rules when they play. "Do whatever you want and decide everything that happens" have never been the suggested rules of the game. That would not be a game, so much as the DM telling a story to some people. As far as I'm concerned, if the dice get rolled, they are to be followed, period. Editions which suggest otherwise are ignoring the whole point of the game.

[Thrudd]

So you'd say that a DM can't ''just say'' something fails. But a DM can just create something so something else fails, right? A DM creates everything in the game, and if they want something to happen or not happen they can make it so.

For example you would say it is wrong for a DM to say ''your attempt to pick the lock fail'' for no reason. But a DM can say ''your knock spell fails as the door is within an anti magical area.



This is much more an example of bad Dming. And worse it is a horrible example of the third person play style. And I really dislike that style. It's also an example of the DM doing an auto and taking control of a PC. But the DM can sure have a kid with a high bluff skill or even illusions and other magical effects to trick the character.



There are other reasons for a DM to keep track of the Pc's stats. It speeds up the game if the DM can just look over the stats and say ''the spell does not effect character B'' instead of asking the players for character details for every effect. It also lets the DM catch mistakes, especially by newer players.



A DM does not control the dice true, but they do control the results. The DM, for example, sets the DC for any task a Pc wishes to do. And the DM can set the DC high enough so the Pc can't roll over it. It's not controlling the dice, but it is controlling the results.

And how do the ''rules'' decide what happens, when the DM controls everything. There are no ''rules'' on how a DM controls NPC's or foes. A DM could have all the goblin archers fire at the wizard, for example. Or the DM can have an NPC wizard cast web and not fireball.

Setting the DC is not deciding the results, especially when the rules provide for auto success or auto failure on certain numbers, regardless of DC or modifiers.

The strategy you select in controlling the npcs and monsters is also not deciding results. The goblins could all miss, the players might make their saving throws against any spell you use. You might lose initiative, and the npc wizard gets killed before he even casts a spell.

When the players take actions clearly allowed by the game and that clearly make sense in the setting, the DM has no right to deny them. When the dice are rolled, they should be followed, that's the point of the game.
If the DM is ignoring dice, fudging results, assigning dc's not based on setting consistency and logic but out of a desire to control the outcomes, negating game-legal player actions by ad-hoc rule changes and basically doing everything you say a DM can do, it is not a game any more. What is the point of being a player in that game?

[Darth Ultron]

Yes the mod had more power than a player, but it wasn't that much more (hard to measure something abstract like that). The mod could have asked me to submit a new character, but could they force me to play the character they wanted? No that they couldn't do.

The DM is not some all powerful tyrant. They can't force the players to do anything. The power and control the DM has is because all the players give it to them.



So D&D is not D&D when the DM has anything less than complete and total control over the game?

Yes, but I'm not talking about that old school tyrant way of Dming.

Lets take the two player PVP fight, in D&D the DM has the following powers:
1.Total and absolute control of the whole game world, except the two characters. If the DM says sometihng, both players have agreed to accept it as fact. So if the DM says ''your fighting on the edge of a 1000 foot cliff'', that is where the fight is taking place. Neither player has this power, as they have characters in the game and could abuse it to there advantage.
2.The DM makes any needed rule interpretations, judgments or calls. Neither player has this power, as they have characters in the game and could abuse it to there advantage.
3.The DM makes all game related rule decisions. Like a DC, for example. If a player wants a character to say climb something, they ask the DM for a DC. Again, neither players has this power, as they have characters in the game and could abuse it to there advantage. The DM is the only one who knows what both characters can do and can see both sheets. Each player can't see the others character. The DM makes sure each character is made and follows the game rules and house rules.


Setting the DC is not deciding the results, especially when the rules provide for auto success or auto failure on certain numbers, regardless of DC or modifiers.

If the DM knows the player only has a +5 to a roll, they can make the DC 26, so even if the player rolls a 20 they fail. Though even making a DC of 20 has a good chance of failure.




The strategy you select in controlling the npcs and monsters is also not deciding results. The goblins could all miss, the players might make their saving throws against any spell you use. You might lose initiative, and the npc wizard gets killed before he even casts a spell.

Your going for the idea that the DM either randomly creates monsters and npcs or uses them stright out of the book. A DM can make anything. The ''goblin warrior'' from the book is a poor archer, but a class level or two and some feats and items, and you have a goblin archer with a good plus to hit. Sure, the rolls can always be bad, but if the plus is high enough they will still hit like 9 out of 10 times.


Spells are even easier. Hitting the fighter types with spells with will saves and high DCs, for example.

And even if evil wizard #1 does get surprised and killed.....evil wizard #2 is right around the corner.



If the DM is ignoring dice, fudging results, assigning dc's not based on setting consistency and logic but out of a desire to control the outcomes, negating game-legal player actions by ad-hoc rule changes and basically doing everything you say a DM can do, it is not a game any more. What is the point of being a player in that game?

To have fun, of course. The player is often not even aware of how much control the DM has in the game. Players often think the ''npc/monster/foe/whole game world'' has some type of odd life of it's own. They willing ''forget'' the DM was all in control of that and convince themselves ''things just sort of happened somehow''.

[themaque]

The DM is not some all powerful tyrant. They can't force the players to do anything. The power and control the DM has is because all the players give it to them.

Okay, this is where some people might get confused. As you say things like the above following...



And ''player agency'' is just a myth. The DM controls everything.

and



Except in a game like D&D the players can't do anything without the DM's approval and direct control over everything. Sure lots of DM's like to pretend they are back seat drivers, but the reality is that they control everything. No matter what a player ''chooses'' to do, the DM is the one that says what happens.

And this is the idea of back seat DMing. The DM will pretend the game has a life of it's own and that they have no control over anything and they are just there to roll dice for the NPCs. The DM controls everything, even when they pretend they don't.

Except it is not a myth. The only things a player can do if they don't like something is complain or leave the game.

I'd note you said a player needs ''approval from the table'' to do something. A DM does not.


You spent some time telling us that player agency and any real control of the game was merely an illusion. That all their decisions have to be approved by a GM. That after that they have no recourse but to make a stink or leave the game.

So how do those two views balance out?

What it reads like is that the player can control how a character thinks or feels but has no real ability to control any outcome they may wish to partake?

[Drynwyn]

The later editions which include such suggestions are responsible for ruining the game, to some extent, or at least transforming it in such a way that it allows the BS Darth Ultron is talking about. The DM can create rules, change rules and interpret unclear rules, but they should still be following those rules when they play. "Do whatever you want and decide everything that happens" have never been the suggested rules of the game. That would not be a game, so much as the DM telling a story to some people. As far as I'm concerned, if the dice get rolled, they are to be followed, period. Editions which suggest otherwise are ignoring the whole point of the game.

The point of the game is to have fun, not to obey the will of polyhedral plastic. If I wanted a pure tactical challenge, I would play a wargame. Besides, earlier editions gave even MORE power to the DM- 3.5's suggestions for the DM to exert his will are far gentler than the tyrant-DM powers of AD&D.

Gygax once said that "The only reason a DM rolls dice is for the sound they make." If he's not qualified to say whether or not a DM can override the dice, I don't know who is.

[themaque]

So you'd say that a DM can't ''just say'' something fails. But a DM can just create something so something else fails, right? A DM creates everything in the game, and if they want something to happen or not happen they can make it so.

For example you would say it is wrong for a DM to say ''your attempt to pick the lock fail'' for no reason. But a DM can say ''your knock spell fails as the door is within an anti magical area.


At what point was there a Anti-Magical area? As soon as the GM remembered that the Knock spell exists at that moment? As you mentioned, The GM is setting up the world, Why put a Door there then bar the players from entering except for the one pre-determined outcome?

If the GM is coming up with random reasons as to why the players can't go across their chosen path, he has devolved into a game of "I Win" with the players.

The GM has unlimited powers ONLY in theory. In practice he is limited to the group consensus of the players. As you also have stated this power is given by the players and thus can be taken away.

If you abuse that power it vanishes along with the players.

[Talakeal]

Gygax once said that "The only reason a DM rolls dice is for the sound they make." If he's not qualified to say whether or not a DM can override the dice, I don't know who is.

Did he actually say that?

I wouldn't be too surprised, he said a lot of extreme stuff, but Gygax seemed to be pretty schizophrenic about it. He also said that if you don't play by pure RAW you aren't REALLY playing D&D, so it is weird that he would write so many rules involving dice if he simultaneously wanted the DM to follow and ignore them.

[Keltest]

Did he actually say that?

I wouldn't be too surprised, he said a lot of extreme stuff, but Gygax seemed to be pretty schizophrenic about it. He also said that if you don't play by pure RAW you aren't REALLY playing D&D, so it is weird that he would write so many rules involving dice if he simultaneously wanted the DM to follow and ignore them.

He believed in Schrodinger's DM.

[Talakeal]

He believed in Schrodinger's DM.

Didn't he also have a very PC vs. DM mindset though? Those two views seem to be totally incompatible.

[goto124]

Meanwhile from another thread:

Whatever the DM says, goes. If he says enough stupid things the players go too.

[Segev]

I've been on both sides of the DM screen when a DM, upon seeing a player's (probably fatal-for-the-PC) die roll, has asked pointedly, "Aren't you going to roll?" I've also, occasionally, decided that I perhaps didn't roll what I thought I did when I got a confirmed critical on a PC I had only intended to hit "safely" within single digit hp. I can't think of a time I've fudged numbers out of the PCs' favor; if I wanted something to be "immune" from PC action, I gave it numbers that would enable it to be, ahead of time. And then that became a benchmark for the PCs to know when they'd grown "enough" - if they cared and discovered the previously overpowered enemy is now defeatable, it's a sense of accomplishment.


I've seen DMs fudge against players. Usually, it only happens in extremis, such as when his boss monster happens to die (by the dice) in the first round, before it even gets to act...so it suddenly retroactively has a LOT more hp (or what-have-you). I have also seen one or two DMs wait to set skill DCs until after the roll; them, I never quite understood: why not just deny a roll? Everybody can tell that a 20 on the d20 rolled by the Bluff-master of the party failing means that you're just declaring auto-failures.

Edit to add: The most egregious example in my experience was in a Paladium Robotech game. The GM's pet NPC who was plot-important for the NPC-on-NPC romance (and whose status as a POW would drive several of our missions) was facing us, and my character - not suicidal, but with limited self-preservation drive - determined that she was too powerful as a foe and too dangerous to the rest of the team. So when she next fired on him, he invoked Paladium's counterattack rules and the Robotech Macross Missile Massacre - he fired ALL of his missiles at her. IT meant he would definitely be hit, but without the option to defend, so would she.

She should have been obliterated. My character's plane went down and he survived, barely (without bending the rules, oddly enough). She GM-fiat managed to dodge most of them, taking only enough damage to crash her vehicle (and not have it explode on impact in any fatal way).

He almost told me not to do it at all, but he's a Robotech fanboy, and couldn't deny the fittingness of the Macross Missile Massacre. We did, at least, "win" the combat with that maneuver. So it wasn't a total robbery.

[Keltest]

I've been on both sides of the DM screen when a DM, upon seeing a player's (probably fatal-for-the-PC) die roll, has asked pointedly, "Aren't you going to roll?" I've also, occasionally, decided that I perhaps didn't roll what I thought I did when I got a confirmed critical on a PC I had only intended to hit "safely" within single digit hp. I can't think of a time I've fudged numbers out of the PCs' favor; if I wanted something to be "immune" from PC action, I gave it numbers that would enable it to be, ahead of time. And then that became a benchmark for the PCs to know when they'd grown "enough" - if they cared and discovered the previously overpowered enemy is now defeatable, it's a sense of accomplishment.


I've seen DMs fudge against players. Usually, it only happens in extremis, such as when his boss monster happens to die (by the dice) in the first round, before it even gets to act...so it suddenly retroactively has a LOT more hp (or what-have-you). I have also seen one or two DMs wait to set skill DCs until after the roll; them, I never quite understood: why not just deny a roll? Everybody can tell that a 20 on the d20 rolled by the Bluff-master of the party failing means that you're just declaring auto-failures.

Edit to add: The most egregious example in my experience was in a Paladium Robotech game. The GM's pet NPC who was plot-important for the NPC-on-NPC romance (and whose status as a POW would drive several of our missions) was facing us, and my character - not suicidal, but with limited self-preservation drive - determined that she was too powerful as a foe and too dangerous to the rest of the team. So when she next fired on him, he invoked Paladium's counterattack rules and the Robotech Macross Missile Massacre - he fired ALL of his missiles at her. IT meant he would definitely be hit, but without the option to defend, so would she.

She should have been obliterated. My character's plane went down and he survived, barely (without bending the rules, oddly enough). She GM-fiat managed to dodge most of them, taking only enough damage to crash her vehicle (and not have it explode on impact in any fatal way).

He almost told me not to do it at all, but he's a Robotech fanboy, and couldn't deny the fittingness of the Macross Missile Massacre. We did, at least, "win" the combat with that maneuver. So it wasn't a total robbery.

To be perfectly honest, I am not entirely opposed to a DM fudging numbers to make an otherwise lethal attack against a recurring NPC enable them to survive somehow, whether it be a ring of fire resistance they "forgot" to write down so that the fireball doesn't kill them, or some sort of dimension door item allowing them to escape the collapsing dungeon, or whatever. Maybe he just had another D10 HP added on so the lethal damage merely incapacitates them. Sometimes such fiat is necessary to allow the adventurers to continue on their adventure rather than retiring early because nobody survived to warn the larger group of bad guys about the party.

[veti]

I've seen DMs fudge against players. Usually, it only happens in extremis, such as when his boss monster happens to die (by the dice) in the first round, before it even gets to act...so it suddenly retroactively has a LOT more hp (or what-have-you). I have also seen one or two DMs wait to set skill DCs until after the roll; them, I never quite understood: why not just deny a roll? Everybody can tell that a 20 on the d20 rolled by the Bluff-master of the party failing means that you're just declaring auto-failures.

Or to put it another way, the target is immune to bluffing - for what might be any number of perfectly valid-within-RAW reasons.

"Boss" monsters have their own undeclared template, with the property of "cannot be defeated in the first two rounds of any combat, no matter what the hit points say, unless it's by something really cool". If PCs back off and return knowing what they're going to face and specifically prepared for it, the Boss template may be removed.

[Hawkstar]

I would argue that player agency is the point of playing a tabletop roleplaying game. If someone wanted a linear story, there's always novels and video games.

"Player Agency is a myth" =/= "Linear Story"

Everything a player does has to be interpreted and adjudicated by the DM. All consequences of actions, then, are strictly in the DM's hands.

[Drascin]

I am generally on the side that I trust my GMs far more than I trust the rules. This belief grows stronger the longer I play and the more RPG writers I interact with.

It's to the point where a GM that considers "never fudging, letting all the dice fall where they may" a point of "pride" is an immediate, massive warning sign for me and a good reason to get the hell out of dodge.

[Keltest]

"Player Agency is a myth" =/= "Linear Story"

Everything a player does has to be interpreted and adjudicated by the DM. All consequences of actions, then, are strictly in the DM's hands.

Player Agency has nothing to do with the DM arbitrating the results of various actions. Player agency means that the players are allowed to decide what their character does and does not do without having the DM say 'Nope, you go do X instead".

If you don't have player agency, not only does your game suck, but you are also being railroaded all over the freaking place.

[Mr.Moron]

Player Agency has nothing to do with the DM arbitrating the results of various actions. Player agency means that the players are allowed to decide what their character does and does not do without having the DM say 'Nope, you go do X instead".

If you don't have player agency, not only does your game suck, but you are also being railroaded all over the freaking place.

The issue is that at least around here the term "Player Agency" has taken on a life of it's own. It's frequently used to mean less "You are free to make your own decisions and have them affect the world around you" and more "The degree to which you are allowed to dictate outcomes".

[LnGrrrR]

So... quick question for all players, are you guys satisfied when the climax of a scenario is... well, anticlimactic? I mean, it's all well and good occasionally when the good guys get quick. It's a "Wow, we're awesome" moment, which is fine. But if it happens too often, it lessens the experience, in my eyes at least. (Now, this also somewhat speaks of the prep ability of the GM, but sometimes numbers look good and then you realize that you should've added more monsters, or maybe less.)

Personally speaking, I don't "craft" encounters where there will definitely be a stealth scene, definitely be a fighting scene, etc etc. But I do tend to at least highlight those every few sessions, to let players shine. After all, if the only adventures a group went on were hack and slash, do you think the charismatic rogue would really stick around with that group?

[Mutazoia]

Well....here's the thing....

