What happens when you think everything is a level-appropriate encounter

[awa]

I disagree the tennis analogy does not hold because it has two sides

I have definitively fudged in ways that made the game better including, having monsters with two much defense become slightly more fragile so a long fight does not become a frustrating fight. And giving a monster with two powerful an attack a limit on how often they could use that power. I use custom monsters so they have no way of knowing this was not always the case.

Fudging should never be the go to answer but in the right situation it can make the game more fun, I have been in games where fights were decided literally hours before we were allowed to stop rolling attacks against what were effectively harmless foes whose layered defenses so outweighed their ability to actually harm us that victory was a boring slog. I would have loved for the dm to have fudged something either to make them weaker or more damaging something to make them interesting.

and as a dm i do not gain my pleasure from randomness, randomness is a means to an end not the end itself.

[Jay R]

To expand on this, cheating in D&D is like if a referee in tennis decided that it would be more entertaining for everyone involved if the game was close, so he calls the ball out when it isn't just to keep a competitive match going.

Wow. I agree with you that the absurd and horrible example you just made up is a bad idea, and I won't defend it. All I can say is that I've never done anything like it.

Meanwhile, you ignored the actual example I gave. Let's get back to it.

When I saw that a player had a spider phobia, and was being hurt by the presence of the minis on the table, I fudged die results to get them off the table quickly without calling attention to her problem.

Would you describe this as either "absolutely terrible GM advice that have done a lot of harm to the hobby as a whole" or "cheating in D&D"?

Because that's the actual example that you replied to with those phrases.

Here are a couple of other examples.

One DM was running a game in which goblins had been exterminated on the continent we were on. When the random wandering monster table called for an encounter with goblins, he substituted something that actually existed on that continent at that time.

A DM was using a table to randomize an NPC wizard's actions. He rolled "Lightning Bolt". BUt the wizard was fighting in a 50-foot long corridor, and would have been fried by his own bolt. The DM decided to do something else.

A character once rolled "drop weapon" on a fumble table. But the character wasn't using a weapon. So the DM re-rolled.

These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. If you aren't willing to discuss this kind of fudging, then we have not been talking about the same thing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I have been in games where fights were decided literally hours before we were allowed to stop rolling attacks against what were effectively harmless foes whose layered defenses so outweighed their ability to actually harm us that victory was a boring slog. I would have loved for the dm to have fudged something either to make them weaker or more damaging something to make them interesting.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with saying "This fight is over. You clean the rest of the enemies up." If it's already decided then skipping past combat is acceptable. But if you're frequently finding yourself dong that then you might want to at least consider the possibility that you're either balancing fights wrong, or you're playing the wrong game entirely.

[Jay R]

No, it's not. If you're saying ignoring the rules sometimes is okay you're saying the rules don't matter.

This logic is invalid, as is clearly seen when you try to it in areas besides D&D.

I sometimes drive over the speed limit. I do this when there are no other cars on the road near me, in good road conditions, when arriving earlier has a great deal of value. So I ignore speed limits sometime, but I am absolutely not saying that speed limits don't matter. They are crucial parts of the social contract, making roads much more safe. Instead, I am saying that the published speed limit isn't necessary 100% of the time.

I was once given a Friday afternoon deadline at work. But my boss generally left the office before that time. So rather than rushing it to finish Friday afternoon, I came in and finished it on Saturday. I wasn't saying that the deadlines don't matter. I simply recognized that for the boss's purposes, Saturday was just as good as Friday afternoon.

I think that the rules matter, but occasionally the situation matters more. Making occasional exceptions to the rules is not the same as saying the rules don't matter at all. There really are positions between 0% and 100%.


Ignoring the rules is not the same as filling in the blanks of the rules when a situation comes up that isn't covered.

And fudging a die roll is nowhere near either one. Following the rules most of the time, but recognizing that judgment calls will occasionally require deviating from them, is simply not ignoring the rules. It's not. As long as you equate following the rules 99.99% of the time with never following them, you cannot understand what we're talking about.


If there are no rules that cover a situation it's fine to make up a rule that covers that situation. If there is an existing rule that you don't like then the time to change it is in advance, transparently.

Agreed, but not the topic. We are talking about recognizing the poor effect of a specific application of a generally good rule. Consider the following situation. The party is heading for a battle with an ancient red dragon. They have a one-time-use dragon bane item that was the prize of a long recent adventure. Along the way, I roll for a wandering monster, and get a young green dragon. I'm very likely to change it to a chimera or some other monster, so that the party isn't tempted to use the item right before it's needed much more.

I don't want to change the table for wandering monsters. I just don't want a specific result from it right now.


You're bein' a bad GM. But I believe in you. You have the power to stop being a bad GM and start being a good GM, Mr Beer.

I would never call somebody a bad DM without playing in, or watching, their game for a long time.

Specifically, I occasionally fudge rolls when I think it's necessary. But none of my players think I'm a bad DM, and they all want me to get back to running a game.


Or maybe you could put in a little bit of effort and try your hardest to interpret those statements in the way they're clearly intended.

Yeah, he interpreted your statements far further than you intended them - just like you did, when you treated fudging occasionally as if it were ignoring the rules. This is a tempting mistake we all make too often.

"The brotherhood of man is no mere poet's fancy. It is a most depressing and humiliating reality."
-- Oscar Wilde

Let's forgive each other for misunderstanding and continue to try to learn what the other intends.

[Koo Rehtorb]

When I saw that a player had a spider phobia, and was being hurt by the presence of the minis on the table, I fudged die results to get them off the table quickly without calling attention to her problem.

Unilaterally changing the rules is still bad, yes. I don't think it's a problem if you decided before combat started that these were weaker giant spiders than you had previously planned on, though. Some other things you could do to help mitigate the problem is refrain from describing them in colourful terms at all. Reducing them to stat blocks and moving on is probably the way to go.


One DM was running a game in which goblins had been exterminated on the continent we were on. When the random wandering monster table called for an encounter with goblins, he substituted something that actually existed on that continent at that time.

If the game you're playing calls for strictly following random tables then it'd be bad and his job would be to explain why some goblins still existed in the region. I doubt that was the case, though. He probably should have rewritten the random tables to account for that fact, but a clear understanding that goblins no longer exist and a "goblins" result is actually "wereboars" or whatever is also fine. Fudging random tables is only a problem if you're ignoring results you don't like because "That'd be too hard".


A DM was using a table to randomize an NPC wizard's actions. He rolled "Lightning Bolt". BUt the wizard was fighting in a 50-foot long corridor, and would have been fried by his own bolt. The DM decided to do something else.

That's hard to judge without more information. Why exactly was this wizard choosing his actions randomly? If he's insane and doing things at random then changing it would probably be bad. Otherwise I'd say the whole concept of picking his spells randomly is dumb in the first place. But if you have a reason to commit to "random spells" then you should probably stick to it.


A character once rolled "drop weapon" on a fumble table. But the character wasn't using a weapon. So the DM re-rolled.

I'd probably say the character gets off easy with that result, nothing happens. I don't think it's a grievous sin to reroll either, though. Interpreting results in a way that makes sense is acceptable, as is inventing new rules if existing ones don't cover a situation.


These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. If you aren't willing to discuss this kind of fudging, then we have not been talking about the same thing.

Yeah, this isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about more along the lines of "Mary is at 1 HP and the orc is up next. Orc rolls a crit, which will certainly kill her but that wouldn't be fun so I'll say the orc rolled a 1 instead yay." It crosses into the cheating territory when the GM has some sort of agenda to push that he decides is more important than following the rules of the game that everyone agreed on. Ignoring the rules is basically a form of railroading.

[awa]

it is basically a form of railroading but I'm actually okay with an occasional few second of railroad that I never notice if it makes the game more fun. (remember neither as a player or a dm do I find randomness fun in and of itself) Though personally I find changing dice rolls to be a rather crude way of solving the problem and certainly one that should be indulged rarely if ever.

[Jay R]

I think we're considering a false dichotomy. It's similar to interviewing four people for two open positions, and they turn out to be a qualified woman, a qualified man, an unqualified woman, and an unqualified man. If you ask whether you should hire the men or the women, you're asking the wrong question.

Consider four possibilities:

1. A poor DM makes the game worse by stupidly changing the rules.
2. A good DM makes the game better by intelligently breaking the rules when it would help.
3. A poor DM makes the game worse by blindly following the rules.
4. A good DM makes the game better by intelligently applying the rules as written.

The question asks us to choose to keep either both 1 & 2, or both 3 & 4.

Most of the arguments are either:
A. people who prefer the good DM in #2 to the poor DM in #3, or
B. people who prefer the good DM in #4 to the poor DM in #1.

But all four of these happen in real games. People who have not seen the good DM in 4 assume that fudging is a uniformly bad idea. People like me who have seen excellent DMs using the tool well approve of the tool.

In fact, both 2 & 4 are better than 1 & 3.

The DM should choose the best tool for the job. The tool of the DM making a rules adjustment can be, and has been, used both badly and well.

[kyoryu]

I'm totally okay with changing the rules!

Fudging is just changing the rules *after* the die roll, in an ad-hoc way. I'd rather change the rules *before* the roll, in some way.

Like if your climbing rules say that rolling a one will result in a fall, and you're climbing the Cliffs of Insanity, and so falling will die, I'd rather have the GM say "okay, on a one, I'm going to say that's really just you running into one of the Rocs of Ruin that are nesting in the cliffs, rather than a fall". If you don't do that, and don't want to kill the character when you roll a one, the option that's left is fudging the roll, and that's fine. I'd just prefer the modification being done before the roll. Sometimes that's not possible.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The DM should choose the best tool for the job. The tool of the DM making a rules adjustment can be, and has been, used both badly and well.

I do have a suspicion that we're talking about different things now. Let me try this statement out as a way to separate what we're talking about, though I'm not totally certain if it captures everything or not.

Changing the rules is bad when doing so requires that you lie to your players, either outright or by omission. If you can look at your players and say "I rolled goblins on the random table but goblins don't exist any more so I'm going to reroll", then it's probably fine.

[Jay R]

Changing the rules is bad when doing so requires that you lie to your players, either outright or by omission. If you can look at your players and say "I rolled goblins on the random table but goblins don't exist any more so I'm going to reroll", then it's probably fine.

Like every other flat statement that tries to substitute a universal rule for unique judgment calls in unique situations, it breaks down when a judgment call is needed.

Specifically, it seemed important to not call attention to my player's spider phobia. I did not announce, and would not announce, that I was reducing the encounter due to somebody's psychological issue. So the best example I have of the occasional need to fudge would be bad by your proposed rule.