Rule Zero is a very real, and very necessary thing. Obviously the game designers cannot think of every possible situation that can result during the course of a game, so the DM needs to be able to alter rules on the fly as needed. This includes fudging, or ignoring die rolls.

A good DM needs to fudge rolls quite a bit....ignoring a natural 20 on a monsters hit roll to keep from slaughtering a PC, or bumping up a monster's hit roll to score a hit if the combat seems to be going too easily for the party. It might be fun to stroll through a fight with out a group of monsters getting a single hit once or twice...but after a few times things get boring and you might as well all just sit around the table flipping through the DMG and picking out what magic items you want your characters to have.

Now, like I said, there are going to be plenty of times that a DM is going to have to alter a rule, eliminate one, or create a new rule altogether on the fly. But any major changes should be either announced before a campaign starts, or (at the very worse) right before it comes into play.

Case in point: I had a 3rd lvl thief that got into a tug of war with a mage over a wand of magic missiles. After doing this for a few rounds, the DM decided the wand broke....and exploded for 1D4 damage for every charge remaining. And with 30 charges in the wand...well you get the picture. Now, normally wands do not have a retributive strike, but this DM decided that every magic item had one. This is a major change from RAW and should have been announced before we started play, or at the very least the moment the tug of war began.

Now back to the original post....There are a lot of people who are just unlucky with dice rolls. I'm one of them. When it matters, such as during a game, I tend to roll low more times that you would think would be statistically possible...but it happens none the less. That's why you will never see me shoot craps in Vegas...I don't want to go home wearing a barrel. The real question here is, up until you found out your DM was just rolling dice for sound effects, were you all having fun in the campaign? Because that's the real issue here. If the DM in question was fudging, or making up numbers and nobody was enjoying the game, then sure...he's a bad DM. But if everybody was having fun, with no real complaints, then what's the real end damage here?

[D+1]

Can the DM cheat? Sure. Most DM's who cheat, however, like to CLAIM it is simply exercise of their privilege as DM's to determine the rules. Now, there's some truth there - the DM DOES get to determine the rules. SOMEBODY has to, and even rulebooks can't cover all contingencies. That's part of why the DM is there - to rule on things that do not have rules.

This right of the DM to make the rules, however, DOES NOT completely bury the right of the players to know AHEAD OF TIME what those rules are and to be able to RELY on those rules as being accurate and unchanging from moment to moment. Does a DM need to change and add rules in the middle of playing the game? OCCASIONALLY, yes. But a DM who does so constantly, habitually, on-the-fly, and such that players CANNOT know from one moment to the next if the rules that they supposedly KNOW are in fact the rules that they are playing under - well, a DM who does that and claims that it is actually how the game rules themselves say it is supposed to be run is deluded. If they know the difference but do it anyway, they're cheating.

For a DM, "cheating" is probably better defined as bait-and-switch rules management. Just because you CAN change the rules at any time doesn't mean that you are supposed to be changing the rules ALL THE TIME.

[LnGrrrR]

Well....here's the thing....

Rule Zero is a very real, and very necessary thing. Obviously the game designers cannot think of every possible situation that can result during the course of a game, so the DM needs to be able to alter rules on the fly as needed. This includes fudging, or ignoring die rolls.

A good DM needs to fudge rolls quite a bit....ignoring a natural 20 on a monsters hit roll to keep from slaughtering a PC, or bumping up a monster's hit roll to score a hit if the combat seems to be going too easily for the party. It might be fun to stroll through a fight with out a group of monsters getting a single hit once or twice...but after a few times things get boring and you might as well all just sit around the table flipping through the DMG and picking out what magic items you want your characters to have.

Now, like I said, there are going to be plenty of times that a DM is going to have to alter a rule, eliminate one, or create a new rule altogether on the fly. But any major changes should be either announced before a campaign starts, or (at the very worse) right before it comes into play.

Case in point: I had a 3rd lvl thief that got into a tug of war with a mage over a wand of magic missiles. After doing this for a few rounds, the DM decided the wand broke....and exploded for 1D4 damage for every charge remaining. And with 30 charges in the wand...well you get the picture. Now, normally wands do not have a retributive strike, but this DM decided that every magic item had one. This is a major change from RAW and should have been announced before we started play, or at the very least the moment the tug of war began.

Now back to the original post....There are a lot of people who are just unlucky with dice rolls. I'm one of them. When it matters, such as during a game, I tend to roll low more times that you would think would be statistically possible...but it happens none the less. That's why you will never see me shoot craps in Vegas...I don't want to go home wearing a barrel. The real question here is, up until you found out your DM was just rolling dice for sound effects, were you all having fun in the campaign? Because that's the real issue here. If the DM in question was fudging, or making up numbers and nobody was enjoying the game, then sure...he's a bad DM. But if everybody was having fun, with no real complaints, then what's the real end damage here?

I'm fine with rolling openly, personally, but the players have to decide to either a) be cool with death or b) agree to take some sort of penalty instead of death. Oh, and I've discovered that you NEVER EVER EVER make players roll for something that you're not willing to have consequences for. Are they crossing a bridge, and you think it will be fun to set a DC of 5 to make it feel slightly more challenging? Then your dwarf will roll a 1, and now something bad has to happen. If you think quickly, he'll ONLY drop something out of his backpack... and then that player will still probably be annoyed, because, I mean, it's a bridge. Better retcon that bridge to look a little more rickety, eh?

[Keltest]

The issue is that at least around here the term "Player Agency" has taken on a life of it's own. It's frequently used to mean less "You are free to make your own decisions and have them affect the world around you" and more "The degree to which you are allowed to dictate outcomes".

Semantics. If your actions are unable to influence the outcome of a scenario at all, you have no agency in that scenario.

[Frozen_Feet]

Everything a player does has to be interpreted and adjudicated by the DM. All consequences of actions, then, are strictly in the DM's hands.

It does not follow from this that player agency is a myth.

What follows is that players and dice have as much agency as the GM allows them.

[Raimun]

I think you should stick to the rules, whether you're a player or a GM.

However, it is up to the GM to decide what the rules are. Then, after that decision is made, the new rules should be availabe to the players and the GM should stick to his guns. If the GM wills it, variant rules, tweaked rules and completely new rules can become actual, 100% legitimate rules of the game. You know, things can get more interesting if you are creative enough about making new rules.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the players should know what to expect when it comes to the rules of the game. That's just common courtesy.

Edit: Rules disputes are a different thing and here it's expected the GM makes ad hoc-rulings. It's still within good manners to consider different views points about the rules... unless doing so takes up too much time and/or happens too frequently.

[goto124]

Semantics. If your actions are unable to influence the outcome of a scenario at all, you have no agency in that scenario.

You are right. It's not a binary, but a sliding scale. It's a balance between "I Win" and "I'm Railroaded".

[Talakeal]

Well....here's the thing....

Rule Zero is a very real, and very necessary thing. Obviously the game designers cannot think of every possible situation that can result during the course of a game, so the DM needs to be able to alter rules on the fly as needed. This includes fudging, or ignoring die rolls.

I agree with you on the first part, I need to adjust or come up with new rules on the fly all the time when a weird situation comes up.

I have, however, never come up against a situation where I felt the game would be improved by fudging a dice roll or being dishonest with a player.


Well....here's the thing....

Rule Zero is a very real, and very necessary thing. Obviously the game designers cannot think of every possible situation that can result during the course of a game, so the DM needs to be able to alter rules on the fly as needed. This includes fudging, or ignoring die rolls.

A good DM needs to fudge rolls quite a bit....ignoring a natural 20 on a monsters hit roll to keep from slaughtering a PC, or bumping up a monster's hit roll to score a hit if the combat seems to be going too easily for the party. It might be fun to stroll through a fight with out a group of monsters getting a single hit once or twice...but after a few times things get boring and you might as well all just sit around the table flipping through the DMG and picking out what magic items you want your characters to have.


Now back to the original post....There are a lot of people who are just unlucky with dice rolls. I'm one of them. When it matters, such as during a game, I tend to roll low more times that you would think would be statistically possible...but it happens none the less. That's why you will never see me shoot craps in Vegas...I don't want to go home wearing a barrel.

You know, this might actually be the core of the issue. The DM who inspired me to make this thread made a similar but opposite argument, that he is so lucky when rolling dice that he is doing us all a favor by ignoring his rolls.

I personally don't believe in "luck" as a supernatural force. If a person claims to always roll good / bad, I don't believe they are just an (un)lucky person. I think they are probably using loaded dice, simply had a hot/cold streak which has no logical reason to continue in the future, or, most likely, they merely have an optimistic / pessimistic view of their own luck and use confirmation bias to reinforce their belief at the table.

However, if someone does believe in "lucky / unlucky" people, dice, etc. then they might have a very different view on fudging vs. letting the dice fall where they may.

From my point of view occasional upsets and one sided fights are part of the fun of the game, they keep it fresh and exciting. If EVERY fight is a slaughter or a cakewalk I don't blame luck, I think the problem is more likely in the DM's ability to build a balanced encounter or to challenge the players on a tactical level (or vice versa).


Case in point: I had a 3rd lvl thief that got into a tug of war with a mage over a wand of magic missiles. After doing this for a few rounds, the DM decided the wand broke....and exploded for 1D4 damage for every charge remaining. And with 30 charges in the wand...well you get the picture. Now, normally wands do not have a retributive strike, but this DM decided that every magic item had one. This is a major change from RAW and should have been announced before we started play, or at the very least the moment the tug of war began.

Now, I actually wouldn't have a problem with that. That is the kind of out of the box thinking that makes magic seem mysterious and dangerous and is sorely lacking in modern D&D.


The real question here is, up until you found out your DM was just rolling dice for sound effects, were you all having fun in the campaign? Because that's the real issue here. If the DM in question was fudging, or making up numbers and nobody was enjoying the game, then sure...he's a bad DM. But if everybody was having fun, with no real complaints, then what's the real end damage here?

In my case not at all. I actually left this guys game several months ago because he kept rules lawyering us with made-up rules*. However he claims that all good DMs do it, which really got me thinking about games I do enjoy and about how my players feel about my game.



I am generally on the side that I trust my GMs far more than I trust the rules. This belief grows stronger the longer I play and the more RPG writers I interact with.

It's to the point where a GM that considers "never fudging, letting all the dice fall where they may" a point of "pride" is an immediate, massive warning sign for me and a good reason to get the hell out of dodge.

Would you care to extrapolate on this point? I am really curious as to what it is about this style of gaming that turns you away.


I think you should stick to the rules, whether you're a player or a GM.

However, it is up to the GM to decide what the rules are. Then, after that decision is made, the new rules should be availabe to the players and the GM should stick to his guns. If the GM wills it, variant rules, tweaked rules and completely new rules can become actual, 100% legitimate rules of the game. You know, things can get more interesting if you are creative enough about making new rules.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the players should know what to expect when it comes to the rules of the game. That's just common courtesy.

Edit: Rules disputes are a different thing and here it's expected the GM makes ad hoc-rulings. It's still within good manners to consider different views points about the rules... unless doing so takes up too much time and/or happens too frequently.

+1



*Really weird I know, he would make up a rule, claim that it was RAW, and then forbid us to look it up in a book. He even admitted that some of these rules were unfair or nonsensical but claimed that he had to abide by them because "those are the rules," and would go so far as to tell me I was lying / cheating when telling him stories about previous campaigns that he wasn't involved in because those stories don't line up with his own made-up RAW.

[Thrudd]

I think this really comes down to what you expect in a game. People who are treating D&D as a vehicle for telling stories and expect their game to meet specific narrative needs are going to fall on the side of DM's ignoring rules in favor of making sure the story meets their ideal of an exciting or cinematic narrative. Of course, the fact that D&D has rules that must be changed or ignored to satisfy this ideal implies that D&D really isn't the best choice for that sort of game, but people can do what they want.

It is possible to play a game that takes the rules as written mostly intact. Such a game isn't going to be about telling a story with specific narrative requirements. It is a game about players exploring a fantasy world and being challenged with obstacles that they attempt to overcome with their own problem solving skills using the abilities of their characters. Stories emerge as you play and the players come to participate in the world the DM designs. Neither DM nor players know how anything will turn out. That is what results from using the game as it was designed, to varying degrees depending on the edition. No edition yet has been a narrative story-telling game, despite people (even some of the designers and adventure writers) trying to use it as one.

If you want to tell a story, since D&D isn't really made for that, you need to fudge and ignore rules throughout, to keep things on track. If you want an open-ended adventure game, you can play it pretty much as-written (including the advice for the DM to make rulings on issues that come up where there are no clear rules).

[goto124]

What would be a narrative kind of system? Fate? GURPS? Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine?

This thread, I feel, isn't necessarily restricted to DnD. For example, going into CoC expecting to be a successful fantasy hero doesn't exactly work out. Similarly, playing VtM when you want something light-hearted? Nope.

I'm not sure how those games would interact with player agency. But that interaction is different from DnD.

[NichG]

I am generally on the side that I trust my GMs far more than I trust the rules. This belief grows stronger the longer I play and the more RPG writers I interact with.

It's to the point where a GM that considers "never fudging, letting all the dice fall where they may" a point of "pride" is an immediate, massive warning sign for me and a good reason to get the hell out of dodge.


Would you care to extrapolate on this point? I am really curious as to what it is about this style of gaming that turns you away.

I'm with Drascin on this, but perhaps for different reasons.

The primary thing is, I want my DMs to give me an experience that goes beyond what I could get by sitting down and reading through the rules and some modules. I want to be surprised, I want to explore, I want to feel that things are deeper in play than in the text.

But beyond that, I'd be worried that a DM bragging about something like this feels the need to convince other people how good of a DM he is. 'Look at me, I'm more pure than those other guys'. Why is this guy bragging about his ability to follow the rules, as opposed to the highlights of his games? Anyone can run a crappy game but still manage to follow the rules, so why is this where their pride is? Maybe they can't even tell if his players are having fun, or doesn't even care? It's not necessarily the case, but definitely cause for concern. It can also be a preamble to justifying a DM vs player approach, using 'but I follow the rules religiously' to excuse them bullying the players.

[Svata]

What would be a narrative kind of system? Fate? GURPS? Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine?

This thread, I feel, isn't necessarily restricted to DnD. For example, going into CoC expecting to be a successful fantasy hero doesn't exactly work out. Similarly, playing VtM when you want something light-hearted? Nope.

I'm not sure how those games would interact with player agency. But that interaction is different from DnD.

Dunno much about VtM, but CoC has plenty of agency. Mind you, doing certain things will drive you absolutely mad, muy guano loco, and nuttier than a nest of squirrels, but you know that going in, and you still have the option of, say, reading the necronomicon.

Also, you maybe unable to do much after becoming Frothy McMouthington, Conductor of the Poop Train, but that just makes sense, at least in my opinion.

[Talakeal]

I'm with Drascin on this, but perhaps for different reasons.

The primary thing is, I want my DMs to give me an experience that goes beyond what I could get by sitting down and reading through the rules and some modules. I want to be surprised, I want to explore, I want to feel that things are deeper in play than in the text.

But beyond that, I'd be worried that a DM bragging about something like this feels the need to convince other people how good of a DM he is. 'Look at me, I'm more pure than those other guys'. Why is this guy bragging about his ability to follow the rules, as opposed to the highlights of his games? Anyone can run a crappy game but still manage to follow the rules, so why is this where their pride is? Maybe they can't even tell if his players are having fun, or doesn't even care? It's not necessarily the case, but definitely cause for concern. It can also be a preamble to justifying a DM vs player approach, using 'but I follow the rules religiously' to excuse them bullying the players.

See, for me dice are what make things unpredictable, as they are not bound to narrative structure. Normally they follow predictable averages, but occasionally you get something unexpected. For example, everyone remembers the sword fight in Raiders of the Lost Ark because of how anti-climactic it was. If Indie hadn't shot the guy, or always shot his guys with no fanfare, it wouldn't be awesome, but once in a while it is a great change of pace and makes for a good story. That's what I feel unexpected dice rolls add to the game.

Ok yeah, if a DM is "bragging" about it sure, yeah, that is an indication of a huge problem. I only bring it up when involved in debates on the nature of DMing, when someone advices me to plan an adventure with fudging in mind, or when a player accuse me of cheating something. Frankly I would be put off by a DM bragging about ANY aspect of their game.

Although I do think I am going to make a thread about the next good session I run to break up the monotony of "Talakeal's Chamber of Gaming Horrors!" that most posts have become.

[LnGrrrR]

See, for me dice are what make things unpredictable, as they are not bound to narrative structure. Normally they follow predictable averages, but occasionally you get something unexpected. For example, everyone remembers the sword fight in Raiders of the Lost Ark because of how anti-climactic it was. If Indie hadn't shot the guy, or always shot his guys with no fanfare, it wouldn't be awesome, but once in a while it is a great change of pace and makes for a good story. That's what I feel unexpected dice rolls add to the game.

Ok yeah, if a DM is "bragging" about it sure, yeah, that is an indication of a huge problem. I only bring it up when involved in debates on the nature of DMing, when someone advices me to plan an adventure with fudging in mind, or when a player accuse me of cheating something. Frankly I would be put off by a DM bragging about ANY aspect of their game.

Although I do think I am going to make a thread about the next good session I run to break up the monotony of "Talakeal's Chamber of Gaming Horrors!" that most posts have become.

Players are FAR MORE unpredictable than dice. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/54/19/b5/5419b5bc2fa618dcf1d2d2e9774ef226.jpg

And look at the other side of your story. What would happen if the bad guy just ran through Indy there because Indy rolled horribly? Would everyone think that movie was awesome? Now, if you as a DM say, "Hey, you can live, BUT consequences", then sure. This is a reason I only allow rolls when I WANT consequences. If they could suffer huge consequences for a failed roll, I need to account for that as a GM. I can't assume that he will just make a low DC, because dice happens.

[Talakeal]

Players are FAR MORE unpredictable than dice. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/54/19/b5/5419b5bc2fa618dcf1d2d2e9774ef226.jpg

And look at the other side of your story. What would happen if the bad guy just ran through Indy there because Indy rolled horribly? Would everyone think that movie was awesome? Now, if you as a DM say, "Hey, you can live, BUT consequences", then sure. This is a reason I only allow rolls when I WANT consequences. If they could suffer huge consequences for a failed roll, I need to account for that as a GM. I can't assume that he will just make a low DC, because dice happens.

Depends on the movie. Typical dramatic structure calls for a major defeat at the end of the second act, so it is somewhat expected, and there are a lot of really good movies that end with the death of the main character(s).

Of course, in play you have bruised egos to work with, so it is a bit trickier.


But yeah, defeat should always open up more doors than it closes. It should lead to an interesting adventure to get back what was lost, serve as a lesson in humility, or foreshadow how much of a threat the enemies are and how much the players are going to need to struggle to bring them down.


But then again, I don't play with random death either, and I wouldn't end the campaign because of a few bad rolls or even bad decisions. I am upfront about this with my players, I personally feel that "lying" to them to keep them in suspense is not preferable to telling them the truth.

[Amphetryon]

But then again, I don't play with random death either, and I wouldn't end the campaign because of a few bad rolls or even bad decisions. I am upfront about this with my players, I personally feel that "lying" to them to keep them in suspense is not preferable to telling them the truth.
How do you play with no fudging, dice rolled in the open, no railroading, and no random death from a few bad rolls?

I ask because those appear to be your benchmarks, and read, from here, as mutually exclusive in several aspects.

[Knaight]

I'm with Drascin on this, but perhaps for different reasons.

The primary thing is, I want my DMs to give me an experience that goes beyond what I could get by sitting down and reading through the rules and some modules. I want to be surprised, I want to explore, I want to feel that things are deeper in play than in the text.
The thing is, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether they let the dice fall as they may. I let the dice fall as they may, but I also avoid modules like the plague, generally aim for players having a lot of influence, and generally run my own settings. Reading through the rules and some modules won't even vaguely resemble any game I've ever run, bar a handful of very early ones before I learned to ignore the DMG entirely. The surprise, exploration, and things deeper than just the text are generally not something introduced by deviating from a system, but either from the system itself being interesting, or more often from what the people are using it to do.


How do you play with no fudging, dice rolled in the open, no railroading, and no random death from a few bad rolls?

I ask because those appear to be your benchmarks, and read, from here, as mutually exclusive in several aspects.
Things like reroll mechanics (which 4e had and 3.x has as options in various places), avoiding save or die mechanics, etc. helps a lot here. Generally though, this is easier to do in another system.

[LnGrrrR]

Depends on the movie. Typical dramatic structure calls for a major defeat at the end of the second act, so it is somewhat expected, and there are a lot of really good movies that end with the death of the main character(s).

Of course, in play you have bruised egos to work with, so it is a bit trickier.


But yeah, defeat should always open up more doors than it closes. It should lead to an interesting adventure to get back what was lost, serve as a lesson in humility, or foreshadow how much of a threat the enemies are and how much the players are going to need to struggle to bring them down.


But then again, I don't play with random death either, and I wouldn't end the campaign because of a few bad rolls or even bad decisions. I am upfront about this with my players, I personally feel that "lying" to them to keep them in suspense is not preferable to telling them the truth.

Yes, a movie may end with the death of a main character, but that's all due to the function of the story. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any good movie in which the main character dies due to, let's say, getting hit by a car out of the blue, by someone totally unrelated to the story up until that point. (And also assuming there's not some irony there propelled by earlier storytelling.)

"Defeat" is fine, as long as it's not too often. Losing all the time makes a player wonder if they're heroes after all (barring games in which that's expected, like CoC.) And death is a pretty permanent form of losing. Sure, you can take away the permanency of death with things like resurrect spells, but those cost a ton and just get in the way, like lack of save areas in a video game. There's a reason people don't start the level from the beginning anymore in normal difficulty games.

Deaths that are part of a narrative are fine. Deaths in a game where characters expect lots of squishiness is expected is fine. Deaths in games where it is unexpected (whoops the bad guy critted you two turns in a row, and you rolled a 1 on your second death save)... those suck.

[NichG]

The thing is, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether they let the dice fall as they may. I let the dice fall as they may, but I also avoid modules like the plague, generally aim for players having a lot of influence, and generally run my own settings. Reading through the rules and some modules won't even vaguely resemble any game I've ever run, bar a handful of very early ones before I learned to ignore the DMG entirely.

To the first point, the big warning sign is not that they don't fudge, but that they make a point to tell that to their players explicitly as a point of pride. It's sort of like if you hear someone saying 'I am a very humble person' - there's a dissonance there that makes you wonder what's going wrong and why that person doesn't notice the dissonance. What kind of state of mind gives rise to the conclusion that its so important to inform prospective players: 'I don't fudge'? That's what makes it a warning sign - its a heuristic indicator that this person and I may not want the same thing out of our games and therefore I may not enjoy playing with them.


The surprise, exploration, and things deeper than just the text are generally not something introduced by deviating from a system, but either from the system itself being interesting, or more often from what the people are using it to do.

To this point, all I can say is that I've gamed with DMs who do this freely and I've gamed with DMs that don't, and I've had much more in the way of surprise, exploration, and depth from the former, and specifically because of the things that they did with regards to deviating from the written system, up to and including being willing and able to freely compose new mechanics on the fly.

[goto124]

Get better systems? :smalltongue:

[Please note the :smalltongue:]

[NichG]

Get better systems? :smalltongue:

[Please note the :smalltongue:]

Well, as an example, I was in a game (D&D-based) where you could spend XP to make these gems with words on them like 'Life' or 'Spirit', and then combine them. Every combination would usually produce a new word, and a gem of a higher tier (with some limitations). Each gem granted a bonus or ability, like a piece of equipment or a mini-feat. Later on, one player worked with the DM to custom-design a PrC centered around these gems that allowed him to do things like take a snapshot of a scene or moment from a game session and receive a unique gem from it with a corresponding unique mechanic.

It turned out that if you delved into the word combinations of the gems, it actually had hints about the cosmology and plotline. Some combinations produced weird outcomes, and you could actually figure out things about historical events or powerful entities in the cosmos by 'asking' the gems via exploring particular combinations. Like, if you have a 'Betrayal' gem and a 'Pelor' gem, you could combine them to ask who Betrayed Pelor (or who Pelor Betrayed). Similarly, if you understood the metaplot of the campaign, you could use it to find more powerful/cheaper combinations.

Since discovered gems were a shared resource, even if you were really lucky or clever with your gem searches, once you found it then other players could benefit, so people didn't get out of balance with each-other. In fact, choosing to explore was probably the slightly sub-optimal choice since you would pay the upfront XP cost on bad outcomes (but you could try to bias the types of abilities that were created by making smart combination choices).

If that were a pre-written system, the players could just look up the best combinations and beeline straight for them. You could do something where they're assigned randomly at the start of each campaign, but that would remove the sort of weird logical connections that could be discovered and exploited for efficient search. You also couldn't really do the thing where the gem combinations have information about the campaign in progress.

In another game with a different DM (7th Sea this time), the plotline centered around discovering things about the Syrneth. As part of that, we uncovered the two sorceries that had been lost in the time since the Syrneth made their bargain to grant magic in exchange for eventual freedom, as well as the method for 'teaching' a sorcery - something normally only transferable by bloodline. And of course these sorceries needed to have new mechanics associated with them, created to serve the plot of the campaign. The DM was comfortable enough with 7th Sea to work with us to create those mechanics over the course of a week or two and integrate them into the campaign. In the same campaign, coming up with mechanics for unique Syrneth artifacts was also par for the course. I also personally appreciated when my character - a doctor - was able to do some medical experimentation with infusions made from bark harvested from the depths of Die Schwarzen Walden, and could come up with some new consumable items with novel mechanics. It played in nicely to his Invisible College background.

[Talakeal]

Yes, a movie may end with the death of a main character, but that's all due to the function of the story. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any good movie in which the main character dies due to, let's say, getting hit by a car out of the blue, by someone totally unrelated to the story up until that point. (And also assuming there's not some irony there propelled by earlier storytelling.)

"Defeat" is fine, as long as it's not too often. Losing all the time makes a player wonder if they're heroes after all (barring games in which that's expected, like CoC.) And death is a pretty permanent form of losing. Sure, you can take away the permanency of death with things like resurrect spells, but those cost a ton and just get in the way, like lack of save areas in a video game. There's a reason people don't start the level from the beginning anymore in normal difficulty games.

Deaths that are part of a narrative are fine. Deaths in a game where characters expect lots of squishiness is expected is fine. Deaths in games where it is unexpected (whoops the bad guy critted you two turns in a row, and you rolled a 1 on your second death save)... those suck.

The main character, no. But then again most RPGs are team games, and I can think of a lot of movies where someone dying unexpectedly makes the movie memorable (Deep Blue Sea springs to mind), or where the person you thought was going to be the hero dies unexpectedly and leaves someone else as the main character (lots of horror movies start out with a throw away protagonist for the first 10-15 minutes).


How do you play with no fudging, dice rolled in the open, no railroading, and no random death from a few bad rolls?

I ask because those appear to be your benchmarks, and read, from here, as mutually exclusive in several aspects.

I have a house rule that if a player should be dead that player can instead choose to simply be incapacitated by their injuries for the rest of the adventure.

[Amphetryon]

I have a house rule that if a player should be dead that player can instead choose to simply be incapacitated by their injuries for the rest of the adventure.
The number of Players I've known who would either complain about that houserule as railroading and devaluing the danger inherent in combat or else work to abuse it to become a behind the scenes puppet master is. . . considerable.

Others I've known would point out that this houserule - assuming it cannot be abused to create a puppet master - is doing something so close to killing the Character that calling it anything but killing that Character is inherently dishonest.

I'm honestly not sure how that houserule helps. Its intent is apparently not to allow a PC to stay in the game; Pyrrhic victories aren't generally sought or celebrated by those who achieve them any more than PC deaths are.

[Darth Ultron]

You spent some time telling us that player agency and any real control of the game was merely an illusion. That all their decisions have to be approved by a GM. That after that they have no recourse but to make a stink or leave the game.

So how do those two views balance out?

What it reads like is that the player can control how a character thinks or feels but has no real ability to control any outcome they may wish to partake?

The players have the over all approval of if they had fun during the game, they approve.

Well, I'm talking about no matter what a player does, the DM controls the game world. So, anything that happens is under the DMs control. The DM can make things ''easy'' or ''hard'' or ''a challenge'' or ''impossible''. Even when a player brags that they did something unexpected, the DM is still in control.

Now, I'm not talking about ''control'' like ''slave'', it is not like that. When a DM makes something ''a challenge'' or ''hard'' or ''easy'', it is relative. It depends on lots of things. And this effects what a player can have a character do. If the DM does not want to have the characters rob a bank, he can make it ''hard''. Though even if the DM does make it hard, the characters might rob the place easy. Same way a DM can make something easy, and the players can make it hard. It is all relative.

Now, a lot of DM like to hide behind common sense. They will say they create things that make sense, but then get kinda vague on the point that they created it. They like to act like the thing created itself....somehow.


The issue is that at least around here the term "Player Agency" has taken on a life of it's own. It's frequently used to mean less "You are free to make your own decisions and have them affect the world around you" and more "The degree to which you are allowed to dictate outcomes".

This is where the myth comes in. The players have the characters turn left. Ok, so they think the have ''agency'' and hop up on table all happy. But the DM is still in control. Right, left, up, down....the DM still controls the world.


Semantics. If your actions are unable to influence the outcome of a scenario at all, you have no agency in that scenario.

In most game worlds that are like reality, you can't ''influence'' much. The Sword of Doom is in the red dragons lair. This is a fact. The players can't ''influence'' the game so the sword is in the nearby haystack. If they want the sword, they must get it out of the dragons lair. And there are only a couple ways to do it that have a good chance of working. The players can't just ''influence'' things and make it easy for them. So the DM says the lair is in a cave, high up on the side of a steep cliff. This makes ''common sense'' as it is great for defense, but the players don't like the long climb that will leave the characters exposed. But the players can't just ''influence'' a secret back door into the lair....

[Talakeal]

The number of Players I've known who would either complain about that houserule as railroading and devaluing the danger inherent in combat or else work to abuse it to become a behind the scenes puppet master is. . . considerable.

Others I've known would point out that this houserule - assuming it cannot be abused to create a puppet master - is doing something so close to killing the Character that calling it anything but killing that Character is inherently dishonest.

I'm honestly not sure how that houserule helps. Its intent is apparently not to allow a PC to stay in the game; Pyrrhic victories aren't generally sought or celebrated by those who achieve them any more than PC deaths are.



I can't imagine how anyone could claim that a player having more control over their destiny is railroading. Could you elaborate?

Also, what do you mean by being a behind the scenes puppet master? Do you mean they act like they are immortal IC and go around shooting their mouth off and taking unnecessary risks?

Death is permanent. Being incapacitated for a single adventure is very temporary.

The goal is to make death bad, but not the end of the character or their story. To continue the Indiana Jones analogy, just because Indiana got injured and had to spend the climax of Indiana Jones 5 in the hospital doesn't mean that the series is over and he won't be able to recover in time for Indiana Jones 6.

But no, it is still a loss and a bad thing, it is just a temporary set back rather than the end of what might have been a several year long story arc.


And yeah, it does slightly diminish the feeling of danger. But then again, if you have a DM who is going to fudge the dice so PCs can't die, that danger wasn't there in the first place, and once you catch on to the DM's game then the only threat is that the DM might be in a bad enough mood to let someone die out of spite.


Edit: Maybe its the term adventure that is throwing you? I generally run about one adventure each session, typically lasting 4-8 hours. If you are assuming adventure to mean something like an entire PF or 5e adventure path with spans multiple character levels and a several hundred page module, then yeah, I could see how that would seem to be equivalent to death.

[goto124]

Heh... yea, crippled for the rest of the session makes more sense.

How often does a PC get crippled? 1 out of 5 sessions?

How crippled is the character usually? Examples (Missing eye? Hand? Leg?)?

Do you think the an-adventure-a-session formula helps with your DMing, since you don't have to plan for very lengthy campaigns?

[Talakeal]

Heh... yea, crippled for the rest of the session makes more sense.

How often does a PC get crippled? 1 out of 5 sessions?

How crippled is the character usually? Examples (Missing eye? Hand? Leg?)?

Do you think the an-adventure-a-session formula helps with your DMing, since you don't have to plan for very lengthy campaigns?

When I run a game a "dead" character is almost completely incapacitated instead. They are conscious and can still speak, allowing them to observe their surroundings and give the others players advice, but not much else. If a player then wants to pick up a permanent injury as a result (such as a missing eye or limb) I allow them to do so in exchange for a feat.

My normal group is fairly high level, and though their characters "die" frequently they typically have the resources to get them back on their feet with resurrection level magic. When I run lower games it is still a pretty infrequent occurrence, I would say 1 in 5 sessions is a bit on the high side, maybe more like 1 in 10.





I do run long term campaigns, usually very long term. I just cut them up into separate episodes which can be completed in one long session. I also typically don't allow players to recover resources mid adventure, waiting to break until they get back to town, which makes balancing the game much easier.