If you don't trust your DM's judgment, then this rule won't help. Nor will any other. Under any approach, a DM with poor judgment will cause problems.

If you do trust your DM's judgment, then trust it.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Like every other flat statement that tries to substitute a universal rule for unique judgment calls in unique situations, it breaks down when a judgment call is needed.

Specifically, it seemed important to not call attention to my player's spider phobia. I did not announce, and would not announce, that I was reducing the encounter due to somebody's psychological issue. So the best example I have of the occasional need to fudge would be bad by your proposed rule.

If you don't trust your DM's judgment, then this rule won't help. Nor will any other. Under any approach, a DM with poor judgment will cause problems.

If you do trust your DM's judgment, then trust it.

I don't know that I would even call substituting one encounter with another encounter changing the rules of the game. Both stronger and weaker spiders exist and until they're established as being one or the other they can be either.

I also kind of reject the assumption that it's the DM's responsibility to shuffle things around to protect a player from phobias in the first place. Presumably this player was an adult. If you were right in your assumption that having spiders on the table was severely traumatizing to her then she's presumably capable of saying "Hey spiders make me uncomfortable. Can I sit this one out?" or even before the campaign starts "Hey spiders make me uncomfortable. Could we not have any of them in the game please?" Taking it on yourself to protect her from the issues you assumed she had strikes me as uncomfortably patronizing.

[Mr Beer]

That's not what Deux ex Machina means. :smallsmile:

I know what it means, I just don't know what you mean. You created an arbitrary distinction between 'creating reality' (cavalry arrive to save PC) and 'creating reality' (fudge a dice roll to save PC). Deus ex-machina falls into the category of 'creating reality'.



Any setting related changes are required to make sense in the fiction as established. If you're in a bandit infested forest then bandits showing up is something that makes sense. Zeus randomly showing up does not. It's not the best option, but it is an option.

So saving the PCs via narrative should be thematically appropriate? No duh. But if we look beyond your 'GM 101' lesson, Zeus showing up can be entirely appropriate in a fantasy setting.


No, it's not. If you're saying ignoring the rules sometimes is okay you're saying the rules don't matter.

Ignoring the rules is not the same as filling in the blanks of the rules when a situation comes up that isn't covered. If there are no rules that cover a situation it's fine to make up a rule that covers that situation. If there is an existing rule that you don't like then the time to change it is in advance, transparently.

Ideally rules should be changed in advance. However the vast majority of GMs have ignored or fudged or changed a rule upon consideration in a given circumstance, having not previously considered it. I suspect that you have likely do so yourself.

This is not the same as throwing away the rulebook and playing Lets Pretend, which is the incorrect assertion you made.


You're bein' a bad GM. But I believe in you. You have the power to stop being a bad GM and start being a good GM, Mr Beer.

You don't know anything about my GM-ing, my game or my group. All you know is that I'm picking apart your incorrect assertion that it is always wrong to fudge a dice roll. I think that you find that frustrating and that's why you are turning to personal insults in lieu of substance.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I know what it means, I just don't know what you mean. You created an arbitrary distinction between 'creating reality' (cavalry arrive to save PC) and 'creating reality' (fudge a dice roll to save PC). Deus ex-machina falls into the category of 'creating reality'.

I don't know how many more ways I have to say "Changing the rules of the game is different from having things happen in the game".

If you play an RPG you are agreeing "Yes the GM can say that things happen". You are not agreeing "Yes the GM can say he rolled a 1 when he rolled a 20." Unless your group has all specifically said "Yes we consent that the GM can make up dice results if he wants to". You're not cheating in that case, but the probability is very high that your group is playing the wrong game for them and would be better served by a system which doesn't require the GM to break the rules of the game to get your preferred play style.


You don't know anything about my GM-ing, my game or my group. All you know is that I'm picking apart your incorrect assertion that it is always wrong to fudge a dice roll. I think that you find that frustrating and that's why you are turning to personal insults in lieu of substance.

I know that you're saying it's sometimes correct to fudge a die roll, which it is not. That's what we call "evidence". You may well be a good GM in other instances, but in this particular one you're bein' a bad GM. So cut it out. You can do better.

[Jay R]

I don't know that I would even call substituting one encounter with another encounter changing the rules of the game. Both stronger and weaker spiders exist and until they're established as being one or the other they can be either.

It certainly falls into your previously described category of "some sort of agenda to push that he decides is more important than following the rules of the game that everyone agreed on".

But in any case, you've agreed that judgment calls changing the rules can be OK in some circumstances.

That's good enough for me. No two people will always make the same judgment call. That's why it's crucial to trust the judgment of your DM.


I also kind of reject the assumption that it's the DM's responsibility to shuffle things around to protect a player from phobias in the first place.

It's not "the DM's responsibility". It's my desire to stop making my friend uncomfortable.


Presumably this player was an adult. If you were right in your assumption that having spiders on the table was severely traumatizing to her then she's presumably capable of saying "Hey spiders make me uncomfortable. Can I sit this one out?" or even before the campaign starts "Hey spiders make me uncomfortable. Could we not have any of them in the game please?" Taking it on yourself to protect her from the issues you assumed she had strikes me as uncomfortably patronizing.

Call it what you like. Since I'd known her for a decade at that point, and you have no idea what she's like, nobody could expect us to make the same judgment call.

In any event, she thanked me for it later.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It certainly falls into your previously described category of "some sort of agenda to push that he decides is more important than following the rules of the game that everyone agreed on".

But in any case, you've agreed that judgment calls changing the rules can be OK in some circumstances.

Unless you agreed to play a particular module 100% straight with the group and that module called for an encounter with X spiders of Y difficulty you're not really changing rules at all, at least in the sense of rules that I'm working with. I also don't really think this breaks my definition of having to have lied to your players over it. If you could have said to them later "Oh yeah, turns out spiders made one of the group uncomfortable so I moved past it" without objections then I think it's fine.

And as a broader point I don't like that you seem to be trying to reduce this down to "DM Judgement is needed, therefore DMs always have the right to change anything they want, so long as it's for the good of the group". DM judgement is sometimes needed for some things, and never needed for some other things. There are different categories of DM actions, some of which are fine for making judgements over, some of which are not.

[prufock]

Paranoia is not like other games. If you GM other games like Paranoia you are messing up. Hope this helps.
It actually does. It changes the framing of the argument from "Fudging dice in RPGs is universally bad" to "Fudging dice in RPGs is bad for a particular subset of games." This becomes an issue of deciding which games go into that subset.

[Jay R]

Unless you agreed to play a particular module 100% straight with the group and that module called for an encounter with X spiders of Y difficulty you're not really changing rules at all, at least in the sense of rules that I'm working with. I also don't really think this breaks my definition of having to have lied to your players over it. If you could have said to them later "Oh yeah, turns out spiders made one of the group uncomfortable so I moved past it" without objections then I think it's fine.

OK. I only objected to your stance that "If you fudge dice rolls you're cheapening the entire experience and will damage the game for everyone involved." Since you now concede that this isn't always true, I'm comfortable with your new stance.


And as a broader point I don't like that you seem to be trying to reduce this down to "DM Judgement is needed, therefore DMs always have the right to change anything they want, so long as it's for the good of the group". DM judgement is sometimes needed for some things, and never needed for some other things. There are different categories of DM actions, some of which are fine for making judgements over, some of which are not.

I suggest that if you want to put something in quotes and ascribe it to me, then it should be words you block-copy from my posts, like I did with your words above.

This statement you put in quotes ("DM Judgement is needed, therefore DMs always have the right to change anything they want, so long as it's for the good of the group") is not a quotation. and is not something I said, implied, or believe.

In fact, in the only post I wrote yesterday that you chose not to reply to, I specifically wrote that "A poor DM makes the game worse by stupidly changing the rules." [This is a direct quote.] You cannot fairly conclude that I believe that DMs always have the right to change anything they want.

In other posts, I wrote:
"I think that fudging, while rare, is a legitimate tool to make the game more fun."
"Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong. Taking medicine is essential when you're sick, but don't get addicted to it."
"Like anything else, fudging die rolls can be done well or poorly, and after you've seen a DM doing it poorly, you have every reason to be leery of it."
"I agree with you that the absurd and horrible example you just made up is a bad idea, and I won't defend it. All I can say is that I've never done anything like it."
"Making occasional exceptions to the rules is not the same as saying the rules don't matter at all. There really are positions between 0% and 100%."
"The tool of the DM making a rules adjustment can be, and has been, used both badly and well."
"... judgment calls changing the rules can be OK in some circumstances."

None of this can be accurately characterized as "DMs always have the right to change anything they want".

I've called it rare and occasional exceptions, identified one example as absurd and horrible, pointed out that it can be done well or poorly, said that it's only a good idea when something is wrong, and that the DM shouldn't get addicted for it, and claimed that it can be OK "in some circumstances", and pointed out that it has been used both badly and well.

DMs who believe that they "have the right to change anything they want" aren't making rare judgment calls, aren't making occasional exceptions, and in fact, aren't making judgment calls. They also are not what I've supported.

In fact, I think the rules should govern most things unless an unusual situation comes up in which the rule gives a bad answer. And I believe that a DM should change things only when he or she has a good reason to believe that it's necessary.

I also believe that trusting the DM is a necessary part of making the game work. So you should only play under DMs whose judgment you trust. And then, when something happens, you should trust the DM.

Many years ago, an entire party was turned to stone. When they were rescued by another party, none of their magic items worked. They said that being turned to stone shouldn't have made all their magic items inert, and accused the DM of changing the rules.

In fact, the DM had changed nothing. The party that rescued them had stolen their magic items, and left identical non-magical copies in their place.

If they had trusted their DM, they might have been able to figure out that their items had been stolen (particularly since one of their stolen magic items was a bag that made non-magical duplicates). But without that trust, they never seriously considered that possibility.

I believe that you should finds a trustworthy DM, and then trust. But I don't believe a DM should change things whenever he or she wants. I just don't.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I suggest that if you want to put something in quotes and ascribe it to me, then it should be words you block-copy from my posts, like I did with your words above.

This statement you put in quotes ("DM Judgement is needed, therefore DMs always have the right to change anything they want, so long as it's for the good of the group") is not a quotation. and is not something I said, implied, or believe.

In fact, in the only post I wrote yesterday that you chose not to reply to, I specifically wrote that "A poor DM makes the game worse by stupidly changing the rules." [This is a direct quote.] You cannot fairly conclude that I believe that DMs always have the right to change anything they want

Okay, I apologize for the misrepresentation.

I assumed that was your intent because I'm not even sure what you're arguing otherwise. If you're not using "The GM is empowered to make judgements about things happening in the setting" to support some broader point then what are you arguing for? Obviously the GM can make judgements about things happening in the setting or a game wouldn't exist. This isn't a controversial point.