For example, if I was running Lord of the Rings as a campaign I would probably have the adventures be:

1: Fleeing the shire (ends in Rivendell)
2: Moria (ends in Lorien)
3: Breaking of the Fellowship (ends Edoras)
4: The Battle of Helm's Deep (ends back in Edoras)
5: The Battle of the Pelenor Fields (ends in Gondor)
6: The Battle of the Black Gate (ends with Aragorn's Coronation)

[goto124]

How sandboxy are your games? If the players decide on a course of action that would extend a single adventure beyond it session, what do you do? Do you tell your players that they're breaking an OOC agreement or such?

[Talakeal]

How sandboxy are your games? If the players decide on a course of action that would extend a single adventure beyond it session, what do you do? Do you tell your players that they're breaking an OOC agreement or such?

I don't have a strict 1 adventure per session rule, its more of a goal that I shoot for.

Generally at the end of each adventure I ask my players what they want to do next and then plan my next session accordingly. If their goal is going to take multiple sessions I divide it up into reasonable episodes, and if I might group several quick objectives together into a single adventure.

If I am running a true sandbox game (I don't usually, my players don't seem to enjoy them) I generally simply have each session be an adventure and let my players accomplish as much or as little as they feel like doing in the time allotted. It can get a bit meta-gamey at points, but usually it isn't an issue.

[Cikomyr]

*Really weird I know, he would make up a rule, claim that it was RAW, and then forbid us to look it up in a book. He even admitted that some of these rules were unfair or nonsensical but claimed that he had to abide by them because "those are the rules," and would go so far as to tell me I was lying / cheating when telling him stories about previous campaigns that he wasn't involved in because those stories don't line up with his own made-up RAW.

Thats just being a ****, IMHO.

[LnGrrrR]

The main character, no. But then again most RPGs are team games, and I can think of a lot of movies where someone dying unexpectedly makes the movie memorable (Deep Blue Sea springs to mind), or where the person you thought was going to be the hero dies unexpectedly and leaves someone else as the main character (lots of horror movies start out with a throw away protagonist for the first 10-15 minutes).



I have a house rule that if a player should be dead that player can instead choose to simply be incapacitated by their injuries for the rest of the adventure.

Yes, but that's why movies are different than games. In a movie when someone dies, you don't have someone actually inhabiting that character!

I usually provide alternatives to death in my games too, for that reason. (Though I tend to just saddle them with a -1 or -2 permanently to a stat, because that takes away less personality from a character than a feat would. Being slightly less strong/intelligent/etc works thematically; suddenly not being able to warcast or not being able to use armor as well isn't quite as fun.)

Even knocking a character out of an adventure can suck if there's still three more hours to go until the end of the night. There's a reason why modern game design tends to shy away from "knocking out" players. It's not much fun to get knocked out early and sit around waiting for your friends to finish. But the way you do it seems relatively fair, as they can still interact.

Pretty much, if players are ok with their own character dying, then they can "choose" to have their character die. If they aren't ok with character death, then they can take a modifier (or similar) penalty. This means that death has SOME meaning, but won't throw away a character necessarily. Of course, rules like this are agreed to before the campaign starts, and should be agreed upon by the majority of players. (Preferably all.)

[LnGrrrR]

In most game worlds that are like reality, you can't ''influence'' much. The Sword of Doom is in the red dragons lair. This is a fact. The players can't ''influence'' the game so the sword is in the nearby haystack. If they want the sword, they must get it out of the dragons lair. And there are only a couple ways to do it that have a good chance of working. The players can't just ''influence'' things and make it easy for them. So the DM says the lair is in a cave, high up on the side of a steep cliff. This makes ''common sense'' as it is great for defense, but the players don't like the long climb that will leave the characters exposed. But the players can't just ''influence'' a secret back door into the lair....

Some GMs work with things like "plot points", in which players who play exceptionally well according to GM fiat gain points in order to influence the plot. In games like this, players can use "plot points" to change around the plot, if it makes sense thematically and the GM agrees it wouldn't hurt too much.

So a player in this instance could use a "plot point" to create a back door. And why not? It's not like the back door can't be at least 75% as dangerous as the long climb. Plus it can be fun for players to have a say in the world, assuming they are responsible. For instance:

Responsible use of a plot point: Upon entering a dragon's lair, a player says, "I remember hearing a story from my grandfather, that this dragon was completely vain, and the only way to survive an encounter with it was to compliment it profusely!" Then as an aside to the GM, "I'd like to spend a plot point to give us a +5 bonus to diplomacy rolls with this dragon, if we compliment it." The GM considers it and agrees. The player might have also asked to know about a dragon's weakpoint, that dealt extra damage at the cost of a negative modifier to hit, which the GM might have approved also.

Irresponsible use of a plot point: Upon entering a dragon's lair, a player says, "It's a good thing I remember to bring my sword of dragon slaying with me!" Then as an aside to the GM, "I'd like to spend a plot point to give me a long sword with +3 to slaying dragons." The GM should rightfully say no as it breaks verisimilitude of the game. (Not to mention being too munchkin-y.)

[NichG]

While the plot point thing is an example of a way for players to have agency, its actually a very different kind of agency - that is to say, narrative control. Having an override on narrative control isn't the only way that someone can have agency.

So maybe you can't change the fact that the Sword of Doom is in the red dragon's lair. But you can decide whether or not you're going to go for the Sword of Doom at all. Agency doesn't mean dictating the world (although dictating the world is a form of agency), it just means influencing what happens.

[LnGrrrR]

While the plot point thing is an example of a way for players to have agency, its actually a very different kind of agency - that is to say, narrative control. Having an override on narrative control isn't the only way that someone can have agency.

So maybe you can't change the fact that the Sword of Doom is in the red dragon's lair. But you can decide whether or not you're going to go for the Sword of Doom at all. Agency doesn't mean dictating the world (although dictating the world is a form of agency), it just means influencing what happens.

Yes, that certainly is an example of agency. But I do have a somewhat OOC agreement with my players that if they don't like the story I'm coming up with, they either talk about it to me OOC or propose something else IC.

(As a side note, this whole conversation has reminded me of the Key and Peele "Dungeons and Dragons and B****es" skit)

[Flickerdart]

I would like to address the phrasing of the title for a moment.

One could argue that nothing about D&D requires player agency. There are D&D video games, D&D novels, D&D movies, D&D cereal, whatever. Reducing or removing player agency compromises the game, but D&D doesn't need to be a game in order to be D&D.

[hifidelity2]

In most game worlds that are like reality, you can't ''influence'' much. The Sword of Doom is in the red dragons lair. This is a fact. The players can't ''influence'' the game so the sword is in the nearby haystack. If they want the sword, they must get it out of the dragons lair. And there are only a couple ways to do it that have a good chance of working. The players can't just ''influence'' things and make it easy for them. So the DM says the lair is in a cave, high up on the side of a steep cliff. This makes ''common sense'' as it is great for defense, but the players don't like the long climb that will leave the characters exposed. But the players can't just ''influence'' a secret back door into the lair....

If the “purpose” of the game is to get the Sword of Doom (SoD) (after all the PC’s have asked you (the DM) to come up with a “story” which you have done) then you are right that they can’t change the game – that is the PCs job – get the SoD – However there is nothing stopping the players saying – we will not get the SoD and will go and do something else instead. Its them up to the GM to either storm off in a huff or play out the consequences (Baddie get the sword, takes over the world and kills off the PC’s)

However how the PCs get the SoD is open to them
- They could do the “plot” – scale the mountain etc
- They could get an army together and have it do the fighting
- They could go and find some baby dragons, train them up
- Etc

There is as the old saying says “More than one way to skin a dragon”

The DM may “want” then to do the “plot” but bthe players may do all of the above to make it easier
(Army surrounds the mountain, trained dragons engage the red dragon – while its destracted the party scale the cliffs, sneak in and take the sword – and don’t have to fight the dragon)

[Darth Ultron]

Some GMs work with things like "plot points", in which players who play exceptionally well according to GM fiat gain points in order to influence the plot. In games like this, players can use "plot points" to change around the plot, if it makes sense thematically and the GM agrees it wouldn't hurt too much.

Though I'd point out there is nothing in the D&D rules about player plot points. So if a DM does use this houserule they are not exactly playing D&D.



Responsible use of a plot point: Upon entering a dragon's lair, a player says, "I remember hearing a story from my grandfather, that this dragon was completely vain, and the only way to survive an encounter with it was to compliment it profusely!" Then as an aside to the GM, "I'd like to spend a plot point to give us a +5 bonus to diplomacy rolls with this dragon, if we compliment it." The GM considers it and agrees. The player might have also asked to know about a dragon's weakpoint, that dealt extra damage at the cost of a negative modifier to hit, which the GM might have approved also.

Except the flaw here is the bit of ''if the GM agrees''. This is again admitting that the DM has all the power, like I've said all along. If the player had any power, they would not need the GM approval.


So maybe you can't change the fact that the Sword of Doom is in the red dragon's lair. But you can decide whether or not you're going to go for the Sword of Doom at all. Agency doesn't mean dictating the world (although dictating the world is a form of agency), it just means influencing what happens.

If you want to say that making a choice or two, within the DM's set of choices, is 'agency', I guess you can.




The DM may “want” then to do the “plot” but the players may do all of the above to make it easier
(Army surrounds the mountain, trained dragons engage the red dragon – while its destracted the party scale the cliffs, sneak in and take the sword – and don’t have to fight the dragon)

Ok, if everyone wants to say ''player agency'' is that the players can pick from the DM's choices, then I'll agree. That sure is not my definition of ''agency'' though.

[NichG]

If you want to say that making a choice or two, within the DM's set of choices, is 'agency', I guess you can.

Ok, if everyone wants to say ''player agency'' is that the players can pick from the DM's choices, then I'll agree. That sure is not my definition of ''agency'' though.

I'd argue that being able to control everything is an unreasonable standard for agency. In real life, I can't decide 'I'm going to teleport to Saturn now' or 'I want Microsoft to go bankrupt, so that happens' or 'It would be much better if London were actually in Japan, so I declare it so'. Those go beyond things that people - agents - generally can do. That doesn't mean that people lack agency, it just means that their agency is not unconstrained. The laws of physics determine the boundaries of my agency in the real world; the decisions of the DM determine the boundaries of my agency in a game. The degree of constraint varies based on the situation and what kinds of things I try to do.

[Jay R]

I am generally on the side that I trust my GMs far more than I trust the rules. This belief grows stronger the longer I play and the more RPG writers I interact with.

Exactly. A DM who can make a good judgment call is crucial for the game to work well at all. Insisting on RAW is equivalent to refusing to make (certain kinds of) judgment calls.

The question is straightforward: who is likelier to make the best decision for a given situation: the person who wrote rules trying to cover any sort of situation, or the person who understands those rules, but also understands all the ramifications of the current situation?

I know that there are DMs who cannot make good judgment calls. They probably shouldn't make any rules adjustments. But they run lousy games in 10,000 other ways too.

If you can make good judgment calls under pressure, then you know when to adjust the rules.

And if you can't make good judgment calls under pressure, I don't want to play in your game either way.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd argue that being able to control everything is an unreasonable standard for agency. .

I see a big difference in a) I can have any of 1,000 things(at least) for dinner with only a couple limits and b) someone gives me three foods to pick from...

[goto124]

Exactly. A DM who can make a good judgment call is crucial for the game to work well at all.

Come to think of it, that's the whole point of a living breathing human GM, as opposed to a scripted computer that could 'follow RAW strictly' in microseconds.

[LnGrrrR]

I see a big difference in a) I can have any of 1,000 things(at least) for dinner with only a couple limits and b) someone gives me three foods to pick from...

It's merely a degree in kind. You are still only to pick from what items you can acquire.

And frankly, there are a ton of other games that don't require a DM. You could probably steal their rules and play a DnD themed game, but it wouldn't be the DnD system. (It would be a far greater variant than the "plot point" house rule.)

There is no game with rules that DOESNT limit agency. In fact, that's somewhat the point of rules: defining what you can and can't do.

[Amphetryon]

Ok, if everyone wants to say ''player agency'' is that the players can pick from the DM's choices, then I'll agree. That sure is not my definition of ''agency'' though.
It reads from here as if anything with more rules than Calvinball infringes on how you're defining 'agency,' and Calvinball's one rule - that you can't play it the same way twice - might, in fact, interfere with 'agency' by this definition; that's neither a condemnation nor sarcasm, but it's not a particularly useful definition of 'agency,' since there's no medium I know of that grants that degree of agency, including real life.

[NichG]

I see a big difference in a) I can have any of 1,000 things(at least) for dinner with only a couple limits and b) someone gives me three foods to pick from...

Whether it's 3 or 30 or 300 or 3 million options comes down to the style and ability of the DM. In the Sword of Doom situation, when the PCs say 'we don't want the sword', the DM could say 'too bad, a wizard teleports you into the first room of the dungeon' or they could say 'sure, no problem, what do you want to do next instead?'.

It's also up to your own ability to recognize fruitful directions to exert agency in. To stretch your dinner analogy, even if you go to a restaurant with 1000 menu options, you aren't going to be able to buy a car from the waiter. If you fixate on buying the car (having direct narrative control over the world rather than having to act through your character), you could completely miss out on the choices that you actually do have.

[Frozen_Feet]

Agency exists as long as there are options - the number of options doesn't matter. Of course more options means greater agency, but remember: You can reduce ANY play situation into a chain of binary logic, where a player can only reply "yes" or "no" at the branch points presented by the GM.

It's only when there are no options, or when all options a player could choose from lead to same follow-up, when there is no agency.

[Knaight]

Come to think of it, that's the whole point of a living breathing human GM, as opposed to a scripted computer that could 'follow RAW strictly' in microseconds.

Hardly. Consider non-D&D games where the rules are followed closely, but cover a wider range of material. The people at the table still bring a huge amount to it, and the GM in particular is doing things like creating settings, introducing characters, providing narrative description, and a whole host of other things. RAW is a rules model that only really applies to adjudicating a narrow range of events the PCs are directly involved in, everything else in the game is introduced by the GM and well beyond the capacity of a scripted computer. Computerizing that would take actual strong AI.

[Frozen_Feet]

Considering games like Dwarf Fortress and Unreal World, I think your underestimating what has been and can be computerized.

[NichG]

Hardly. Consider non-D&D games where the rules are followed closely, but cover a wider range of material. The people at the table still bring a huge amount to it, and the GM in particular is doing things like creating settings, introducing characters, providing narrative description, and a whole host of other things. RAW is a rules model that only really applies to adjudicating a narrow range of events the PCs are directly involved in, everything else in the game is introduced by the GM and well beyond the capacity of a scripted computer. Computerizing that would take actual strong AI.

Something like Neverwinter Nights works exactly like this. The community of humans constructs modules based on their own 'strong AI', but then the game engine runs the interactions between that pre-constructed world and the players.

But if the players decide 'before we go to negotiate with the criminal underworld's kingpin, lets assassinate a bunch of his lieutenants to get him nervous and make it look like someone within his organization is planning a coup', a living GM can work with that and translate it into changes in outcome that aren't explicitly built into the RAW, whereas in a NWN module, unless the module designer coded in that possibility, even if the game engine allows you to go and kill the lieutenants, it won't actually change the kingpin's behavior or interaction with the PCs outside of very broad flags like 'talk' vs 'attack on sight'.

That said, you could probably actually execute a plan like this in Dwarf Fortress these days :smallsmile:

[Talakeal]

I hear the argument that if you don't like a certain play style you might as well be playing a computer game so often from so many different people about so many different issues. It is basically become the go to shorthand for "bad-wrong-fun".

As to the topic at hand, most (or rather all) video games have incredibly narrow player agency. In your typical CRPG you can't romance NPCs except for a short list that the game decides on beforehand, you can't decide to side with the enemy or turn on your allies, you can't decide to leave the area, you can't decide to build your own home / business, you can't come up with a background for your character with all the contacts that it would involve, you can't choose what to say except from a short list of predefined choices, you can't choose to ignore plot relevant quests or resolve them in a way the programmer never thought of, you can't choose background skills or abilities not on the games preprogramed list, heck, you often can't even choose how your characters looks / sounds / acts except from certain predefined variables, etc. etc. etc. etc.

None of this has anything to do with the DM making rulings or changing the game rules in any way, but apparently it is irrelevant because the essence of playing a tabletop RPG instead of a CRPG is that your DM can suddenly decide your long sword does d6 damage instead of d8 on a whim.

[Milo v3]

None of this has anything to do with the DM making rulings or changing the game rules in any way, but apparently it is irrelevant because the essence of playing a tabletop RPG instead of a CRPG is that your DM can suddenly decide your long sword does d6 damage instead of d8 on a whim.
What? That's not what they are saying at all.... I'm honestly confused how you came to that conclusion. :smallconfused:

[goto124]

Consider non-D&D games where the rules are followed closely, but cover a wider range of material.

Ah, yes. Fair enough, I was thinking of DnD 3.5e which has really specific rules.

Not too long ago, a poster made a comparison between 3.5e and the non-DnD games you talked about. If only I sigged it, it was great due to its examples of "stuff you can scratch".

[Quertus]

Let's use Monopoly as an example.

There are a bunch of players, and one banker.

If the banker decides that, because they control the money, they choose how much every property costs, how much if anything you get for passing "Go", etc., they would obviously be cheating.

Why isn't it as obvious that the DM is cheating if they aren't following the rules?

Well, for one, because the rules of Monopoly cover all of Monopoly - there is nothing outside the rules of Monopoly to a game of Monopoly. OK, I suppose one of the *players* could die mid-game, or the dog could come along and eat some of the cards/pieces, and then the group would need to decide how to continue. Baring such extraordinary events, there is nothing outside the printed Monopoly rules that should occur in a normal game of Monopoly.

With D&D, it is not so simple. D&D is not only much more complicated, but much more open. That is, despite how much more complex the rules of D&D are than the rules of Monopoly, they are inadequate to completely cover the D&D experience. There are things that one can expect to come up in the course of a normal D&D game that aren't covered by the rules. Someone has to decide what those rules are. Some people believe that has to be the DM; others believe that has to be the group; others believe responsibility for holes in the rules doesn't have to be assigned in any particular way.

Further, just as some people like to play Monopoly with house rules, most people like some level of house rules for D&D - even if the house rules are as simple as, "no Pun-Pun, no infinite".

Lastly, some people like certain changes from the rules so much, that they believe that the game cannot exist without these changes / cannot be fun without these changes. Fudging roles being one example of things in this class.

As to the thread topic... as I believe that Monopoly games with house rules are not really playing Monopoly, but a Monopoly variant, I also believe that most people have not played D&D - they are only playing D&D variants.

[Cluedrew]

I see a big difference in a) I can have any of 1,000 things(at least) for dinner with only a couple limits and b) someone gives me three foods to pick from...There is but as long as both of lists of thing contain a choice I actually want to pick I don't think the difference is actually that important. This is why games that offer you 1 choice (most computer RPGs for instance) still work, because when you sat down to play that game you chose that single choice and often enough people are happy with it. If not, play a different game.

[NichG]

I hear the argument that if you don't like a certain play style you might as well be playing a computer game so often from so many different people about so many different issues. It is basically become the go to shorthand for "bad-wrong-fun".

As to the topic at hand, most (or rather all) video games have incredibly narrow player agency. In your typical CRPG you can't romance NPCs except for a short list that the game decides on beforehand, you can't decide to side with the enemy or turn on your allies, you can't decide to leave the area, you can't decide to build your own home / business, you can't come up with a background for your character with all the contacts that it would involve, you can't choose what to say except from a short list of predefined choices, you can't choose to ignore plot relevant quests or resolve them in a way the programmer never thought of, you can't choose background skills or abilities not on the games preprogramed list, heck, you often can't even choose how your characters looks / sounds / acts except from certain predefined variables, etc. etc. etc. etc.

None of this has anything to do with the DM making rulings or changing the game rules in any way, but apparently it is irrelevant because the essence of playing a tabletop RPG instead of a CRPG is that your DM can suddenly decide your long sword does d6 damage instead of d8 on a whim.

The reason it connects with rulings and changing the game is that in order to have broad agency, decisions about 'what happens?' must be made on the fly, and they often cannot be made sensibly with any particular set of rules you might try to write down ahead of time. In fact, if they can be done with a pre-constructed set of rules, then you can absolutely put that into a CRPG - after all, that's all a computer program is, a pre-constructed set of rules. Imagine if all of the things on your list just elicited the response from the DM 'Okay, great, you do that' but with no follow-up or integration into the actual campaign. In order for it to actually be meaningful agency, the choices you make have to actually matter somehow. Doing so requires the DM to make a ruling about 'how' those things are going to matter.

You want to spend 3 months of downtime in the mountains sitting under waterfalls and hardening yourself against the cold before you go up against the great white dragon? Well, there's no rule saying anything should happen as a result of that, so 'great, you do that, back to game!' Unless the DM is willing to make a ruling that, for example, your training gives you a temporary 3 points of Cold resistance which last for the duration of this next adventure. Or you gain +2 on Survival rolls in cold environments. Or 'having embraced the cold, you understand something about the psychology of beings of cold, and you think maybe the dragon's first action would be X'. Or even 'unfortunately, spending 3 months under a freezing cold waterfall didn't help you against the cold, but it did make you sick.' Those are all changes to the rules. It's not as clear-cut and obvious as changing a d8 to a d6, but that's where the CRPG comparison comes in. A CRPG cannot do anything without having a rule for it - it cannot make rulings or change the game in any way.

[Amphetryon]

Let's use Monopoly as an example.

There are a bunch of players, and one banker.

If the banker decides that, because they control the money, they choose how much every property costs, how much if anything you get for passing "Go", etc., they would obviously be cheating.

Why isn't it as obvious that the DM is cheating if they aren't following the rules?

Well, for one, because the rules of Monopoly cover all of Monopoly - there is nothing outside the rules of Monopoly to a game of Monopoly. OK, I suppose one of the *players* could die mid-game, or the dog could come along and eat some of the cards/pieces, and then the group would need to decide how to continue. Baring such extraordinary events, there is nothing outside the printed Monopoly rules that should occur in a normal game of Monopoly.

With D&D, it is not so simple. D&D is not only much more complicated, but much more open. That is, despite how much more complex the rules of D&D are than the rules of Monopoly, they are inadequate to completely cover the D&D experience. There are things that one can expect to come up in the course of a normal D&D game that aren't covered by the rules. Someone has to decide what those rules are. Some people believe that has to be the DM; others believe that has to be the group; others believe responsibility for holes in the rules doesn't have to be assigned in any particular way.

Further, just as some people like to play Monopoly with house rules, most people like some level of house rules for D&D - even if the house rules are as simple as, "no Pun-Pun, no infinite".

Lastly, some people like certain changes from the rules so much, that they believe that the game cannot exist without these changes / cannot be fun without these changes. Fudging roles being one example of things in this class.

As to the thread topic... as I believe that Monopoly games with house rules are not really playing Monopoly, but a Monopoly variant, I also believe that most people have not played D&D - they are only playing D&D variants.

By that definition, I'll wager that nobody, ever, has played 3.X D&D (including PF and 3rd party variants), because of the non-functional nature of some of the rules as written without some house ruling. Similar points apply to earlier iterations, and quite probably, later ones.

[goto124]

Actually, this forum have lots and lots of DnD 3.5e players, to the point where (in a sense) the 'default' system is DnD 3.5e.

I suspect that 3.5e is trying to use overly specific rules in a DnD world that's supposed to be rather open. Less "square peg in round hole", more "1cm diameter peg in 30cm diameter hole".

[Amphetryon]

Actually, this forum have lots and lots of DnD 3.5e players, to the point where (in a sense) the 'default' system is DnD 3.5e.

I suspect that 3.5e is trying to use overly specific rules in a DnD world that's supposed to be rather open. Less "square peg in round hole", more "1cm diameter peg in 30cm diameter hole".

Quertus' argument is that people who play DnD 3.5 with house rules aren't playing DnD 3.5, but a variant of it:


I also believe that most people have not played D&D - they are only playing D&D variants.

[Darth Ultron]

As to the thread topic... as I believe that Monopoly games with house rules are not really playing Monopoly, but a Monopoly variant, I also believe that most people have not played D&D - they are only playing D&D variants.

I don't think this is exactly true. This idea is coming from the modern idea that the rules are carved in stone on a pedestal and all must follow them. A lot like the rules for most other games. But D&D is not that type of game. The simple fact that D&D has a DM that can do anything makes it unlike other games.

[Jay R]

None of this has anything to do with the DM making rulings or changing the game rules in any way, but apparently it is irrelevant because the essence of playing a tabletop RPG instead of a CRPG is that your DM can suddenly decide your long sword does d6 damage instead of d8 on a whim.

Nobody is arguing for the DM to say a long sword does d6 instead of d8. If this is your real point, then you aren't disagreeing with us.

What I am arguing for is a DM who is trustworthy and trusted. Give me that, and I don't care which set of rules we use - including the DM's.

I trust my DM, because he is trustworthy. If my DM said that my longsword does d6, I would assume that he had a good reason for it. I would look at it carefully after the combat. Does it need sharpening? Is there a curse? Is this some clue to what's going on in the world? Since he is trustworthy, I assume that there would be a good reason for it. I might ask, "Does this feel like the sword is not as good as it used to be, or is my PC realizing that this kind of sword is not as effective as he has always believed?"

If the DM randomly changed what weapons did, for no particular reason, I would quit the game. Not because he changes the rules, but because he cannot be trusted. Whether he sticks to the printed rules or not, playing with a DM whom I do not trust is not a fun game.

My current DM has changed some rules in my favor, and others that are not - all with good reason. For instance, he allows me to use a buckler with a guisarme, because we've both fought with pole arms in the SCA, and the buckler doesn't get in the way. Last night, somebody asked to use a buckler with two longswords, and the DM said no - because it does get in the way of a sword strike..

The non-SCAers in the game don't understand the difference, but trust that he has a good reason.

But that's because we can trust him to make good rules. If I didn't trust him to make good rules, I wouldn't play in his game at all.

I told my players - first levels who were leaving their village for the first time - that the spell Detect Evil would work on items, but not on people. In fact, it was a village of 100 people, none of whom were Evil. (Everybody knows the witch is evil - but she's not. She's just a cranky old herbalist.) As soon as they use the spell in front of somebody who is evil, they will learn the truth (and earn xps).

This is game flavor - part of how I'm treating them as naive villagers with no knowledge of the world. In fact, I haven't changed the rules in that instance. But the flavor works only because they know that I might.

[LnGrrrR]

Let's use Monopoly as an example.

There are a bunch of players, and one banker.

If the banker decides that, because they control the money, they choose how much every property costs, how much if anything you get for passing "Go", etc., they would obviously be cheating.

Why isn't it as obvious that the DM is cheating if they aren't following the rules?

Well, for one, because the rules of Monopoly cover all of Monopoly - there is nothing outside the rules of Monopoly to a game of Monopoly. OK, I suppose one of the *players* could die mid-game, or the dog could come along and eat some of the cards/pieces, and then the group would need to decide how to continue. Baring such extraordinary events, there is nothing outside the printed Monopoly rules that should occur in a normal game of Monopoly.

With D&D, it is not so simple. D&D is not only much more complicated, but much more open. That is, despite how much more complex the rules of D&D are than the rules of Monopoly, they are inadequate to completely cover the D&D experience. There are things that one can expect to come up in the course of a normal D&D game that aren't covered by the rules. Someone has to decide what those rules are. Some people believe that has to be the DM; others believe that has to be the group; others believe responsibility for holes in the rules doesn't have to be assigned in any particular way.

Further, just as some people like to play Monopoly with house rules, most people like some level of house rules for D&D - even if the house rules are as simple as, "no Pun-Pun, no infinite".

Lastly, some people like certain changes from the rules so much, that they believe that the game cannot exist without these changes / cannot be fun without these changes. Fudging roles being one example of things in this class.

As to the thread topic... as I believe that Monopoly games with house rules are not really playing Monopoly, but a Monopoly variant, I also believe that most people have not played D&D - they are only playing D&D variants.

That's a matter of semantics though. A good number of people play Monopoly with the "place money on Free Parking" space rule. If you ask hide people what game they were playing, I doubt they would answer "Oh a Monopoly variant." It's close enough to the "real" game that calling it a variant seems a step too far.

Using the definition you provided seems very restrictive. What if I'm playing DnD, but I rename the Arcane Trickster a "Jedi" and my barbarian's race is "Wookie" instead of half-Orc. Is re-skinning also a "variant"?

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes, reskinning is a variant. If you don't understand why, consider any number of RPGs where most everything uses the same mechanics, just with different labels - say, Risus.

How events are described is very important to RPGs because description is what actually conveys the role and the mental image to the player. Telling your players they're face to face with a native American is different than saying they're face to face with an orc, a football hooligan or a space weasel, even if all of those are 1 HD NPCs with unarmored AC and no to-hit bonus.

[goto124]

somebody asked to use a buckler with two longswords

But how? Does the character have three arms? Or 2 arms and a prehensile tail? :smalltongue:


I told my players - first levels who were leaving their village for the first time - that the spell Detect Evil would work on items, but not on people. In fact, it was a village of 100 people, none of whom were Evil. (Everybody knows the witch is evil - but she's not. She's just a cranky old herbalist.) As soon as they use the spell in front of somebody who is evil, they will learn the truth (and earn xps).

That appears to be very-close-friends levels of trust there. I imagine plenty of groups made of strangers or acquaintances that couldn't pull this off without making an entry in the Worst GMs thread.

Point is, different types of groups mean different levels of trust. The GM has to earn trust too.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, reskinning is a variant. If you don't understand why, consider any number of RPGs where most everything uses the same mechanics, just with different labels - say, Risus.

How events are described is very important to RPGs because description is what actually conveys the role and the mental image to the player. Telling your players they're face to face with a native American is different than saying they're face to face with an orc, a football hooligan or a space weasel, even if all of those are 1 HD NPCs with unarmored AC and no to-hit bonus.

Yes, but I think the amount of reskinning has to be considered. If your orcs have, say, a slight modifier to them moreso than normal, I wouldn't claim it a "variant". The same goes for reskinning slightly (say, your Orcs happen to be colored bright yellow with everything else the same.)

To me, it's a matter of degree. If you play Monopoly with free parking money, it's accepted enough to where I probably wouldn't call it a variant. If you play Monopoly with D20 miniatures and have duels to determine auctions, that would be removed enough from what most people consider DnD to be a variant. At least, that's how I view it.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes, the amount of change should be considered; there just aren't enough words in common language to convey granularity between variants. There's no technical scale for them, and it's unlikely anyone will ever come up with one.

In popular tabletop games and computer games, commonly played variants usually get their own names or abreviations. Only few (such as "iron man") have applicability across games.

[Mutazoia]

But how? Does the character have three arms? Or 2 arms and a prehensile tail? :smalltongue:.

Technically a buckler version straps to the wrist leaving both hands free.

[Jay R]

Technically a buckler version straps to the wrist leaving both hands free.

In the real world, most bucklers I've seen, and every buckler I've used, either has a single hand grip, or has one strap on the wrist and one across the hand. Using that sort of buckler, I can use a pole arm with two hands. The buckler is never in the way.

But a sword hand turns around the wrist too much, and a sword has quillons, so the buckler prevents many kinds of movement.

[Keltest]

In the real world, most bucklers I've seen, and every buckler I've used, either has a single hand grip, or has one strap on the wrist and one across the hand. Using that sort of buckler, I can use a pole arm with two hands. The buckler is never in the way.

But a sword hand turns around the wrist too much, and a sword has quillons, so the buckler prevents many kinds of movement.

Indeed. Though im not sure what benefit a buckler would grant you if youre wielding a polearm.

[Drynwyn]

Indeed. Though im not sure what benefit a buckler would grant you if youre wielding a polearm.

+1 AC, obviously. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Indeed. Though im not sure what benefit a buckler would grant you if youre wielding a polearm.

Perhaps some manner of short spear, which can be wielded in one or two hands interchangeably? The buckler could be used to shield yourself during one-handed lunges, and not be employed during closer-quarters two-handed fighting with the spear.

[Earthwalker]

On Player Agency

Option 1
GM: You race into the lost temple, there is only so much time to get the orb and save your old friends life. You turn right at the entrance and head deeper into the temple.
You run into the mummification room, ahead of you, you see an orb of Ra. Before you can get to it sarcophaguses burst open and four mummies step into the room.
Roll a will save and initiative.
Queue epic battle with mummies the GM planned.