[Jay R]

Okay, I apologize for the misrepresentation.

No problem. The purpose for a continuing conversation is to make sure we eventually understand each other.


I assumed that was your intent because I'm not even sure what you're arguing otherwise. If you're not using "The GM is empowered to make judgements about things happening in the setting" to support some broader point then what are you arguing for? Obviously the GM can make judgements about things happening in the setting or a game wouldn't exist. This isn't a controversial point.

Any attempt to reduce my position to a single flat statement will be incorrect. It's not a coincidence that my explanations are longer than most people's.

I'm arguing against the simplistic approach in either direction. My first sentence in this thread was "I think I agree with everybody's basic stance, and think most people's statement of their conclusion is too simplistic."

I oppose equally "DMs always have the right to change anything they want" and "If you fudge dice rolls you're cheapening the entire experience and will damage the game for everyone involved." Both basic stances say something important, but both are too simplistic.

I'm arguing against any approach that would lead someone to say "You're bein' a bad GM" without having lots of experience in that DM's games.

A good DM needs the ability to make a final call, despite what the rules say, or the die says. It's a useful tool, just like a hammer is a useful tool. And just like a hammer, if you use it incorrectly, or on the wrong project, you can easily break something.

I believe that you should never break a rule unless you know why that rule is there, and have a good reason to believe that, while that's usually the right thing to do, it would be wrong in this specific case. Judgment calls of this sort are hard to do, and anybody making them should be very careful.

And the proper measure of how well they have done is how much their players keep wanting to come back over and over again.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm arguing against the simplistic approach in either direction. My first sentence in this thread was "I think I agree with everybody's basic stance, and think most people's statement of their conclusion is too simplistic."

Noted, I'll try to be more careful.


A good DM needs the ability to make a final call, despite what the rules say, or the die says. It's a useful tool, just like a hammer is a useful tool.

This is where I think I disagree, though, and what led me to thinking you're saying "DMs have the right to change anything they want if they feel a need for it." I never thought you were saying DMs should change anything they want on a whim, but rather that you're saying "DMs need the ability to change any category of things if there's a need for it." I disagree that there's ever a need to change certain things.

Changing the rules (in advance, transparently) is acceptable.
Inventing new rules to fill a gap is acceptable.
Declining to engage certain rules because they're not applicable is acceptable.

Pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not is never acceptable.

In my mind you were using the first three to try to justify the fourth, which I object to, because I don't view them as similar, let alone the same.

[awa]

Changing the rules (in advance, transparently) is acceptable.
Inventing new rules to fill a gap is acceptable.
Declining to engage certain rules because they're not applicable is acceptable.

Pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not is never acceptable.

In my mind you were using the first three to try to justify the fourth, which I object to, because I don't view them as similar, let alone the same.

Personally I think there are situations where number 4 in rare circumstances is useful I respect that you don’t I just disagree. If done well and rarely. Here's a very simple example it was years ago when I was a less skilled dm it was the last fight in the last session and the player died to a foes death throes and he was visibly bummed so I said wait do you have this ability (I no longer no remember ability) which I knew he had and said oh then actually your passed the check and you’re at -9. Now I fudge I cheated the power didn’t actually apply but it was a homebrew power and it could have and his survival dramatically improved his enjoyment.

[Beleriphon]

To be fair, I've found it equally valid to every other option in CoC since just about everything I see done results in death or insanity, including getting the tools the DM wants you to so you can progress, and conversely I've had no trouble so far with the mentality of it always being valid in shadowrun with the caveat that yeah, sure it's sometimes a really bad idea but it's still as good as a lot of the others on the table. Paranoia is a bit like CoC in that I don't think there is supposed to be any "correct" way to play it, or if there is, knowing about it is cheating so frankly I again don't think it's ever any worse than any other solution out there. Pendragon I admit I outright don't know however.

Cheating at Paranoia gets you killed by Friend Computer. I mean after a fashion the whole point of Paranoia is random death and hilarity.

[Jay R]

Changing the rules (in advance, transparently) is acceptable.
Inventing new rules to fill a gap is acceptable.
Declining to engage certain rules because they're not applicable is acceptable.

Pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not is never acceptable.

I accept that these flat statements are how you would make your judgment calls. But they don't come from the rules, and you can't claim that doing it differently is opposed to the rules. So please recognize that these statements mean only what is "acceptable" or not to Koo Rehtorb, not general acceptability to either the rules or the community of D&D players.

I judge acceptability of my judgment calls by how much my players approve, not how an internet stranger does.


Pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not is never acceptable.

Oh, agreed. I would never defend that. But you're doing that, and I'm not.

In every version of D&D I've ever played, the possibility of making a rare exception is indeed part of the mechanics. If you leave that out, and mindlessly apply the basics without judgment calls, then you are pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not.

[More accurately, you are engaging most but not all of the mechanics. Similarly, it would be more accurate if you accused me of engaging the basic mechanics virtually always, and applying the exceptional mechanic very rarely, as an exception.]


In my mind you were using the first three to try to justify the fourth, which I object to, because I don't view them as similar, let alone the same.

No, I'm using the rules as published to justify it, against your contention that the rules as published are "a bunch of absolutely terrible GM advice that have done a lot of harm to the hobby as a whole" and "cheating in D&D".

I am also using personal experience and several incidents to show why I agree with those rules. But the justification for the way I run the game is in the actual rules.

I have also admitted, more than once, that a poor DM can use that part of the rules to hurt a game, and I've warned about doing it unless you're sure.

But according to the 3.5e DMG, the idea that the DM has "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook" is not violating the rules, or cheating. It is the rules.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Personally I think there are situations where number 4 in rare circumstances is useful I respect that you don’t I just disagree. If done well and rarely. Here's a very simple example it was years ago when I was a less skilled dm it was the last fight in the last session and the player died to a foes death throes and he was visibly bummed so I said wait do you have this ability (I no longer no remember ability) which I knew he had and said oh then actually your passed the check and you’re at -9. Now I fudge I cheated the power didn’t actually apply but it was a homebrew power and it could have and his survival dramatically improved his enjoyment.

Believe me. I understand, and I sympathise. I hate it when PCs die. People who aren't hardened to it usually get upset and it sucks and I usually miss the characters and it sucks more and it's misery all around.

But every time you give in to that and let a character live illegitimately it weakens the game as a whole. It taints all the PC accomplishments because they didn't win according to the rules, they won because you felt sorry for them and let them win. Sure you can get away with it now and then without damaging the game too much probably, if you're careful and subtle. But believe me, people get a feeling for it sooner or later.



I accept that these flat statements are how you would make your judgment calls. But they don't come from the rules, and you can't claim that doing it differently is opposed to the rules. So please recognize that these statements mean only what is "acceptable" or not to Koo Rehtorb, not general acceptability to either the rules or the community of D&D players.

I judge acceptability of my judgment calls by how much my players approve, not how an internet stranger does.


I always forget to do this because it seems silly to me. In any and all statements I make I accept that I am a fallible human being and my statements could be wrong.

That's not the same thing as believing that any and all preferences and opinions are equally valid. In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Gaming, I believe I am right about this and other people are wrong. I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere. Obviously I could be mistaken, but that's what I'm saying.

And obviously other random people on the internet have no particular reason to take my disapproval of their ways to heart.


In every version of D&D I've ever played, the possibility of making a rare exception is indeed part of the mechanics. If you leave that out, and mindlessly apply the basics without judgment calls, then you are pretending you're engaging the mechanics when you're actually not.

No, I'm using the rules as published to justify it, against your contention that the rules as published are "a bunch of absolutely terrible GM advice that have done a lot of harm to the hobby as a whole" and "cheating in D&D".

But according to the 3.5e DMG, the idea that the DM has "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook" is not violating the rules, or cheating. It is the rules.

Yes, all that's fair and deserves a reply.

I've never claimed that RPGs are perfect or all have flawless rules. I've specifically said that it is well within the group's rights to change rules if they need to, so long as they do it in advance. In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying, if you don't change rules like that then you are messing up and damaging your game. I think it's very unfortunate that a bunch of early games built **** rules like that into them. I think it's even more unfortunate that **** rules like that have seeped into the hobby from there and led to people thinking that's the way gaming should work. It is especially frustrating when people take those experiences from D&D and mess up other better games with them that don't have those particular **** rules.

[awa]

you may note that I indicated it was the last battle of the last session of the campaign their was no game to cheapen. In fact when I made that decision the game was literally over and we were packing up. It made the player leave happy and made the last session more fun for him, it made the game better.

[Jay R]

I've never claimed that RPGs are perfect or all have flawless rules. I've specifically said that it is well within the group's rights to change rules if they need to, so long as they do it in advance.

By contrast, I think they have the right to do it their way, under their own conditions.

And of course that means I think you have the right to change the rules your way, under your own conditions.

And that's what you've done. Since you have changed the rules to disallow the DM's final authority over the printed rules in advance (which are your conditions), I accept your right to change them that way.


In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying, if you don't change rules like that then you are messing up and damaging your game.

I trust that you will understand that I'm more interested in the opinions of people who have actually played my games, just as I have more interest in the opinions of movie critics you have seen a movie than those who have not.


I think it's very unfortunate that a bunch of early games built **** rules like that into them. I think it's even more unfortunate that **** rules like that have seeped into the hobby from there and led to people thinking that's the way gaming should work. It is especially frustrating when people take those experiences from D&D and mess up other better games with them that don't have those particular **** rules.

OK. Well, evidently in your subjective opinion as a fallible human being you have declared that the game I run and that my players enjoy and clamor for is made up of **** rules.

------------

I think we've both carefully explained our positions, and everybody reading has had every opportunity to evaluate our positions. Thank you for an interesting discussion. I think neither of us has anything new to say on the subject.

[RazorChain]

Believe me. I understand, and I sympathise. I hate it when PCs die. People who aren't hardened to it usually get upset and it sucks and I usually miss the characters and it sucks more and it's misery all around.

But every time you give in to that and let a character live illegitimately it weakens the game as a whole. It taints all the PC accomplishments because they didn't win according to the rules, they won because you felt sorry for them and let them win. Sure you can get away with it now and then without damaging the game too much probably, if you're careful and subtle. But believe me, people get a feeling for it sooner or later.

Don't be silly, the PC's only win because the GM let's them. It's called level appropriate encounters. If the GM would just throw something random in the PC's path then they would die really, really quickly. There is no illegitimate living and even though you save a PC through GM Fiat it doesn't dirty the game or make it cheaper. Roleplaying doesn't even have to be about winning and the price for losing doesn't have to be death.