Option 2
GM you race into the lost temple there is only so much time to get the orb and save your old friends life. You come to a T-junction. Do you want to go left or right?
Player 1 : Erm left.
GM : You find the mummification room, ahead of you, you see an orb of Ra. Before you can get to it sarcophaguses burst open and four mummies step into the room.
Roll a will save and initiative.
Queue epic battle with mummies the GM planned
(Same would happen if players choose the right path)

Option 3
GM you race into the lost temple there is only so much time to get the orb and save your old friends life. You come to a T-junction. Do you want to go left or right?
Player 1 : Erm left.
GM : You come to a large room. It looks like it was once used as living quarters for the priests of the temple.
Player 2: We search for loot oh and the Orb.
GM: Ok is a large room everyone make a perception test.
After a number of poor perception rolls.
GM: After searching the room you find nothing of interest. The magical item chimes time is up and you have failed to find the orb in time.
(Guess the players should have gone right, or rolled better)

Option 4
GM you race into the lost temple there is only so much time to get the orb and save your old friends life. You come to a T-junction. Make a Knowledge religion, DC 15.
Player 1 : have a skill total of 8 so will take a 10.
Player 2 : I have +3 so will roll it… Oooh a 19 so 22.
GM : Ok you both know that in this sort of temple the right path will lead to the room of mummification. Considering the rise of undead you imagine that as well as having a good chance of finding an orb there you will also find a load of mummies so it could be dangerous. The left path will lead to living quarters a lower chance of finding the orb if one is there it will be hard to find but at least it will be mummy free.
Oh and judging by the time on the clock, you only really have time to take one path.
Oh and player 2, you beat the DC by more than 5 on a knowledge roll so you know more information, so do you want more information about the left or right path ?
Player 2 : Erm the left path.
GM : This pantheon the keeper of secrets was Isis and you would suspect if you are looking for something hidden you should look for her symbols. That’s worth a +3 bonus to perception if you are searching for secrets in this temple.
So Left or Right ?



For me player agency is when the players are allowed to make informed choices that affect the outcome of the game / story. I certainly believe it can exist in DnD, I can’t think of any system where player agency (as I have described above) is forbidden in any rules system.
I also believe this following is true.
If a GM wants to remove player agency (as I have described above) they can. That does not mean the rules of the system recommend it.

[Jay R]

Indeed. Though im not sure what benefit a buckler would grant you if youre wielding a polearm.

In real use, you aren't always throwing shots. You can let go briefly for a buckler block when you aren't throwing a shot, and you can block with the buckler and shaft together, and your hand is safe.

[goto124]

Option 2 is interesting, since it's an illusion of choice. Unlike a video game, the players can't backtrack (or at least it's much harder to) or start a new game to replay stuff or check an online guide or such, so (theoretically) the GM can get away with it. I expect that less experienced GMs would use it pretty frequently, so that there's less to write out and plan for. Many find this to be cheating though, and I think someone said the GM would eventually get found out? Maybe because if it's overdone, the GM's converging points make less and less sense? I'm not sure either.

Option 3 seems to be quite a downer though. Is there no interesting option other than "time's up, old friend dies"?

[Earthwalker]

Option 2 is interesting, since it's an illusion of choice. Unlike a video game, the players can't backtrack (or at least it's much harder to) or start a new game to replay stuff or check an online guide or such, so (theoretically) the GM can get away with it. I expect that less experienced GMs would use it pretty frequently, so that there's less to write out and plan for. Many find this to be cheating though, and I think someone said the GM would eventually get found out? Maybe because if it's overdone, the GM's converging points make less and less sense? I'm not sure either.
Option 3 seems to be quite a downer though. Is there no interesting option other than "time's up, old friend dies"?

Option 2 is an illusion of choice and it does work for some players. I find the process of choosing a bit hollow if I don’t know the possible outcomes. I know these choices can happen but as a player I find them a lot less interesting.
Option 3 is a bit of a downer. I mean the players might have rolled better and done well. It’s about fudging, the group failed because their dice were against them. (Or you could say the GM set the target number too high). Again they could have chosen right and had a fight and got the orb (or deaded). It’s just when making the left / right choice the players had no idea what the possible outcomes were.

Again how the rolls to search are handled says a lot about the GM to me.

GM 1 : Roll percept everyone see if you find anything you have time for two rolls. (After the roll) Yeah you rolled high enough to make it.
GM 2 : Ok roll percept everyone. DC is 25. You have enough time to make two rolls before it’s too late to save your friend.
GM 3: You want to search for the Orb. Secretly rolls dice behind the screen. YAY you did it. (Doesn’t matter what the result is)

[Amphetryon]

How would you have handled Option 4, had the DC to find out about that sort of temple design been a 20 (perhaps it was a less well-known religion or architectural style) and if the PC not Taking 10 had rolled a 3? Is the DM in that situation interfering with agency? Are the dice?

[LnGrrrR]

Usually to prevent Option 3, Option 2 is applied. That's the problem with having consequences... sometimes, they really suck. Is it a downer if there friend dies? Of course. But then when they backtrack and find the room, maybe they see his slain body and the PCs are REALLY committed to taking down this bad guy now, because its "personal".

[Earthwalker]

How would you have handled Option 4, had the DC to find out about that sort of temple design been a 20 (perhaps it was a less well-known religion or architectural style) and if the PC not Taking 10 had rolled a 3? Is the DM in that situation interfering with agency? Are the dice?

That’s a really interesting question. I set it up like that, not really on purpose but just because its how I run things. Your suggestion never occurred to me but it’s a good one.

(After my game last night I suspect the answer would be this.
Player 2 I only have 3 for knowledge: religion so I am going to take a 10 and aid other on player 1.
Player 1 that puts me up to 10 on knowledge religion I will take a 10 and pass
GM (me) : Wait what, pass me a rule book a second)

If we assume that the GM knows the skill levels of the PC and so choosing to give a test a DC of 15 means the players can gain knowledge it seems like this GM wants his players to have some information about the choice.

Raising the DC past the automatic pass value doesn’t feel as such not wanting the players to have agency just allowing the dice to decide the path of the game. Also sometimes knowledge is going to be beyond the reach of the players.

I think if you are raising the DC on the test the question to ask the GM is why don’t you want the PCs to be informed?
1) It makes sense in the game world the DC would be high.
2) Player 1 annoys me so I always up the DCs for his checks
3) It’s more fun when I have power over these foolish mortals and any information they have reduces the control I have on them.

We also get to another form of agency in the game. The players fail the roll. Head left at a guess and fail the check to find the orb. Next level up Player 1 decides to get another rank in know religion and spend a feat on skill focus (know religion). He fluffs this level up as spending time learning about this old religion so he doesn’t get caught out again. He can now auto pass DC 22. If the GM now decides the knowledge DC for this religion is 25 (you know to keep the players challenged) then the GM is being a jerk (he also seems to be messing with agency)

[NichG]

For me, Option 3 could include player agency if the players have access to a wide array of tools above and beyond what the GM is directly asking them about. So if e.g. the party had a cleric who could have prepared an Augury that morning to resolve this T-junction question, then the player of the cleric did in fact have agency even though the choice appears as presented to be totally uninformed.

I think this goes to a deeper point. Player agency isn't something which you're going to find a lot of in any situation where the GM is giving the players a choice. You're going to find much more player agency in places where the players are not being guided through a decision tree, but where they can decide to do things spontaneously.

So to me, 'oh, a blank T-junction? Well, I prepared an Augury this morning so we can figure out how to go forward!' (or the alternate 'crap, I should have prepared Augury...') is actually quite a bit more agency than if the GM says for example 'give me a Knowledge check; congratulations, you pass, so you know the orb is to the right'. Even without the magic coming into play to solve the situation, there are other options as well - the party could split up and send people down both paths, then signal each-other, for example. That kind of thing feels a lot more like real agency.

[goto124]

The advantage of a decision tree - it's easier for both the GM and the players. Admittingly, it's less agency than what you suggested, but for less experienced GMs/players who freeze up when given too many choices, it provides agency without stalling the game.

Different amounts of agency for different playstyles, I guess?

Besides, the GM could provide decision trees, while still allowing the players to make their own choices.
GM: Make a Knowledge Check to turn left or right.
Player: Hey, I got Augery!
GM: ... that works too.

[Earthwalker]

For me, Option 3 could include player agency if the players have access to a wide array of tools above and beyond what the GM is directly asking them about. So if e.g. the party had a cleric who could have prepared an Augury that morning to resolve this T-junction question, then the player of the cleric did in fact have agency even though the choice appears as presented to be totally uninformed.
I think this goes to a deeper point. Player agency isn't something which you're going to find a lot of in any situation where the GM is giving the players a choice. You're going to find much more player agency in places where the players are not being guided through a decision tree, but where they can decide to do things spontaneously.
So to me, 'oh, a blank T-junction? Well, I prepared an Augury this morning so we can figure out how to go forward!' (or the alternate 'crap, I should have prepared Augury...') is actually quite a bit more agency than if the GM says for example 'give me a Knowledge check; congratulations, you pass, so you know the orb is to the right'. Even without the magic coming into play to solve the situation, there are other options as well - the party could split up and send people down both paths, then signal each-other, for example. That kind of thing feels a lot more like real agency.

I agree with you, the players can use their abilities to gain information and then use that to make informed choices. Those choices affect the outcome of the story. I used the T-Junction example to describe different Gming styles I have encountered and to talk about agency, it’s a poor example in a way as I would never be able to cover all the options.

The idea of the T-Junction is that both paths have the chance to get an Orb.

Right leads to a mummy fight and an Orb. Risky but garenteed Orb.
Left leads to a search task to find an Orb. Less risk but lower chance to find the Orb.

Option 3 represents one style of Gming I have encountered where as a player you are constantly given choices but you have no idea what revelence they have. The GM thinks his players have agency they have got to choose every step of the path where they are going. Its just the players have no idea at the time what their choices mean.

[goto124]

So wait, turning into the priest's quarters still has a chance of getting the Orb? I was under the impression turning right was the only way to get the Orb, with turning left leading straight to failure, but now I know.

[Amphetryon]

That’s a really interesting question. I set it up like that, not really on purpose but just because its how I run things. Your suggestion never occurred to me but it’s a good one.

(After my game last night I suspect the answer would be this.
Player 2 I only have 3 for knowledge: religion so I am going to take a 10 and aid other on player 1.
Player 1 that puts me up to 10 on knowledge religion I will take a 10 and pass
GM (me) : Wait what, pass me a rule book a second)

If we assume that the GM knows the skill levels of the PC and so choosing to give a test a DC of 15 means the players can gain knowledge it seems like this GM wants his players to have some information about the choice.

Raising the DC past the automatic pass value doesn’t feel as such not wanting the players to have agency just allowing the dice to decide the path of the game. Also sometimes knowledge is going to be beyond the reach of the players.

I think if you are raising the DC on the test the question to ask the GM is why don’t you want the PCs to be informed?
1) It makes sense in the game world the DC would be high.
2) Player 1 annoys me so I always up the DCs for his checks
3) It’s more fun when I have power over these foolish mortals and any information they have reduces the control I have on them.

We also get to another form of agency in the game. The players fail the roll. Head left at a guess and fail the check to find the orb. Next level up Player 1 decides to get another rank in know religion and spend a feat on skill focus (know religion). He fluffs this level up as spending time learning about this old religion so he doesn’t get caught out again. He can now auto pass DC 22. If the GM now decides the knowledge DC for this religion is 25 (you know to keep the players challenged) then the GM is being a jerk (he also seems to be messing with agency)
I'm a little confused; are you saying that after the Knowledge checks have been rolled and found insufficient, you'd encourage them to retry their Knowledge checks differently, based on the fact that they knew they failed? Part of agency, IMO, is the ability to fail; a DM who simply allows re-checks until someone comes up with a solution should simply give the solution at the start, since the PCs are not allowed to fail.

If the language in my example was somehow unclear, I was never intending to imply reason 2 or 3 as the explanation for why the DC was higher than 15; I find it curious that those motives were apparently ascribed to the example.

[Earthwalker]

So wait, turning into the priest's quarters still has a chance of getting the Orb? I was under the impression turning right was the only way to get the Orb, with turning left leading straight to failure, but now I know.

My bad I thought I refered to it as an orb, not The Orb. I could have described it better.
The temple complex has a few of them. In examples 3 and 4 both paths lead to orbs its just that the mechanic to get the orb is different.

I am sure there is a GM out there that is an example of 3+ makes the players choose left or right with no other information available.

Left is a fail option completely.
Right is a chance of a fight and success.

Its giving the players options but they arent informed options so it fails on my idea of agency.

(yes these are simple examples and if the GM allows the players to use thier many information gathering abilities then its option 4)

[NichG]

I'm a little confused; are you saying that after the Knowledge checks have been rolled and found insufficient, you'd encourage them to retry their Knowledge checks differently, based on the fact that they knew they failed? Part of agency, IMO, is the ability to fail; a DM who simply allows re-checks until someone comes up with a solution should simply give the solution at the start, since the PCs are not allowed to fail.

For me, I'd say there's no or almost no agency for the players in the Knowledge check either way - whether or not failure is possible. If failure is possible, maybe you're giving the dice agency, but not the players. The reason is that there really isn't any situation where the players would turn down the prompt to make the Knowledge check. I say 'almost no' because the players did have the ability to decide whether to put points into that particular Knowledge or not, but there are so many interfering factors along the way that I find it hard to imagine a player anticipating a situation like this when making that choice - e.g. it doesn't really represent the player's will made manifest.

So the entire thing about the Knowledge check comes before the point at which there is agency for the players - when they decide to go left or right. It just sets the context of the information they possess in order to make that decision.

[Earthwalker]

I'm a little confused; are you saying that after the Knowledge checks have been rolled and found insufficient, you'd encourage them to retry their Knowledge checks differently, based on the fact that they knew they failed? Part of agency, IMO, is the ability to fail; a DM who simply allows re-checks until someone comes up with a solution should simply give the solution at the start, since the PCs are not allowed to fail.

If the language in my example was somehow unclear, I was never intending to imply reason 2 or 3 as the explanation for why the DC was higher than 15; I find it curious that those motives were apparently ascribed to the example.

Ok first of all I was replying to your comments but all the times I was saying you I ment the general audience of the forum not specifically you. I was not intending to be picking apart Amphetryon. So sorry its kind of the pattern of my langauge and syntax. If I have caused offence I apologize.

Normally when I am GMing I tell the players the DC before the roll. The small example of taking 10 on an aid other was really just pointing out that with a +3 and +8 it is possible to auto succeed at a DC 20 knowledge check. This might seem really petty but it is another nice example of informed choices. Knowing the DC up front the players (not the characters this time) can work together to succeed at the task. If they did not know the DC they most likely would both have just rolled it.

I also think failure is a part of agency. Option 3 as it played out the group failed becuase they could not make the search DC for the Orb. I dont think you have to make sure failure is built into every roll tho.

In the example (option 4) the GM is deciding how rare the knowledge of Orbs of Ra are in the Pantheon. So if he wants the players to have the information he can set the DC to 15, if he wants them to have a chance of failing he can set the DC higher. The question isnt about how rare is the information (thats under the GMs control) its does the GM want the players to be informed or not.

So it comes to reason that the GM doesnt want the players to have the information. If the reason is becuase its rare, that again is something the GM set so why has he made the information rare ?

[Talakeal]

For me, I'd say there's no or almost no agency for the players in the Knowledge check either way - whether or not failure is possible. If failure is possible, maybe you're giving the dice agency, but not the players. The reason is that there really isn't any situation where the players would turn down the prompt to make the Knowledge check. I say 'almost no' because the players did have the ability to decide whether to put points into that particular Knowledge or not, but there are so many interfering factors along the way that I find it hard to imagine a player anticipating a situation like this when making that choice - e.g. it doesn't really represent the player's will made manifest.

So the entire thing about the Knowledge check comes before the point at which there is agency for the players - when they decide to go left or right. It just sets the context of the information they possess in order to make that decision.

One thing that is often over looked is that building your character is a form of agency. Players can usually choose which skills to put points into, and thus the probability of making said knowledge check is a direct result of choices that players have made in the past.

[Cluedrew]

I'm going to take that thought and run with it.

Let people be good at the things they want to be good at. If someone builds a character with really good knowledge of religion let that be important in the campaign. If no one cared enough to put ranks into knowledge why have it come up in the campaign at all? So if you pay attention to characters than character creation is a very high form of agency as it effects what type of campaign you play.

Another type of "unusual" agency is the agency to be bad at something. That sounds weird but sometimes I want to create a character who is bad at something. Usually something not very important (I'm not trying to drag people down) but something that will come up on occasion. If your wondering why I do that it is because people aren't perfect so by adding imperfections (including areas of little or no skill) I feel I am making a more believable character.

[NichG]

One thing that is often over looked is that building your character is a form of agency. Players can usually choose which skills to put points into, and thus the probability of making said knowledge check is a direct result of choices that players have made in the past.

That's why I said 'almost no' agency rather than 'no' agency.

While there is agency in character building, it's extremely dilute.