The Rules aren't all and everything, you can run a very fast and lose games with minimal of rules and just make things up as you go along. If you want to run and advesarial game with extra attention to rules then you can do so but it is not the only way to play the game.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I trust that you will understand that I'm more interested in the opinions of people who have actually played my games, just as I have more interest in the opinions of movie critics you have seen a movie than those who have not.

As I believe I indicated in that very post.


OK. Well, evidently in your subjective opinion as a fallible human being you have declared that the game I run and that my players enjoy and clamor for is made up of **** rules.

"Made up of" seems like something of an exaggeration. The existence of a few bad rules doesn't immediately destroy any and all quality in it. It won't make a good game terrible. It's not a binary state. I'm sure you all have a perfectly lovely time.


I think we've both carefully explained our positions, and everybody reading has had every opportunity to evaluate our positions. Thank you for an interesting discussion. I think neither of us has anything new to say on the subject.

Certainly. Enjoy your gaming.


Don't be silly, the PC's only win because the GM let's them. It's called level appropriate encounters. If the GM would just throw something random in the PC's path then they would die really, really quickly. There is no illegitimate living and even though you save a PC through GM Fiat it doesn't dirty the game or make it cheaper. Roleplaying doesn't even have to be about winning and the price for losing doesn't have to be death.

The Rules aren't all and everything, you can run a very fast and lose games with minimal of rules and just make things up as you go along. If you want to run and advesarial game with extra attention to rules then you can do so but it is not the only way to play the game.

And obviously I disagree strenuously.

I dislike the "level appropriate encounter" style of gameplay that modern D&D is shifting towards, but even with it it's not like PCs don't have a chance of success and failure based on their tactics and dice luck. If you're throwing level appropriate encounters at groups then the groups more proficient at playing the game will succeed far more frequently than the ones that are less proficient. And getting better at playing the game and beating those level appropriate encounters fairly is far more satisfying than the DM changing the rules to give you victory instead.

[awa]

“I dislike the "level appropriate encounter" style of gameplay that modern D&D is shifting towards, but even with it it's not like PCs don't have a chance of success and failure based on their tactics and dice luck. If you're throwing level appropriate encounters at groups then the groups more proficient at playing the game will succeed far more frequently than the ones that are less proficient. And getting better at playing the game and beating those level appropriate encounters fairly is far more satisfying than the DM changing the rules to give you victory instead.”

Beating encounters fairly can be fun but as I've mentioned in a previous post sometimes it can also be a giant boring slog. Most but not all of my stories on this idea all come from the same dm who ran monsters as is. I have played with a number of dms who just blindly used random encounter tables and while we almost always won the thing I remember most about his games was the tedium of fighting high defense low offense monsters. Yes we won but we were bored while we did it, after I left the game I heard there was one instance latter when the players just told him no the encounters done or we are.

People play the game for different reasons some people are more interested in the story then the fights and for them a little fudging to keep them on track if done rarely and subtly may bring more long term enjoyment than dying because of a bad roll on a random encounter table.

[hifidelity2]

People play the game for different reasons some people are more interested in the story then the fights and for them a little fudging to keep them on track if done rarely and subtly may bring more long term enjoyment than dying because of a bad roll on a random encounter table.

Exactly

One of the groups I play with has been playing together for a long time so we know each others styles. Of the 5 players (when I am DMing) I know that

A – Likes political plot
B – wants the plot to revolve around some convoluted back story of his & will try and steer any plot that way
C – wants to kill things
D & E are more flexible

So I try to give them all something and I am happy to fudge die to keep the story going. Deaths are rare (but do happen). I know as a FDM I could kill them all on whim and so don’t see any need to kill then on an (un)lucky die roll

[Koo Rehtorb]

Beating encounters fairly can be fun but as I've mentioned in a previous post sometimes it can also be a giant boring slog. Most but not all of my stories on this idea all come from the same dm who ran monsters as is. I have played with a number of dms who just blindly used random encounter tables and while we almost always won the thing I remember most about his games was the tedium of fighting high defense low offense monsters. Yes we won but we were bored while we did it, after I left the game I heard there was one instance latter when the players just told him no the encounters done or we are.

Yes, that sounds unpleasant.

Consider the possibility that you were playing the wrong game. If you're finding that you're bored engaging in tactical fantasy wargaming then perhaps do not play the RPG that is about tactical fantasy wargaming. Play, instead, an RPG that is about the things that you prefer to be doing. You will probably have a better time.

[awa]

the problem wasn't tactical combat, i like tactical combat fine if its interesting, but randomness is not always the best way to get interesting combats particularly if random encounter tables are used.

[Koo Rehtorb]

the problem wasn't tactical combat, i like tactical combat fine if its interesting, but randomness is not always the best way to get interesting combats particularly if random encounter tables are used.

Sure. Then it's clearly a GM problem.

There's nothing saying anyone has to use random encounter tables, particularly poorly designed ones, they're just a tool. If you enjoy tactical combat but don't enjoy this particular tactical combat then the GM is probably bad at designing interesting encounters. It's not a problem that's going to be solved by the GM also cheating at those boring encounters.

[awa]

Fudging those encounter tables rolls so we didn't have to do the same boring fight 3 times in a row would have increased my enjoyment of the game dramatically.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Fudging those encounter tables rolls so we didn't have to do the same boring fight 3 times in a row would have increased my enjoyment of the game dramatically.

Again... there's nothing forcing a GM to use random encounter tables at all except maybe when you're playing 1st edition? I think they're a useful tool for portraying the wildlife of a particular region and representing the danger of travel, but they rapidly stop being relevant when the party is strong enough that travel isn't really dangerous to them any more. If you're a party of level 15s and you roll "some goblins" on a table there's nothing wrong with the GM saying "Some goblins attack and you kill them"

[kyoryu]

Again... there's nothing forcing a GM to use random encounter tables at all except maybe when you're playing 1st edition? I think they're a useful tool for portraying the wildlife of a particular region and representing the danger of travel, but they rapidly stop being relevant when the party is strong enough that travel isn't really dangerous to them any more. If you're a party of level 15s and you roll "some goblins" on a table there's nothing wrong with the GM saying "Some goblins attack and you kill them"

They're a useful tool in dungeon crawls as they put a cost on time-intensive operations.

The use in hexcrawls and the like is similar.

But, again, "encounter" doesn't have to mean "roll initiative". And if the results of the encounter are obvious... why not just say that and move on with it?

[thirdkingdom]

They're a useful tool in dungeon crawls as they put a cost on time-intensive operations.

The use in hexcrawls and the like is similar.

But, again, "encounter" doesn't have to mean "roll initiative". And if the results of the encounter are obvious... why not just say that and move on with it?

So, to clarify, older versions of D&D make a distinction between encounters in a dungeon and wilderness encounters. Traditionally, dungeon encounters are "level-appropriate", and a player can make a guess at how powerful an opponent is based upon the floor of the dungeon on which they're encountered. The 1st level of a dungeon is typically appropriate for a party of 1st-2nd level, the 2nd level for a party of around 2nd-3rd level, etc. That is not to say that a party won't encounter more powerful (or weaker) threats on any given level. Encounters in dungeons are also in smaller numbers: on the 1st level of a dungeon goblins are encountered as wandering monsters in numbers ranging from 2-8 (Moldvay Basic, p. B36).

Compared to the wilderness, however, the typical dungeon is a place of relative safety. As originally conceived, wilderness travel is *much* more dangerous than dungeon exploration, both in terms of frequency of encounters *and* size of encounters. For instance, a wilderness encounter with goblins has them numbering 6-60!

In addition, random encounter tables for dungeons are usually crafted with "level appropriate" encounters in mind. p. B29 explicitly states that a monster's HD is generally equivalent to the dungeon level on which they normally appear (so, a 3 HD monster is typically encountered on the 3rd level of a dungeon, in the amounts listed in the Number Appearing entry). The rules go on to state that "it is useful to limit monsters to 2 dungeon levels lower or higher than their Hit Dice," and recommends changing their numbers based on this. So, a 3 HD monster encountered on the 1st level of a dungeon would almost always be encounter singly, while it would be encountered on the 5th level of a dungeon it would be encountered in *greater* numbers than normal.

There are no such restrictions on wilderness encounters, however. A party is just as likely to encounter a dragon as a herd of horses, or a group of fire giants are as likely as a band of elves. However, where older versions do provide some hope for our hapless low-level party is with the reaction roll. Every time an encounter occurs the DM makes a reaction rolled, modified by the party leader's Charisma modifier. The reaction roll is made using 2d6, and according to the table on p. B24 an encounter *only* occurs on a result of a 2. Even a roll of 3-5 yields a result of "hostile, possible attack", which leaves the door open for savvy adventurers to extricate themselves from a potentially deadly situation through bribery or begging instead of battle.

[Calthropstu]

The problem I have with high, high power encounters is that if I can't meaningfully interact with them, why are they even in the game? It's just you talking at me about things that I'm not supposed to do anything about. You could have skipped it to something that's interesting or that I could actually do something about instead of wasting 10 minutes talking about that jouster that I can't possibly beat. (not that I think the OP really did that or that I'd really mind that much)

Similarly, you wouldn't want to litter the world with low levels since they get back hand slapped and you end up just wasting the time of the group.

They both can be interesting for setting up some sort of tone to the world or emphasize some kind of narrative point or to show players they're in a place they don't need to be in anymore, but when overused, both over and under powered encounters are a negative experience for the party and I personally hate it when they're in the world just to add "realism" to it.

Think about it this way: The party probably saw dozens of people along the road, and almost none of them warranted the DM commenting on it. If the players can't actually do anything relevant to the jouster, I wouldn't feel it necessary to even mention it since the only thing it can do is bait a player into getting their character killed.

A lot of people on the other hand love this kind of thing (almost all that vocally advocate for it are DMs though), but this is just me going and answering what the worst that can happen is.


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Sorry, but I almost get the feeling you didn't even read the entire post, nor the one I was responding to.

A few sessions ago, I had my party encounter a fight between a 13th level sorcerer and 3 members of the wizard's guild: 2 7th level wizards and a 10th level. I was trying to introduce a sub plot where the party had the option of siding with one or the other. The party was 7th level. Instead of waiting for all the facts, and without ever being engaged by either party, the PCs charge into battle attacking the sorcerer without getting the facts. (It didn't help that the sorcerer had cast summon monster 6 to call forth an erinyes to engage the lower levels while he dealt with the 10th level, but even so this was a very unexpected turn of events.)

The sorcerer clearly had the players AND the wizards outmatched with access to dimension door and summon monster 6, he was able to more than match everyone involved.

I was NOT planning on combat taking place, just describing the fight with the sorcerer summoning a few monsters to deal with the wizards and getting out of there. The plot had been that basically the wizards guild members felt that sorcerers were not "proper" spell casters and that he needed to be run out of town. A lower level such member had attacked the sorcerer a few weeks ago and had been slammed into a wall and knocked unconscious with a single telekinesis spell, and basically his "big brother" was out to teach this uppity punk a lesson.

The city guard was going to hire the party to hunt down the wizards, while a representative of the wizards guild was going to approach the party and hire them to sneak the offenders out of town in their caravan. But the party did not like the fact that they were pretty much helpless against the sorcerer, and one PC called it "GM masturbation" and they refused go with either.

It was supposed to be a fun little side quest I made to break the monotony of traveling through the crown of the world (Jade Regent adventure path)

Anyways, the point I am trying to make here, is even if you make it painfully obvious that this is NOT an encounter that the party should enter, they may very well enter it anyways.

[RazorChain]

And obviously I disagree strenuously.

I dislike the "level appropriate encounter" style of gameplay that modern D&D is shifting towards, but even with it it's not like PCs don't have a chance of success and failure based on their tactics and dice luck. If you're throwing level appropriate encounters at groups then the groups more proficient at playing the game will succeed far more frequently than the ones that are less proficient. And getting better at playing the game and beating those level appropriate encounters fairly is far more satisfying than the DM changing the rules to give you victory instead.


Well I usually don't play D&D or games with levels so to me nothing is "level appropriate". I don't play RPG's for the combat minigame with that said I am a consummate strategist, a student of military history, a fan of Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Zhuge Liang, Jomini and Machiavelli. I usually get my strategy fix through computer games or strategy board and miniature games where my objective is to win. So if I pit my players, who are more interested in roleplaying than playing a combat minigame, against an equal force guided cohesively by a mind immesurably superior in strategy and tactics then their disjointed band of adventures is going to lose....badly. So my objective is to make the players satisfied about their characters performance when they end up in combat when the odds are clearly with them the whole time. My job is to make it appear that they win over the bad guy by the skin of their teeth. Now I don't have to change any rules for that to happen but I might have to make ruling instead of using precious gaming time to search for an obscure rule and bog the game down, I might allow a healer or a party member save a dying character with a potion allowing for a extra death save that doesn't exist in the rules.

Also you might run rules light games where a whole combat encounter is just narrated through a single die roll and it is up to the GM or players to interpret the results of the roll.

If the players aren't master tacticians I am not going to punish them for it by killing their characters anymore I am going to kill them if they are bad at the roleplaying part of the game.

Me: The king takes your akward stammering as a sign of guilt and has you beheaded. You're dead, now roll up a new character.

Player: But this is unfair....It wasn't level appropriate roleplaying encounter.

Me: Git gud..Noob.


That saying not all encounters are "level appropriate". No more than if I'm driving in a safari I'm not going to jump out of the car and try to wrestle a lion just because I encounter one

[Koo Rehtorb]

So if I pit my players, who are more interested in roleplaying than playing a combat minigame, against an equal force guided cohesively by a mind immesurably superior in strategy and tactics then their disjointed band of adventures is going to lose....badly.

If your players are interested in roleplay over a combat minigame then the solution is to play an RPG that isn't about combat minigames, as I think you indicated you were doing? If your players agreed to play an RPG that is about combat minigames then they're either indicating that they're interested in getting better at combat minigames, or they're indicating that they aren't aware that there's a wide variety of different games that might suit their playstyle better.

If there's a huge skill difference then it's also certainly reasonable to give them easier than standard encounters to make up the difference and help them learn.

[RazorChain]

If your players are interested in roleplay over a combat minigame then the solution is to play an RPG that isn't about combat minigames, as I think you indicated you were doing? If your players agreed to play an RPG that is about combat minigames then they're either indicating that they're interested in getting better at combat minigames, or they're indicating that they aren't aware that there's a wide variety of different games that might suit their playstyle better.

If there's a huge skill difference then it's also certainly reasonable to give them easier than standard encounters to make up the difference and help them learn.

There is also the problem that if the PC's are fighting a ragtag band of goblins....then the GM kinda has to act like ragtag band of goblins and not like Jan Zizka. It would be strange if the all the foes would suddenly disregard their own safety just to concentrate all their migth, magic and firepower toward one PC knowing that if they drop him they have weakened the party and then dropping the PC's through "focus fire".

So the GM's objective cannot be to "win" the encounter but to make an interesting encounter.

[Koo Rehtorb]

There is also the problem that if the PC's are fighting a ragtag band of goblins....then the GM kinda has to act like ragtag band of goblins and not like Jan Zizka. It would be strange if the all the foes would suddenly disregard their own safety just to concentrate all their migth, magic and firepower toward one PC knowing that if they drop him they have weakened the party and then dropping the PC's through "focus fire".

So the GM's objective cannot be to "win" the encounter but to make an interesting encounter.

None of this is counter to the statement that the GM should not break the rules of the game. Playing dumb monsters dumb and smart monsters smart doesn't mean you're trying to let them win.

The GM's objective is to try to "win" the encounter, with all of the resources available to the creatures they're using at the time. Intelligence is one of those resources. Doing less cheapens the experience. If your group isn't looking for that particular experience, play a different RPG.

[TheCountAlucard]

The GM's objective is to try to "win" the encounter…No, the GM's objective is to run a fun game session that holds the focus of and entertains their crop of easily-distracted players.

[Asha Leu]

I don't like to fudge rolls as a DM, and don't do it often, but I will unashamedly do so in the following circumstances:

A) I screwed up the CR/XP budget maths and made an encounter way too strong for my players. In which case, I'll probably lop some HP off the monster(s), have it miss some attacks it should have hit, and "roll low" on damage sometimes. (By the time its obvious that the enemies are too OP, its generally too late to change their AC without the players noticing.) I don't have a problem with player death or TPKs if they happen during a genuinely balanced encounter or my players were being dumbasses, but I'm not going to let my own ****-ups kill a player or a campaign.

B) The fight is just dragging on forever and both the players and I are going to blow our brains out if it doesn't end soon. In that scenario, all I can really do is artificially reduce the enemy's HP. Sadly, the one edition where I found myself having to do this all the time - 4E - also made it the hardest to hide from the players, thanks to the Bloodied mechanic.

In both cases, the important thing is that the players never know it happened. I'll never fudge a player's own roll (ie. "No wait, you actually made that death save"; " I'll just rule that that 5 was a hit."). Is it dishonest way of DMing? Probably. I don't really care.

Its not something I do much, but I'm confident that the times I have fudged stuff, its been to the benefit of the game. And I will keep doing so when such situations occur in the future.


As for what happened in the OP: personally, if I were DMing, I probably would have telegraphed a bit more strongly how powerful the NPC was, but I think the DM was in the right. Any player who picks a fight with a random NPC without finding out how strong they are first can't complain when they turn out to be super powerful.

[Asha Leu]

Fudging dice rolls is universally bad.

If you don't want to kill people by accidentally misjudging a combat encounter there's other options. Like taking the PCs captive, or another group attacking and distracting the first one, or just relying on the PCs to have the good judgement to flee when they're outmatched.

I'm afraid I completely disagree with this. Both as a player and a DM, I find saving the PCs via Deus ex Machina cheapens the experience far more than fudging some roles, not least because the players are actually aware that the Dues ex Machina happened.

Which doesn't mean that I won't do such a thing when narratively appropriate or the whole party ets knocked put. I've gotten plenty of use from the "you all regain consciousness in a cage" out in the past, when plausable. (If a player fails their death saves or the enemies are wolves or ghouls or something, then, sorry, they're dead, nothing I can do.) But I think fudging some rolls and HP counts on the sly is definitely the lesser of two evils here. There's only so many times the players can wake up in chains or get rescued by the calvary before they start rolling their eyes.

[PersonMan]

The GM's objective is to try to "win" the encounter, with all of the resources available to the creatures they're using at the time. Intelligence is one of those resources. Doing less cheapens the experience. If your group isn't looking for that particular experience, play a different RPG.

I think a better way to word this, while keeping the same idea, would be: "In an encounter verisimilitudinous (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verisimilitudinous) game] a GM should play NPCs such that they are always trying to 'win', to accomplish whatever goal they have, and use all available resources".

I hope I interpreted what you're saying correctly; I just think the "GM should try to 'win' an encounter" statement carries a meaning you didn't mean to communicate (namely, that the GM is looking to defeat the players).

[Calthropstu]

Well I usually don't play D&D or games with levels so to me nothing is "level appropriate". I don't play RPG's for the combat minigame with that said I am a consummate strategist, a student of military history, a fan of Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Zhuge Liang, Jomini and Machiavelli. I usually get my strategy fix through computer games or strategy board and miniature games where my objective is to win. So if I pit my players, who are more interested in roleplaying than playing a combat minigame, against an equal force guided cohesively by a mind immesurably superior in strategy and tactics then their disjointed band of adventures is going to lose....badly. So my objective is to make the players satisfied about their characters performance when they end up in combat when the odds are clearly with them the whole time. My job is to make it appear that they win over the bad guy by the skin of their teeth. Now I don't have to change any rules for that to happen but I might have to make ruling instead of using precious gaming time to search for an obscure rule and bog the game down, I might allow a healer or a party member save a dying character with a potion allowing for a extra death save that doesn't exist in the rules.

Also you might run rules light games where a whole combat encounter is just narrated through a single die roll and it is up to the GM or players to interpret the results of the roll.

If the players aren't master tacticians I am not going to punish them for it by killing their characters anymore I am going to kill them if they are bad at the roleplaying part of the game.

Me: The king takes your akward stammering as a sign of guilt and has you beheaded. You're dead, now roll up a new character.

Player: But this is unfair....It wasn't level appropriate roleplaying encounter.

Me: Git gud..Noob.


That saying not all encounters are "level appropriate". No more than if I'm driving in a safari I'm not going to jump out of the car and try to wrestle a lion just because I encounter one

I am similar actually tactically. When I run a D&D game, it is amazing how long combat takes and how much I have to nerf their opponents... which is fine for low intelligence creatures such as the standard thug or goblin. But when I play creatures to the full extent of their high intelligence and use their environment to their advantage, combats that are supposed to be half an hour start taking huge amounts of time, even when the party is supposed to be able to easily overwhelm the attackers.

It's amazing how much you can frustrate the party with just a few simple applications of even the most basic of strategies. My current players were quick to catch on though, which is good. They now have answers for a good number of the strategies I have used.