The first reason for this dilution is that its very distant from consequence - that is to say, when you make the choice of Knowledge: Religion versus, say, Climb, you're making that based on the idea of 'I want my dude to know a lot about religions' not based on the idea of 'one day, my dude is going to have to choose right versus left in a temple of Ra to find the orb'. Very often, the only thing you're actually making a decision about as a player here is 'do I want to be able to succeed or not?' and there the answer is almost always yes for every player.

That takes us to the second reason - the actual amount of decision made is very small compared to other forms of agency. If you can make a choice at the beginning of the campaign 'will the good guys win', then you could call that something like one 'bit' of agency - one yes/no question about what happens in the campaign that you as a player are able to influence. But that's a one time choice, when you build your character. On the other hand, even if you have a GM who only gives you decision trees, that's still one 'bit' of agency per time the GM gives you a branch point - so its likely to be at least one bit per game session. And if you actually proactively make decisions on your own, we're talking about tens or hundreds of bits of agency per game session.

So chasing down agency from character-building is a lot of effort for very little return, compared to other things you can do which immediately get you a ton of agency. You can get some agency with it, but its microscopic.

Also, and I think this is perhaps a more severe point, the type of agency you get is fundamentally an out-of-character type of agency. The way you as a player make decisions during character-build is by creating this external thing and its parameters, and then letting it go off and run the GM's maze. So its more like you're some kind of god sitting far away, creating a puppet and seeing how it does, rather than like being a character actually living in the setting and making decisions for themselves. So character-build agency is agency for the player, but its not really agency for the character (e.g. its not bound to the persona that the player takes on when playing the character).

[Talakeal]

That's why I said 'almost no' agency rather than 'no' agency.

While there is agency in character building, it's extremely dilute.

The first reason for this dilution is that its very distant from consequence - that is to say, when you make the choice of Knowledge: Religion versus, say, Climb, you're making that based on the idea of 'I want my dude to know a lot about religions' not based on the idea of 'one day, my dude is going to have to choose right versus left in a temple of Ra to find the orb'. Very often, the only thing you're actually making a decision about as a player here is 'do I want to be able to succeed or not?' and there the answer is almost always yes for every player.

That takes us to the second reason - the actual amount of decision made is very small compared to other forms of agency. If you can make a choice at the beginning of the campaign 'will the good guys win', then you could call that something like one 'bit' of agency - one yes/no question about what happens in the campaign that you as a player are able to influence. But that's a one time choice, when you build your character. On the other hand, even if you have a GM who only gives you decision trees, that's still one 'bit' of agency per time the GM gives you a branch point - so its likely to be at least one bit per game session. And if you actually proactively make decisions on your own, we're talking about tens or hundreds of bits of agency per game session.

So chasing down agency from character-building is a lot of effort for very little return, compared to other things you can do which immediately get you a ton of agency. You can get some agency with it, but its microscopic.

Also, and I think this is perhaps a more severe point, the type of agency you get is fundamentally an out-of-character type of agency. The way you as a player make decisions during character-build is by creating this external thing and its parameters, and then letting it go off and run the GM's maze. So its more like you're some kind of god sitting far away, creating a puppet and seeing how it does, rather than like being a character actually living in the setting and making decisions for themselves. So character-build agency is agency for the player, but its not really agency for the character (e.g. its not bound to the persona that the player takes on when playing the character).

I place a lot more importance on the impact of my character build than you give it credit for, but that is just a matter of taste.

The one thing I do have to question is the concept of "character agency". I am not really sure that is a thing, the characters are probably always going to think they have agency no matter how railroadey the game might be. Saying "Your character WILL go on a quest to save the dragon if you want to play," leaves no room for PLAYER agency, but allows for plenty of character agency.

On the other hand, if I chose to play a convict who is only working for their employer in exchange for a pardon, there is very little character agency, but I don't think that is really a problem for the game.

I am not really sure I would ever think a lack of character agency was a problem unless there was a "metagaming" conflict that was causing me trouble, for example I as a player want to play a paladin and the rest of the party wants to play CE murder hobos, I have to dilute my character concept for OOC reasons.

[Darth Ultron]

For me player agency is when the players are allowed to make informed choices that affect the outcome of the game / story. I certainly believe it can exist in DnD, I can’t think of any system where player agency (as I have described above) is forbidden in any rules system.
I also believe this following is true.
If a GM wants to remove player agency (as I have described above) they can. That does not mean the rules of the system recommend it.


Your idea of player agency is odd. You say the players having more information is good, but ultimately pointless. The players can have textbooks full of information, but the orb of Ra is still down the right hallway. So, why even bother with all the information?


The one thing I do have to question is the concept of "character agency". I am not really sure that is a thing, the characters are probably always going to think they have agency no matter how railroadey the game might be. Saying "Your character WILL go on a quest to save the dragon if you want to play," leaves no room for PLAYER agency, but allows for plenty of character agency.

I think player agency is a myth. Just look at the example: a player that picks from the DM's choices and knows things has player agency?

[NichG]

I place a lot more importance on the impact of my character build than you give it credit for, but that is just a matter of taste.

Importance is very different from agency. There isn't just one term that sums up the entirety of the gameplay experience. There are a lot of things in a game that are important, enjoyable, etc, but which have nothing at all to do with agency. Your character build is like a set of tools that you put together at your workstation to make something. The tools are important in the process of making that thing, but the tools are not themselves the actual product.

You could have a character build that is very comfortable in your hands - it's enjoyable to use, and just using it for anything is rewarding. But in one situation you're told 'do it however you like, but you're making a coffee mug with these exact specifications', while in another situation you're told 'just make whatever you like'.



The one thing I do have to question is the concept of "character agency". I am not really sure that is a thing, the characters are probably always going to think they have agency no matter how railroadey the game might be. Saying "Your character WILL go on a quest to save the dragon if you want to play," leaves no room for PLAYER agency, but allows for plenty of character agency.

On the other hand, if I chose to play a convict who is only working for their employer in exchange for a pardon, there is very little character agency, but I don't think that is really a problem for the game.

I am not really sure I would ever think a lack of character agency was a problem unless there was a "metagaming" conflict that was causing me trouble, for example I as a player want to play a paladin and the rest of the party wants to play CE murder hobos, I have to dilute my character concept for OOC reasons.

Saying 'your character will go on a quest to save the dragon, period' is an example of removing character agency that would otherwise be there. The character has no power to decide to do something differently (because of an OOC constraint). An example of character agency would be for the character (via the player) to decide their own goals and pursue them (possibly in parallel with the 'save the dragon' quest). Even though the player is making the decision, they're making that decision 'as the character'.

Think of it this way - if an NPC were to ask the character 'why did you choose that outcome?', does the question make any sense? If the question makes sense, that's character agency. If the question is nonsensical because it's not something the character could possibly have chosen, then it's some other kind of agency that can't be associated with the character. Character agency is the type of agency that a person living in that world would have, rather than the kinds of agency that a player can have due to their existence as an OOC entity above the world. In a game with dramatic editing, a player can in principle decide that actually the Orb of Ra was in the right-hand room rather than the left-hand room, but a person in that world cannot make that decision. Similarly, a player can decide 'this guy was born an elf', but the guy cannot themself decide to be born an elf.

The point about character agency is that chances to exert character agency are situations in gameplay that give you the opportunity to step into the shoes of your character and think and act like them. So character-type agency enables a greater degree of immersion than non-character-type agency.

[goto124]

Are we talking about immersion or player agency now? One can derive enjoyment from both.

In the case of "your character must save the dragon" (wait... did I remember that correctly?), you build the character such that she has reason to save the dragon. Then both player and character have (reasonable amounts of) agency.

Player agency and character agency aren't opposed to each other.

[Talakeal]

I think player agency is a myth. Just look at the example: a player that picks from the DM's choices and knows things has player agency?

Yes, you have already made your views on the matter abundantly clear.


Importance is very different from agency. There isn't just one term that sums up the entirety of the gameplay experience. There are a lot of things in a game that are important, enjoyable, etc, but which have nothing at all to do with agency. Your character build is like a set of tools that you put together at your workstation to make something. The tools are important in the process of making that thing, but the tools are not themselves the actual product.

You could have a character build that is very comfortable in your hands - it's enjoyable to use, and just using it for anything is rewarding. But in one situation you're told 'do it however you like, but you're making a coffee mug with these exact specifications', while in another situation you're told 'just make whatever you like'.


How you make the character sets the mold for all future actions though. Your alignment determines what sort of missions you will be undertaking, your class what sort of role you will be fulfilling in combat, your mental ability scores dictate a lot of your personality, etc.

Decisions made during character generation influence almost every decision that comes about later, and having the ability to build the character the way you like is, imo, a big part of player agency.


Saying 'your character will go on a quest to save the dragon, period' is an example of removing character agency that would otherwise be there. The character has no power to decide to do something differently (because of an OOC constraint). An example of character agency would be for the character (via the player) to decide their own goals and pursue them (possibly in parallel with the 'save the dragon' quest). Even though the player is making the decision, they're making that decision 'as the character'.

Think of it this way - if an NPC were to ask the character 'why did you choose that outcome?', does the question make any sense? If the question makes sense, that's character agency. If the question is nonsensical because it's not something the character could possibly have chosen, then it's some other kind of agency that can't be associated with the character. Character agency is the type of agency that a person living in that world would have, rather than the kinds of agency that a player can have due to their existence as an OOC entity above the world. In a game with dramatic editing, a player can in principle decide that actually the Orb of Ra was in the right-hand room rather than the left-hand room, but a person in that world cannot make that decision. Similarly, a player can decide 'this guy was born an elf', but the guy cannot themself decide to be born an elf.

The point about character agency is that chances to exert character agency are situations in gameplay that give you the opportunity to step into the shoes of your character and think and act like them. So character-type agency enables a greater degree of immersion than non-character-type agency.

I think we are getting terms muddled here. I agree that breaking immersion is a bad thing, but I don't think it is the same as character agency.

Saying "My character wouldn't want to join this party. However, I as a player want to play with this group, so I am going to have my character make an uncharacteristic decision to go along with them," might limit immersion (what I think you are calling character agency) but it is actually increasing player agency.

In my mind character agency, player agency, and making uncharacteristic decisions for metagame reasons are not the same thing. They can have some overlap, but you can easily have one without the other, and unless it impinges on one some other factor of enjoyment I don't think lack of character agency is even a bad thing. Sometimes I want my characters to fail or to suffer as it gives the story more weight in my mind, although I would imagine few of my characters are masochistic enough to feel the same way.

[goto124]

has anyone run into the attitude that trying to justify player decisions with character motivations is disruptive to the game?

Edit: Ah, I see what you mean. Yea, it's swinging to the opposite side of behavior that's well-intentioned but also pretty bad.

[veti]

Come to think of it, that's the whole point of a living breathing human GM, as opposed to a scripted computer that could 'follow RAW strictly' in microseconds.

I've never heard of a computer that could follow the RAW of D&D strictly, in any timeframe. Computers are deterministic, they don't handle internal contradiction well. Whereas people handle it so well, most of them don't even notice it.


I hear the argument that if you don't like a certain play style you might as well be playing a computer game so often from so many different people about so many different issues. It is basically become the go to shorthand for "bad-wrong-fun".

Perhaps you hear it a lot because it's a mirror image of your own argument that "deviating from RAW is badwrongfun".

[NichG]

Player agency and character agency aren't opposed to each other.

No, they're not opposed to each-other. One (character agency) is a sub-type of the other (player agency).



How you make the character sets the mold for all future actions though. Your alignment determines what sort of missions you will be undertaking, your class what sort of role you will be fulfilling in combat, your mental ability scores dictate a lot of your personality, etc.

Decisions made during character generation influence almost every decision that comes about later, and having the ability to build the character the way you like is, imo, a big part of player agency.

As I said, these are the tools you assemble at your workstation. Of course they influence what you can do. If you bring a knife and a frying pan to the workstation, you probably aren't going to be making a rocking chair.

But its a mistake to conflate influence for identity as if they were the same thing. If you bring a knife and a frying pan, you're probably going to cook something, but there are many different things you could cook. You might decide to change what you want to cook from day to day, rather than always using them to cook the same things. You might decide to cook something different for your girlfriend than for your boss. The ability to decide what you're going to be eating tonight is the agency; the knife and frying pan are the tools you use to be able to exert that agency. You could also use a phone and your wallet, for example, to make the same decision about how the world will be, but via a different method.

That doesn't mean the method is unimportant, it just means that the method and the product are orthogonal aspects of the entire experience. We can understand that the method matters without having to dilute the word 'agency' by using it to try to cover both.



I think we are getting terms muddled here. I agree that immersion is a bad thing, but I don't think it is the same as character agency.


No, immersion isn't 'the same as' character agency. That wasn't what I said. I said that character-type agency provides a particular kind of opportunity for immersion. A enables B is not the same as A equals B.

Also, I don't think we agree that 'immersion is a bad thing'. Was that a typo? I'd definitely say 'immersion is a good thing'. But of course immersion is not the only thing.

It's not like any of these things - immersion, agency, whatever - are the only and solitary end all and be all of gaming. An enjoyable game is a balanced and nuanced mix of these factors in appropriate contexts and in compatible fashion. You can over-do immersion, you can over-do agency, you can even over-do 'fun'; and of course not all of everything is the same. A small amount of agency in a particularly troublesome aspect of the world can cause a ton of damage to the game, where an extremely large amount of agency somewhere else would actually be quite helpful. It's not like there's some particular quantity of agency which is 'the right amount' in all cases in all games. Choosing for your character to decide not to go on the adventure is a single yes/no choice - one bit of agency - but its a much more damaging place to get your agency (in terms of inhibiting the game) than, for example, choosing for your character to express his discontent by accumulating evidence of the quest-giver's malfeasance in order to blackmail them once the adventure has come to a head and seize control over the plot. The second case is actually a much stronger expression of agency (much more changes about the world if you pull it off), but it the particular details that make that agency a lot less damaging than the first case.

[Cluedrew]

Hey NichG: I take one issue with your "workstation" metaphor and that is that I think in many regards can be its own point. Look at the optimizers for an example, I'm pretty sure they create characters that do not see play or do only as a test run. I myself have kept campaign notes for some of the games I have been in, I haven't really kept those but I have a collection of my character sheets. So the character can sometimes be "its own purpose" sometimes. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but there are my 5cents.

[NichG]

Hey NichG: I take one issue with your "workstation" metaphor and that is that I think in many regards can be its own point. Look at the optimizers for an example, I'm pretty sure they create characters that do not see play or do only as a test run. I myself have kept campaign notes for some of the games I have been in, I haven't really kept those but I have a collection of my character sheets. So the character can sometimes be "its own purpose" sometimes. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but there are my 5cents.

Again, I think this is conflating 'things people do to have fun' with a more specific term 'agency'. If you go into a room and think to yourself, you're doing something enjoyable and real and maybe even something important or functional, but you aren't exerting agency because you aren't changing the world. If you build a character just to play with mechanics ideas, you're certainly engaging in an activity, but there isn't a 'world' for you to exert your will on and have agency over.

Just because its an activity that you engage in with respect to playing tabletop games doesn't make it appropriate to use the term 'agency' in particular to refer to it.

[Earthwalker]

Your idea of player agency is odd. You say the players having more information is good, but ultimately pointless. The players can have textbooks full of information, but the orb of Ra is still down the right hallway. So, why even bother with all the information?

In options 3 and 4 there were Orbs to the left and right. The difference in the routes was how you got them and the challenges needed to overcome. I clearly didn't make it clear, its an orb of Ra not The Orb of Ra.
Oddly you hit on the point how it ties to what the GMs intentions are, why have only one orb of Ra and only one route to get at it. Have many Orbs of Ra. Let the players choose which they want to go for. you can do even more, while the Players are researching the Orb you can just ask them, "What has your research discovered, where's a cool place for the Orbs to be ?" get an idea from each of them and work from there.

I am not sure if my idea of agency is odd. my definition of agency is -

Players are able to make informed choices that effect the outcome of the story.
That's what I am using. I would be interested what other peoples ideas of agency are.


I think player agency is a myth. Just look at the example: a player that picks from the DM's choices and knows things has player agency?

What is your definition of player agency?
I do agree that if a GM doesn't want players to have agency he can stop it, I just don't think its a myth.

[Darth Ultron]

What is your definition of player agency?


The myth of player agency is the basic: A player with agency is one who is able to make meaningful decisions about their actions, with regards to the game world. And as I said, this is just an illusion. The DM controls the whole game world, so whatever the players do does not matter.

The only way a player can have real agency is if they could control the game. In short, the player would need to be a DM.

Now D&D is not that type of game. There are other games, where a player can control things, but not D&D. The reason is simple, of course. As the player has a character with a stake in the game, they can't be impartial when controlling things. A player, with full control of the game like the DM, could just say ''behind the tree is an unlocked chest of 100,000 gold coins'' or the ''the orc drops his weapon and turns around to make an easy target''. And there is no game to be played there, when a player can just make things happen.

[Talakeal]

Perhaps you hear it a lot because it's a mirror image of your own argument that "deviating from RAW is badwrongfun".

A: I hear it about a hundred different play styles, many of which are not my own and

B: I NEVER said deviating from RAW was bad. In fact, I don't think I have ever run or played in a game where we played strict RAW*, and I usually have a lengthy house rule document at the start of the game. And I frequently expect the DM to make a judgment call when the rules are ambiguous or dysfunctional. I don't know why you peg me as a RAW Nazi, and if you look at my posting history in the 3.X board I think you will find that I almost always come down on the side of RAI or RAMS over RAW when there is a debate.

My thesis that started this thread was that I feel it is dishonest for the DM to change the rules mid game without letting the players know about it.

If you look at my posts in the old "there is no rule zero" thread, you would see I am on the DM's side. This thread is more about when rulings over rules goes too far rather than saying it is bad to begin with.



*Excepting homebrew games, but in that case the line between house rules and raw are nonexistent.



No, they're not opposed to each-other. One (character agency) is a sub-type of the other (player agency).



As I said, these are the tools you assemble at your workstation. Of course they influence what you can do. If you bring a knife and a frying pan to the workstation, you probably aren't going to be making a rocking chair.

But its a mistake to conflate influence for identity as if they were the same thing. If you bring a knife and a frying pan, you're probably going to cook something, but there are many different things you could cook. You might decide to change what you want to cook from day to day, rather than always using them to cook the same things. You might decide to cook something different for your girlfriend than for your boss. The ability to decide what you're going to be eating tonight is the agency; the knife and frying pan are the tools you use to be able to exert that agency. You could also use a phone and your wallet, for example, to make the same decision about how the world will be, but via a different method.

That doesn't mean the method is unimportant, it just means that the method and the product are orthogonal aspects of the entire experience. We can understand that the method matters without having to dilute the word 'agency' by using it to try to cover both.



No, immersion isn't 'the same as' character agency. That wasn't what I said. I said that character-type agency provides a particular kind of opportunity for immersion. A enables B is not the same as A equals B.

Also, I don't think we agree that 'immersion is a bad thing'. Was that a typo? I'd definitely say 'immersion is a good thing'. But of course immersion is not the only thing.

It's not like any of these things - immersion, agency, whatever - are the only and solitary end all and be all of gaming. An enjoyable game is a balanced and nuanced mix of these factors in appropriate contexts and in compatible fashion. You can over-do immersion, you can over-do agency, you can even over-do 'fun'; and of course not all of everything is the same. A small amount of agency in a particularly troublesome aspect of the world can cause a ton of damage to the game, where an extremely large amount of agency somewhere else would actually be quite helpful. It's not like there's some particular quantity of agency which is 'the right amount' in all cases in all games. Choosing for your character to decide not to go on the adventure is a single yes/no choice - one bit of agency - but its a much more damaging place to get your agency (in terms of inhibiting the game) than, for example, choosing for your character to express his discontent by accumulating evidence of the quest-giver's malfeasance in order to blackmail them once the adventure has come to a head and seize control over the plot. The second case is actually a much stronger expression of agency (much more changes about the world if you pull it off), but it the particular details that make that agency a lot less damaging than the first case.

Yeah, that was a typo, I meant "breaking immersion" and it is fixed now.



I am not sure why, but we don't seem to reaching one another.

In my mind player agency is the player being able to make decisions that meaningfully affect the outcome of the game.
Character agency is the character being able to make decisions that affect the course of their own life.

A lack of player agency might be, for example, the DM stating that he has prepped a certain module and he will be running it tonight whether or not the players want to. This is probably a bad gaming environment.
A lack of character agency might be a character who doesn't want to go on the adventure but is forced to because they are a condemned criminal who is doing it in exchange for a pardon, they have to go on the adventure under threat of death. IF the players are behind this sort of plot it is probably not a bad gaming environment.

The immersion breaking conflict is when you need to warp for character's decisions for metagame reasons. For example, continuing to adventure because the player enjoys the game when the character would be happier selling all their magic items for a mountain of gold and retiring to a life of leisure on a tropical island.


I get your tools analogy. What I am saying is that what tools you bring is a very important decision, and thus being able to choose your own tools is a very important aspect of player agency.


The myth of player agency is the basic: A player with agency is one who is able to make meaningful decisions about their actions, with regards to the game world. And as I said, this is just an illusion. The DM controls the whole game world, so whatever the players do does not matter.

The only way a player can have real agency is if they could control the game. In short, the player would need to be a DM.

Now D&D is not that type of game. There are other games, where a player can control things, but not D&D. The reason is simple, of course. As the player has a character with a stake in the game, they can't be impartial when controlling things. A player, with full control of the game like the DM, could just say ''behind the tree is an unlocked chest of 100,000 gold coins'' or the ''the orc drops his weapon and turns around to make an easy target''. And there is no game to be played there, when a player can just make things happen.

The idea of a roleplaying game is going back and forth with imagination. DM describes scene, player describes characters reaction, DM describes result, player describes reaction, etc. If either side is ignoring the other you have a fundamental breakdown in the structure of the game. The players don't actually need to the DMs permission to keep on RPing without him or her, it is just expected by the game.

Again, a gaming group is just a bunch of friends coming together as equals to play the game. If they are doing it at cross purposes and ignoring one another that is a problem, and if people are unhappy the game will change or break apart based on the needs of the group as a whole.

The idea that the DM has all the power than the players can do nothing about it but complain or leave is technically true but, contrary to a few lines in the DMG, the players can also do whatever they want and ignore the DM and all he can do is complain or leave. This is a social game of imagination, if one participant is ignoring everyone else then they have no actual power to force compliance.

[Darth Ultron]

The idea that the DM has all the power than the players can do nothing about it but complain or leave is technically true but, contrary to a few lines in the DMG, the players can also do whatever they want and ignore the DM and all he can do is complain or leave. This is a social game of imagination, if one participant is ignoring everyone else then they have no actual power to force compliance.

Players that ignore a DM and choose to play freeform, would not be playing D&D.


Player agency is one of them things that is either something a player should ignore or something they should just say they have for any reason to say so(like saying ''my character choose to go North, I have agency''). And sure a good and noble and true DM will let the players think they have some sort of agency in the game. And good and noble and true players will willing fall for it. And everyone will have fun, if they just don't think about it too hard.

[Keltest]

Players that ignore a DM and choose to play freeform, would not be playing D&D.


Player agency is one of them things that is either something a player should ignore or something they should just say they have for any reason to say so(like saying ''my character choose to go North, I have agency''). And sure a good and noble and true DM will let the players think they have some sort of agency in the game. And good and noble and true players will willing fall for it. And everyone will have fun, if they just don't think about it too hard.

What makes it not D&D? Is there some metaphysical rule that says that D&D games must be played only with a single DM who is not also playing a PC within the game?

Because if that's the case, I don't think very many people play D&D.

[Talakeal]

Players that ignore a DM and choose to play freeform, would not be playing D&D.


Player agency is one of them things that is either something a player should ignore or something they should just say they have for any reason to say so(like saying ''my character choose to go North, I have agency''). And sure a good and noble and true DM will let the players think they have some sort of agency in the game. And good and noble and true players will willing fall for it. And everyone will have fun, if they just don't think about it too hard.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought earlier in this thread you said that your statement applied to all RPGs, not just D&D.

Also, would it not still be D&D if you agreed to play the game as written but chose to ignore the 2-3 paragraphs in the D&D which make the DM out to be the all powerful final authority?

[Darth Ultron]

What makes it not D&D? Is there some metaphysical rule that says that D&D games must be played only with a single DM who is not also playing a PC within the game?

Because if that's the case, I don't think very many people play D&D.

I'm sure lots of people ''don't'' play D&D. Not that that matters. But sure, the rules do say that D&D has a DM and at least one player.


Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought earlier in this thread you said that your statement applied to all RPGs, not just D&D.

Also, would it not still be D&D if you agreed to play the game as written but chose to ignore the 2-3 paragraphs in the D&D which make the DM out to be the all powerful final authority?

What statement? ''All RPGs'' is a big huge field to apply any one statement too.

I guess if you ignore ''any'' rule your not playing D&D right?

[DaveSonOfDave]

1:) Is there anything the DM can do at the table constitutes cheating?

and 2:) Is there a point where you deviate from the printed rules so much that you are no longer playing D&D?




Well, for question 1, I think if the DM is going out of his way to screw over the players when the players have found legitimate ways to do something within the game, then it might be considered as cheating the players out of a victory. For example, if the DM really wants the players to go through the door because its trapped up the wazoo and the DM feels super clever about how its rigged, but the players decide that they're going to pool their resources and find a way around going through the door, and if the DM then basically shuts down all of their efforts in spite of their stats/rolls/common sense, then it's kind of reached the point where the players aren't so much playing the game as it is the DM living out his own plotline with some people moving the pieces for him.

Now, on the flip side, if the DM fudges the door's trap going off in the event that it will likely kill off some of the players, and the DM doesn't want them to die just yet, is that still cheating? Kind of, in that the rules are being disregarded in order to keep the people alive regardless of their poor decision to open the door. Yet, I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel somewhat more sympathy here than the former example, if only because it keeps the game going. Still technically dishonest, but I guess at this point, it's a matter of why you're playing the game in the first place. If you're playing it, for lack of a better term, competitively, then the chips land where they may. If you're doing it to hang out with friends and are more concerned about telling a story that would suck more if the players die to the silly door rather than the big bad that you have lurking behind it, then you might feel more justified about hedging your rolls.

[Talakeal]

What statement? ''All RPGs'' is a big huge field to apply any one statement too.



The statement that "player agency is a myth". Looking back over the thread it seems that you didn't say any "any RPG" but rather "any D&D like game". I took that to mean a traditional "simulationist" system where you have one DM who sets the stage and a group of players who decide how to interact with it; but that may not have been what you meant.




On a related note, I typically play Mage: The Ascension. In mage they have a "Golden Rule," which is the equivalent of D&D's "Rule Zero", except that it says the Group, rather than the DM, can change the rules. Does that one little change in phrasing actually change anyone's ideas in this conversation? Would anyone consider the GM's role in Mage or the limit's of their ability to be fundamentally different?

[NichG]

Yeah, that was a typo, I meant "breaking immersion" and it is fixed now.

I am not sure why, but we don't seem to reaching one another.

In my mind player agency is the player being able to make decisions that meaningfully affect the outcome of the game.
Character agency is the character being able to make decisions that affect the course of their own life.


Yes, I agree with those definitions for the most part (I'd substitute 'the state of the world' for 'the outcome of the game', and I'd use 'exert their will' instead of 'make decisions', but it comes to about the same thing).



A lack of player agency might be, for example, the DM stating that he has prepped a certain module and he will be running it tonight whether or not the players want to. This is probably a bad gaming environment.
A lack of character agency might be a character who doesn't want to go on the adventure but is forced to because they are a condemned criminal who is doing it in exchange for a pardon, they have to go on the adventure under threat of death. IF the players are behind this sort of plot it is probably not a bad gaming environment.


I'm less happy with the direction of these examples because they're focusing on one specific choice that the player/character is not permitted to make as if that single choice was defining of the entire range of agency of the player/character. But even if the player has to play the certain module or the character has to go on the adventure, they may have many, many other ways to exert their will on the world (or they may not).

Focusing on the one particular thing you can't do differently feels like a recipe for convincing yourself that you have no agency, when really you might have lots of agency if you just looked in other directions for it. It's as if someone said 'here's a magic power; you can teleport anywhere on Earth that you like at will, except for this one building in New York; there you may not go' and the response was 'you don't let me do anything!'.



The immersion breaking conflict is when you need to warp for character's decisions for metagame reasons. For example, continuing to adventure because the player enjoys the game when the character would be happier selling all their magic items for a mountain of gold and retiring to a life of leisure on a tropical island.


That's one way that immersion can be broken. The player vs character agency thing is a little different.

Imagine there's a power in the game that lets you take over in writing the story for a brief moment, permitting you to introduce some new factor offscreen that then comes into relevancy. You said earlier that sometimes you like your characters to struggle or fail, right? So, lets say you decide to use this power to create a nemesis for your character, because that would make the story more interesting. So you've exerted agency.

Now, what would it say about your character if this power was something that they had to consciously use in-character, rather than something that you as a player can use?

If your character is the one using the power, then deciding to use it to actually harm himself immediately says a lot about his psychology that may be very different than your mental image of your character. So that can break immersion, in the sense that when you make a decision about using this power, what you're really doing is deciding based on what you as a player want to happen rather than deciding based on what your character wants to happen.



I get your tools analogy. What I am saying is that what tools you bring is a very important decision, and thus being able to choose your own tools is a very important aspect of player agency.


I'm just saying that 'agency' is a more specific piece of terminology than 'important decision'. A decision can be important but not affect the external world or the outcome of the story.

Lets say I'm playing that module that you mentioned, and the DM really runs the module to the hilt to the extent that pretty much either the PCs 'win' or they 'lose' and the deck is always stacked in favor of the PCs 'winning', and all other consequences of particular details of play are erased from the story (because, say, the next DM will just pluck a different module from the stack and start from there, and won't be aware of all the little things that we did during play that could matter). Then if I play a Fighter or a Wizard or a Cleric or a Truenamer doesn't actually change the outcome of the story. But it's still an important choice that matters, because it controls the kind of gameplay experience I'll have.

In other words, it may not affect the external world (the outcome of the story), but it certainly affects my internal world (my own experience and viewpoint in that story). That doesn't make it 'agency' in particular, it just makes it an important choice.

The reason I'm being so careful about this point is that if you go in search of increasing the player's agency, if you try to do that in character-generation you're going to run into a fundamental problem that character generation is the point in time at which the player is minimally informed about the world and the plot and things like that. It goes to what Earthwalker said about making informed choices - since you have so little information, you're going to have a huge ratio in terms of the number of choices you ask the player to make versus the actual will that the player can exert over the world by making those choices. So it'll be very easy to end up creating a really bad case of decision paralysis when designing those mechanics.

But if you recognize that the reason character generation is important is distinct from the actual moments of agency, you can design character generation to emphasize the stylistic and experiential aspects of gameplay - e.g. try to make it so that the customization you enable in character generation helps the player make the character that will be the most comfortable and fun for them, rather than trying to make the chargen decisions about deciding the outcome of the story. Then, if you want to design in things to provide agency, you can disentangle that and do it separately. An example (neither necessary nor exhaustive, just one example of agency mechanics) would be, by writing specific rules that the players can know for how NPCs and organizations within the game world react to things, so that the players can plan out their actions based on how they would like the world to change.

[Thrudd]

Character creation choices are not related to player agency in the game. What agency means in this context is that during the course of the game, whatever game it is and whatever its parameters and rules are, the players are able to make choices which in large part determine the outcome of the game. They have "real" choices to make which have "real" consequences in the game, to win or lose, succeed or fail, determine direction of the story.

Take a game like Axis and Allies: all the players have total agency to determine the fate of their in-game nations. You are limited to five choices of countries, and the rules determine how many and where your units are, and there are only so many moves to make. But the moves you choose to make completely determine how the game goes and whether you win or lose.

In D&D, you could be playing a published module with pre-gen characters and still have a large degree of agency as a player, if it is a well designed module. The DM could restrict everyone to only fighters, it would not impact whether or not they have agency in the game. Agency applies only within the context of playing the game itself. When the players can find out meaningful information about the game world and make decisions and take actions based on that information which determine the direction and outcome of the game, they have agency.

If a prewritten story progresses through a series of predetermined encounters and the players can do nothing but interact with elements that move them to the next scene, the players have no agency. If the only meaningful decisions they can make are in combat, and even then they will not be allowed to die and prematurely end the story, they have no agency.

If the game is about going into the temple of elemental evil to stop the evil god from resurrecting, it is within that context that you judge how much agency exists for the players. Not wanting to engage with the premise of the adventure is not exerting agency, it is not wanting to play the game being presented. Like saying, in Axis and Allies, that you want to be neutral and not fight.

[Amphetryon]

I'm fascinated by some of the responses here, which would seem to indicate a belief that 'Player agency' only happens when the Players can ignore or overrule the GM.

[Keltest]

I'm fascinated by some of the responses here, which would seem to indicate a belief that 'Player agency' only happens when the Players can ignore or overrule the GM.

I think its less 'It only exists when they can overrule the GM" and more "It ALWAYS exists because they can overrule the GM."