Yet even still, they complained when I had the intelligent undead who were commanded "kill at least one of their group no matter the cost" coup de graced a paralyzed character when the undead was at 1 hitpoint, had not used its area effect ability and had 4 characters it could get with its area effect... but not kill a single one with it. (Though they are 7th level, they have access to resurrection once a month... but when they use it, they open themselves up to being tracked)

So even just simple tactical decisions become huge.

Just a simple question, have you tried war gaming? The place I play at is also the largest war gaming site in the entire city, so there are a LOT of very tactical gamers around that add a fair amount of challenge to the RPGs I play.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No, the GM's objective is to run a fun game session that holds the focus of and entertains their crop of easily-distracted players.

Okay... you're ignoring context. I was clearly talking about in the context of a certain circumstance. The GM has more than one objective in a game.

Beyond that, though, I still kind of object to the assertion that the job of the GM is to be a cat wrangler. It's insulting to both the GM and the players.


I'm afraid I completely disagree with this. Both as a player and a DM, I find saving the PCs via Deus ex Machina cheapens the experience far more than fudging some roles, not least because the players are actually aware that the Dues ex Machina happened.

Which doesn't mean that I won't do such a thing when narratively appropriate or the whole party ets knocked put. I've gotten plenty of use from the "you all regain consciousness in a cage" out in the past, when plausable. (If a player fails their death saves or the enemies are wolves or ghouls or something, then, sorry, they're dead, nothing I can do.) But I think fudging some rolls and HP counts on the sly is definitely the lesser of two evils here. There's only so many times the players can wake up in chains or get rescued by the calvary before they start rolling their eyes.

I think people are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say "Every time the PCs lose a fight, save them with narrative." I said, "It is an option" Obviously it should only happen when narratively appropriate. Most of the time you should probably be relying on the PCs being cunning enough to have the means and will to retreat from a losing fight.


I think a better way to word this, while keeping the same idea, would be: "In an encounter verisimilitudinous (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verisimilitudinous) game] a GM should play NPCs such that they are always trying to 'win', to accomplish whatever goal they have, and use all available resources".

I hope I interpreted what you're saying correctly; I just think the "GM should try to 'win' an encounter" statement carries a meaning you didn't mean to communicate (namely, that the GM is looking to defeat the players).

I think I worded it clearly enough, but yes that's also a fine way to put it.

[Hawkstar]

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.


I've never claimed that RPGs are perfect or all have flawless rules. I've specifically said that it is well within the group's rights to change rules if they need to, so long as they do it in advance. In my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying, if you don't change rules like that then you are messing up and damaging your game. I think it's very unfortunate that a bunch of early games built **** rules like that into them. I think it's even more unfortunate that **** rules like that have seeped into the hobby from there and led to people thinking that's the way gaming should work. It is especially frustrating when people take those experiences from D&D and mess up other better games with them that don't have those particular **** rules.

Already covered this.

[Koo Rehtorb]

A) I screwed up the CR/XP budget maths and made an encounter way too strong for my players. In which case, I'll probably lop some HP off the monster(s), have it miss some attacks it should have hit, and "roll low" on damage sometimes. (By the time its obvious that the enemies are too OP, its generally too late to change their AC without the players noticing.) I don't have a problem with player death or TPKs if they happen during a genuinely balanced encounter or my players were being dumbasses, but I'm not going to let my own ****-ups kill a player or a campaign.

B) The fight is just dragging on forever and both the players and I are going to blow our brains out if it doesn't end soon. In that scenario, all I can really do is artificially reduce the enemy's HP. Sadly, the one edition where I found myself having to do this all the time - 4E - also made it the hardest to hide from the players, thanks to the Bloodied mechanic.

So... question. In cases like this, particularly the second one, why not just be honest with them instead?

[kyoryu]

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.

But why is it the GM's job to "save" the PCs?

It is if the PCs have little or no control on what they'll be fighting. Otherwise, it's kinda not.

[Dragonexx]

A lot of the stuff in this thread seems to be written under the (frankly ridiculous assumption) that the players and DM are on the same wavelength. Due to people believing in conservation of detail, if you draw attention to something, they might assume minor fluff is actually important. Here's some quotes from another thread on this.



Also, even good GM's aren't perfect at communicating exactly what's important. Six people round a table are going to have six different reads on a situation, with different supporting assumptions... even the "invisible bridge" one could just be a guy assuming the description would've been different if the wizard were flying.

Like I always raise an eyebrow when GM's are all "I described a scene and all four of my group focused on the wrong details, man, they are so dumb because I am so good at describing things".



The reason for this is quite simple. Players and GMs aren't aren't necessarily thinking the same way. And since the world exists entirely as imagination and words, there are a lot of sensory cues that can't be conveyed by the GM and a lot of details about his actions that can't be conveyed by the player.

Realistically, the guy who assumes "invisible bridge" wouldn't just run across it. He'd walk up to the edge and test it with his foot, to see if it feels solid. And it wouldn't because its not there. No need for the GM to reverse time. But those aren't details that the player is going to remember to convey. If he thinks about them at all he'll assume that they're part of the action.

And, of course, there are dozens of sense details that would tell the player that there is no bridge, but the GM probably won't mention them, because they're extraneous and difficult to remember.

Likewise, the player can derive information from the GM's description that the GM did not intend to convey if the GM decides to use flowery prose rather than a simple list of facts.

More closer to the discussion: This is why you need to talk with the group before hand and lay down the base assumptions of the game. You'll find players less likely to attack things out of the blue if you tell them at the beginning that not all encounters will solvable with combat.

[Asha Leu]

So... question. In cases like this, particularly the second one, why not just be honest with them instead?

Good question. In my opinion, that cheapens the experience and breaks immersion far more than fudging some rolls and HP ever would.

[Jay R]

So... question. In cases like this, particularly the second one, why not just be honest with them instead?

Nobody's being dishonest. Honesty isn't revealing everything; it's being truthful in everything you say. For instance, while my first name is Jay, I haven't told you my last name. Similarly, you haven't revealed your name at all. That's not dishonesty; it's reticence.

The question you mean to ask is why not be transparent? And the answer is that the DM's job is to tell players everything about the world that their players know, and nothing else.

If you trust the DM, then he or she has no need to give you that sort of detail. If you don't, then it wouldn't help.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Nobody's being dishonest. Honesty isn't revealing everything; it's being truthful in everything you say.

Not at all, a lie by omission is certainly a thing. If you roll the dice and announce that something happens there is a built in expectation that this thing happens because of the number that you rolled on the dice, and not because you felt like it.


The question you mean to ask is why not be transparent? And the answer is that the DM's job is to tell players everything about the world that their players know, and nothing else.

I disagree, but this is getting into a separate subject.


If you trust the DM, then he or she has no need to give you that sort of detail. If you don't, then it wouldn't help.

Trust is not a binary switch. I generally trust that GMs are not psychopaths out to make everyone have a bad time because they enjoy it. That doesn't mean I generally trust their instincts in everything they do.

I fully believe that a GM can, and usually does, break the rules of the game with all of the best possible intentions of making everyone involved have more fun. I disagree that it has the results they are looking for, especially in the long term.

[TheCountAlucard]

Not at all, a lie by omission is certainly a thing.Sure, if you're intentionally leaving pertinent information out for the sake of spinning a story differently. I doubt they'll have you brought up on perjury charges for only describing the robbery you witnessed and not giving your entire life story, though.

[Jay R]

Not at all, a lie by omission is certainly a thing.

But this isn't a lie by omission. You can only make it seem like one by denying a truth about a game, assuming that everybody agrees with you, and assuming the game rules have been magically changed in everybody else's minds to match your personal preference.


If you roll the dice and announce that something happens there is a built in expectation that this thing happens because of the number that you rolled on the dice, and not because you felt like it.

I have never done anything to give my players the expectation that I change the rules.

I run the game by the rules - the entire set of rules, including the rule that says that the DM, not the ruleset, makes the final decision.

You keep trying to act like leaving that rule out is playing by the rules, and that using the rules as written is "cheating" and "a bunch of absolutely terrible GM advice that have done a lot of harm to the hobby as a whole" and "lying by mission". But that's not true. It's the actual game.

You don't want to play the actual game as written, and that's fine. But that doesn't justify accusations of dishonesty, lying, and cheating against people who play the complete game.

We're playing the actual game, as written.

We aren't cheating.

We aren't lying by omission.

We are playing the complete game, honestly.


I disagree, but this is getting into a separate subject.

No, it's the exact same subject. You asked why not tell them what the DM does in private. I gave the answer.


Trust is not a binary switch. I generally trust that GMs are not psychopaths out to make everyone have a bad time because they enjoy it. That doesn't mean I generally trust their instincts in everything they do.

No, it's not a binary switch, and there are lots of judgment calls involved. But accusing people of lying by omission and cheating because they play the game correctly when you want to play it by a home rule is not anywhere close to those judgment calls. It's refusing to trust at all.

Certainly, I watch DMs, and there is one I've played with that I will never play with again. And there are a couple who do some things I dislike, but I will still play with them.

But a minimum level of trust is needed for the game to work. And accusing people of cheating when you know that they are following the rules does not meet that level.


I fully believe that a GM can, and usually does, break the rules of the game with all of the best possible intentions of making everyone involved have more fun. I disagree that it has the results they are looking for, especially in the long term.

If you had said that it hasn't had those results in the situations you've seen, then that would have been a valid observation (of a limited data set). And I'd probably agree. There are certainly DMs who aren't very good.

But the games I've run, and most of the games I've played, are outside of your experience. Having a negative opinion of them is distrust.

And for the record, getting the plastic spiders off the table when I saw somebody's pathological reaction had the exact result I intended, both that day and in the long term.

[Koo Rehtorb]

But this isn't a lie by omission. You can only make it seem like one by denying a truth about a game, assuming that everybody agrees with you, and assuming the game rules have been magically changed in everybody else's minds to match your personal preference.

To be fair, I will try to word this slightly less harshly on D&D players in this regard because it is technically part of the rulebook. That doesn't make it not an awful idea that makes individual games in specific and the hobby in general worse for it, but at least D&D players share blame for this with the rulebook.

The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.


No, it's the exact same subject. You asked why not tell them what the DM does in private. I gave the answer.

Okay, if you want to get into this derail, I disagree that it's the GM's job to tell players everything their characters know and nothing more. That's one particular form of "immersion" gameplay, and I don't personally find it valuable. It's certainly a valid way to play, but it's far from the only way to play.


No, it's not a binary switch, and there are lots of judgment calls involved. But accusing people of lying by omission and cheating because they play the game correctly when you want to play it by a home rule is not anywhere close to those judgment calls. It's refusing to trust at all.

Refusing to remove that rule is a point of data that suggests they have poor judgement about certain things in and of itself, in my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying. Which, again, is far from entirely their fault. It's unfortunate that early versions of D&D trained people with some poor advice and it got incorporated into the hobby's genetics. Gygax has much to answer for. :smallsmile:

[hifidelity2]

To be fair, I will try to word this slightly less harshly on D&D players in this regard because it is technically part of the rulebook. That doesn't make it not an awful idea that makes individual games in specific and the hobby in general worse for it, but at least D&D players share blame for this with the rulebook.

The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.


Actually I would say lots of games with referees allow this - but in the rules its called a judgement call
In many ball sports a "foul" by player A on Player B can be accidental or deliberate. In a percentage of those it will not be clear cut which it was so the referee is allowed to "use his judgement" as to the type and so the penalty that will follow from his decision

As a DM I have the right to use my judgement on how to interpret the rules (or die).

[Koo Rehtorb]

Actually I would say lots of games with referees allow this - but in the rules its called a judgement call
In many ball sports a "foul" by player A on Player B can be accidental or deliberate. In a percentage of those it will not be clear cut which it was so the referee is allowed to "use his judgement" as to the type and so the penalty that will follow from his decision

As a DM I have the right to use my judgement on how to interpret the rules (or die).

Interpretation of results is distinct from ignoring results.

It's one thing to make a decision for the game based on a result that's unclear in the rules, or not covered by the rules at all. It's quite another thing to say "This natural 1 I just rolled was actually a 20, so you get crit."

[kyoryu]

Actually I would say lots of games with referees allow this - but in the rules its called a judgement call
In many ball sports a "foul" by player A on Player B can be accidental or deliberate. In a percentage of those it will not be clear cut which it was so the referee is allowed to "use his judgement" as to the type and so the penalty that will follow from his decision

Yeah, I play hockey. There's a number of *clear* situations where rules apply (high sticking, offsides), but a number where it's up to referee interpretation (goalie interference, even some aspects of icing). The idea that you can get rid of human judgement in a complex game seems rather sketchy.

Most boardgames are far less complex, and so can do it.

[hifidelity2]

Interpretation of results is distinct from ignoring results.

It's one thing to make a decision for the game based on a result that's unclear in the rules, or not covered by the rules at all. It's quite another thing to say "This natural 1 I just rolled was actually a 20, so you get crit."

But the reason I maybe fudging the rolls is because as the DM I made a judgment call on the difficulty of the encounter and got it wrong so I am using my judgement to correct that error

Party X is fighting monster Y
Despite Party X planning and approaching the combat correctly they are getting themselves soundly beaten
I can
1. Kill the party
2. Stop the combat - tell them I made a mistake, substitute Monster Y with Monster Z and restart the combat
3. Fudge a few die

Some DMs will do 1.
Most I know will do 3.
I have done 2 when running a new system for the 1st time but all the players were also new and we had accepted that there maybe a need for things to be a bit disjointed until we had a better grasp of the system

[kyoryu]

But the reason I maybe fudging the rolls is because as the DM I made a judgment call on the difficulty of the encounter and got it wrong so I am using my judgement to correct that error

Party X is fighting monster Y
Despite Party X planning and approaching the combat correctly they are getting themselves soundly beaten
I can
1. Kill the party
2. Stop the combat - tell them I made a mistake, substitute Monster Y with Monster Z and restart the combat
3. Fudge a few die

Some DMs will do 1.
Most I know will do 3.
I have done 2 when running a new system for the 1st time but all the players were also new and we had accepted that there maybe a need for things to be a bit disjointed until we had a better grasp of the system

If the party chose to engage the creature, and it was a bad choice, and they die, what's wrong with that?

But, also, where's option 4)

4. The party runs away

I mean, really, that should be a thing, no matter how lethal or not you want your game to be.

[Cozzer]

It's not that simple, though. If the game is mostly made from winnable challenge, and suddenly a challenge is unwinnable without proper foreshadowing or telegraphing, it won't feel realistic. It will just feel like the GM is bullying you.

I mean, it's one thing if the party attacks the Tarrasque and discovers they can't win even with proper planning. It's another thing if the party attacks a group of goblins, undistinguishable from the other 100 groups of goblins they've already defeated, and discovers they can't win because the DM decided to try the "goblin variant #4" he found on the Internet and didn't realize they were overpowered until the fight was already started.

For a choice to be "a bad choice", it needs to have been an informed choice. If some enemies turn up to be too strong without any way for the party to realize it before the fight, telling them "well you should have known some challenges are unwinnable" will not make the session better.

Letting them run away can work in some cases, but by the point the GM realizes he has misjudged the fight the situation is usually bad enough that it's not really viable.

[awa]

the problem with running is its often suicide and attempting to run when maybe you could have won could change it from a victory to a death.

Now im only speaking about 3rd edition here but many foes are faster than at least 1 pc between speed penalties for armor, small size penalties or the many many monster who have a speed of 40+. With attacks of opportunity for a free hit running can be a really bad option. Combined with the fact that many dms wont tell you how many hp a foe has you often dont have a good idea of how bad off you are. Once the first pc goes unconscious it really gets rough because now if they run some one is guaranteed to die.

Pcs also dont always get the opportunity to decide if they are going to fight, a lot of monster have good stealth and combined with the range penalties can fairly reliable get off a charge from stealth.

[Jay R]

...I believe I am right about this and other people are wrong. I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere.

And this is the core of our disagreement. You believe that you have the wisdom and experience to know what is right for all groups everywhere.

I have no such belief. I've only been gaming for 41 years, and only with groups in about six different cities. How could I possibly know what would and would not work for groups of people I don't know?

I only know that playing with the rules as written has worked for games I've seen, starting more than forty years ago.

Maybe the rules as written don't work for your group, and so you have to take out the rule about the DM having the final authority at all times. I wouldn't know, and have no right to an opinion in any case.

But you can't possibly know if playing the complete game is right for my group.


To be fair, I will try to word this slightly less harshly on D&D players in this regard because it is technically part of the rulebook. That doesn't make it not an awful idea that makes individual games in specific and the hobby in general worse for it, but at least D&D players share blame for this with the rulebook.

Of course it doesn't. What makes it "not an awful idea" is that thousands of DMs have run great games by using that rule well to enhance the experience.

I'm sorry that poor use of this rule has made your individual games worse, but it has made the games I've played in better when used correctly.


The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.

A. No, it's not ignoring the rules. It just isn't. This is part of the rules.
It's not ignoring the rules.
It's not cheating.
It's not dishonest.
We are never going to communicate while you hold onto this false belief.

B. I think all of us who support this rule agree with you that "if they want to" is a horrible idea. It's a judgment call, and should only happen if there is a clear, specific need for it. I certainly don't think I can do so if I want to. I will only use that DM rule rarely, when it is specifically needed.

C. I think our disconnect starts with this difference; your belief that the DM playing the game vs. my belief that the DM is a referee, not playing but in charge of the game. You are acting like the DM is cheating when he continues to make design decisions all the way through. I think that's his job.


Okay, if you want to get into this derail, I disagree that it's the GM's job to tell players everything their characters know and nothing more. That's one particular form of "immersion" gameplay, and I don't personally find it valuable. It's certainly a valid way to play, but it's far from the only way to play.

Fine. But once you accept that it is a valid way to play, then your contention that playing that way is not honest has been disproven - at least for some games, including all the games I run.


Refusing to remove that rule is a point of data that suggests they have poor judgement about certain things in and of itself, in my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying. Which, again, is far from entirely their fault. It's unfortunate that early versions of D&D trained people with some poor advice and it got incorporated into the hobby's genetics. Gygax has much to answer for. :smallsmile:

Maybe it only suggests that Koo Rethorb's way of playing is "a valid way to play, but it's far from the only way to play."

Or if not, what a shame that they have such "poor judgment" that for over forty years they have run successful, enjoyable games by using the rules correctly and well, and have brought their players lots of joy in ways that Koo Rethorb doesn't like.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Of course it doesn't. What makes it "not an awful idea" is that thousands of DMs have run great games by using that rule well to enhance the experience.

I think this is the thrust of most of your post so I'm going to respond to this and hope I'm not leaving anything important out.

You can have a great time with bad rules and you can have a bad time with great rules. The group involved is more important than the ruleset. Of course a group of great players who get along well are going to be able to have a ton of fun with a bad game, I've done it myself plenty of times.

Skillful application of a bad rule is going to produce much better results than clumsy application of a bad rule. That doesn't make it not a bad rule.


Fine. But once you accept that it is a valid way to play, then your contention that playing that way is not honest has been disproven - at least for some games, including all the games I run.

Immersion gameplay has nothing to do with fudging dice results. It's the difference between... I don't know... when the party is making their way through the Forbidden Woods the GM describing the creature slowly stalking them through the forest to raise tension without the PCs having any knowledge of it yet.

[Jay R]

You skipped the entire argument by simply maintaining that it's a bad rule.

Then by assuming that you are right and I am wrong, you "proved" that you are right and I am wrong. This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.

In fact, I have seen this rule used well to enhance the game.


The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.

All right. I will imagine the same approach in other situations.

1. I teach college algebra and statistics. When I design the tests, I am trying to be completely fair. I write them based on what they know (or what they are supposed to know), so that they have a fair chance to make good grades if they've learned the material.

Similarly, when I design an encounter, I am trying to be fair. I write it based on what they can do (or should be able to do), to make a fun, challenging adventure that they should be able to overcome, or avoid, or escape, or survive losing. [Not that they will - only that it's possible. I think the threat of PC death has to be real. But being attacked by undead they cannot hit or turn or escape is no fun, and a horrible encounter.]

Every once in a great while, I see that a test question is much harder than I intended, and I eliminate it from the grading, or grade it differently. Similarly, every once in a great while, I see that an aspect of an encounter is very different from the intent, and I change it or its effects. But If I do either more than once or twice a year, then my design of tests or encounters is wrong. I shouldn't keep adjusting in the middle of the test or encounter, but learn to design better encounters or tests.

And in fact, after adjusting a few tests and a few encounters, I think I've gotten much better at designing both.

The crucial fact is this: My job as a teacher includes designing a reasonable test. My job as a DM includes designing a reasonable encounter. But I’m not perfect, and make mistakes in design. So it’s still my job to make the test/encounter reasonable even while I’m grading/running it.

You are acting as if there’s a set time, before the test/encounter begins, after which I cannot change it, even if I realize that it was designed badly. This is simply untrue. I will not intentionally give an unfair test, even if I discover that it is unfair during the test.

And for the same reasons, it’s still my job to make the encounter a good one even while I’m running it.

Other examples:

2. In the Boy Scouts, our Scoutmaster designed a compass course at home for us to follow at camp. When we got to the campsite, he discovered that it would have made us cross a fence onto somebody else’s land. So he changed the compass course – after we started it and found out - so it would be legal.

3. My GPS sometimes changes the directions it gives me in the middle of the drive, after an accident slowed down traffic on the main road.This is a feature, not a bug. The GPS is not cheating, ignoring the rules, or dishonest. It's just changing the encounter it gives me to enhance my experience. [And it's very similar to leading me away from the results of somebody rolling a "1".]

One final real-world example of the same sort of judgment call:

4. When I was a boy, I had some James Bond toys, and when the new James Bond movie Thunderball came out, I wanted to go see it. My parents originally said, “No”. [At that age, I had no idea that their disapproval was because the movie had a sex scene.] But eventually, they not only agreed, but came along with me.

Then, at one point, Mom turned to me and said, “Jay, it looks like there won’t be any action for a while. Let’s go get some popcorn.” So we did.

It was years later when I saw Thunderball again that I realized that Mom has simply taken me out of the theater for the scene they didn’t want me to see. I lost nothing by it - I liked popcorn, and I was too young to enjoy the sex scene.

I believe that it was a wonderful example of parenting – giving me what I wanted (the action movie) while changing the situation in the middle for their own unstated purposes. They showed excellent judgment, and enhanced my experience by changing the rules without telling me.

If somebody had established a flat rule for parenting, like "Don't tell your son that he can see a movie and then change the rules in the middle so he can't see all of it," than their action would have violated that rule. That rule is a good one in many circumstances, just as your change to the D&D rules is a good idea in many circumstances.

But what Mom and Dad did that time was far superior.

[awa]

that last example is almost a perfect real world example. If they had been honest (aka not omitting the reason) you likely would have been wanting to know what you missed and had less fun than never knowing there was anything to miss at all.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You skipped the entire argument by simply maintaining that it's a bad rule.

Then by assuming that you are right and I am wrong, you "proved" that you are right and I am wrong.

I'm not trying to prove that you're wrong. Proving that you're wrong is fairly impossible. I'm asserting that you could be wrong, and I believe you that you are, in my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying.


Every once in a great while, I see that a test question is much harder than I intended, and I eliminate it from the grading, or grade it differently. Similarly, every once in a great while, I see that an aspect of an encounter is very different from the intent, and I change it or its effects. But If I do either more than once or twice a year, then my design of tests or encounters is wrong. I shouldn't keep adjusting in the middle of the test or encounter, but learn to design better encounters or tests.

When grading the test and handing it back do you put a note on it that mentions the question was harder than intended and so was changed/excluded? When going over the test with the class do you mention that fact? I don't know how you teach, exactly, but if you're doing something other than pretending the test was perfect while stealth changing the results then it's not analogous.


2. In the Boy Scouts, our Scoutmaster designed a compass course at home for us to follow at camp. When we got to the campsite, he discovered that it would have made us cross a fence onto somebody else’s land. So he changed the compass course – after we started it and found out - so it would be legal.

How do you know he changed the course? Presumably because he didn't alter the course on the sly while pretending the altered course was the first one all along.


3. My GPS sometimes changes the directions it gives me in the middle of the drive, after an accident slowed down traffic on the main road.This is a feature, not a bug. The GPS is not cheating, ignoring the rules, or dishonest. It's just changing the encounter it gives me to enhance my experience. [And it's very similar to leading me away from the results of somebody rolling a "1".]

I'm having a hard time with this one because I don't see it as being a relevant example at all.


4. When I was a boy, I had some James Bond toys, and when the new James Bond movie Thunderball came out, I wanted to go see it. My parents originally said, “No”. [At that age, I had no idea that their disapproval was because the movie had a sex scene.] But eventually, they not only agreed, but came along with me.

Then, at one point, Mom turned to me and said, “Jay, it looks like there won’t be any action for a while. Let’s go get some popcorn.” So we did.

It was years later when I saw Thunderball again that I realized that Mom has simply taken me out of the theater for the scene they didn’t want me to see. I lost nothing by it - I liked popcorn, and I was too young to enjoy the sex scene.

I believe that it was a wonderful example of parenting – giving me what I wanted (the action movie) while changing the situation in the middle for their own unstated purposes. They showed excellent judgment, and enhanced my experience by changing the rules without telling me.

If somebody had established a flat rule for parenting, like "Don't tell your son that he can see a movie and then change the rules in the middle so he can't see all of it," than their action would have violated that rule. That rule is a good one in many circumstances, just as your change to the D&D rules is a good idea in many circumstances.

But what Mom and Dad did that time was far superior.

I think this is the best example you've given.

Funnily enough, I've had a similar experience. My mom said "Okay we can go see this movie, but it has a sex scene in it so if I agree to take you then you have to cover your eyes when it happens." And I shrugged and agreed that it was fair and did so when she told me to. I don't see what purpose concealing that fact from you served and think it probably would have been better to have been honest with you instead.

Also, not a relevant note because it was just an analogy, but comparing GMing to parenting makes me super uncomfortable.

[Jay R]

Funnily enough, I've had a similar experience. My mom said "Okay we can go see this movie, but it has a sex scene in it so if I agree to take you then you have to cover your eyes when it happens." And I shrugged and agreed that it was fair and did so when she told me to. I don't see what purpose concealing that fact from you served and think it probably would have been better to have been honest with you instead.

I'll bite. How could it have been better?

It wouldn't have a better movie experience. I had a great time as it was.

It might have made it a worse experience, if I had been distracted by the thought of the scene I didn't get to see.

Having the conversation wouldn't have been better for me. I was interested in an adventure movie just then, not theories of parenting, and certainly not sex scenes.

It wouldn't have made me have more faith in my parent's judgment. My siblings and I think more highly of our parents' judgment than virtually anybody I've ever met. [In fact, even our spouses have the highest respect for our parents - an extremely rare phenomenon.]

The only possible change I can imagine it causing is the loss of the sense of delight I had years later, when I figured out what they had really done.

So, based on my actual knowledge of that situation and its affect on both the immediate situation and the long-term relationship, I have to conclude that your guess, made without knowing their frames of mind at the time, my frame of mind at the time, or the condition of the relationship between us, is probably wrong.

I mean, really. I'm bragging about how wonderful it was nearly a half century later, and you're trying to tell me that you know how it could have been better.

[Note: I'm not suggesting that your parents' approach was wrong, either. They knew you and your family and the situation. I don't. It would be absurd for me to have an opinion of that.]

You are trying to judge a situation you only know about from an extremely short description, from somebody whose point of view you are currently challenging, about people you've never met. Nonetheless, you believe that you can come up with a better understanding of it than all the people who lived through it and have vastly more information than you do about the situation, people, and family culture involved. That just seems unlikely.

Similarly, you are trying to judge D&D situations you know virtually nothing about. Nonetheless, you believe that you can come up with a better understanding of them than all the people who played through them and have vastly more information than you do about the situations, people, and gaming cultures involved. That seems equally unlikely.

You actually wrote, "I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere." Even with your repeated disclaimer, do you really believe that this can be read as a subjective opinion, rather than a pronouncement about all tabletop roleplaying?


Also, not a relevant note because it was just an analogy, but comparing GMing to parenting makes me super uncomfortable.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, and again, I think this gets back to our real difference.

I'm comparing a DM's judgment to the judgment of somebody indisputably in charge and with superior knowledge of the situation, whose job includes withholding information, and who is trying to make the best possible experience for the others involved. The analogy seems quite appropriate.

I have faith in my DMs - or I won't play. (And there's one DM I won't play with any more.)

Does this mean I think that they won't make mistakes? Not at all. It means I will play in good faith the game they offer in good faith, and trust that they will make choices as well as they can.

I know that Todd changed a result to save the life of one of my characters once. Within a month of that, his roommate killed another one in a different session. I've never bothered trying to compare the two situations to see if his judgment call was "right".

I don't and can't have all the information Todd had when he made the decision. So I cannot fairly judge his decision. Therefore I will not judge it at all.

By contrast, you think you can invent a single change in the D&D rules and state that it would be better for all games, for all people, in all situations. That still seems unlikely.

And I've still had over forty years of great RPG fun, brought by people I consider good to excellent DMs, even if you think they used "bad rules" from an "awful idea", and "suggesting poor judgment".

I have to take the judgment of all the people who played their games and have actual knowledge of them over your knowledge-free assessment of strangers.

[kyoryu]

A large part of it is what you see as the primary interaction of roleplaying games.

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation!"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is the new situation!"

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my pieces like so in accordance with the rules!"
Player 2: "I move my pieces like so in accordance with the rules!"
Player 3: "I move my pieces like so in accordance with the rules!"

In the first case, the rules exist primarily as an assistance to the GM, but ultimately the result of the player doing the thing is the responsibility of the GM.

In the second case, the presumption is that the GM is mostly/primarily another player and is equally bound by the rules.

Few games are pure type 1 or type 2, but most lean one way or the other.

I'm personally not a fan of fudging in either case - for the Type 1 game, I think there's usually better ways to handle it, but sometimes things happen where fudging is the last tool left in the box that's useful in the situation. But in a Type 1 game, it's a lot more acceptable than a Type 2.

(and, yes, there's a Type 3)

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'll bite. How could it have been better?

From a purely practical standpoint, what if you hadn't bitten? What if you had decided that you weren't in the mood for popcorn, or you actually were interested in the boring downtime part of the movie and wanted to see it anyway, or if you decided that your mom could get the popcorn on her own and didn't require your presence to do so. Then suddenly there's the situation where there needs to be a discussion in the middle of a movie theater because you were working on false information.

From a theoretical standpoint, because it's deceptive, and honesty is a good thing to engage in in general.

Discussing other people's parenting is an uncomfortable subject and I'd like to avoid doing so further unless you really want to continue along with this topic.


You actually wrote, "I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere." Even with your repeated disclaimer, do you really believe that this can be read as a subjective opinion, rather than a pronouncement about all tabletop roleplaying?

It is a pronouncement about all tabletop roleplaying. I'm just including the possibility that I may be wrong in my pronouncement.


It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, and again, I think this gets back to our real difference.

I agree. I think this disagreement about roleplaying stems from a broader disagreement about the world in general.


I'm comparing a DM's judgment to the judgment of somebody indisputably in charge and with superior knowledge of the situation, whose job includes withholding information, and who is trying to make the best possible experience for the others involved. The analogy seems quite appropriate.

Yeah, I disagree with half all of this. The GM is not in charge of the group and it is not the GM's job to ensure that everyone has the best possible experience (that's everyone's job).

[Jay R]

Yeah, I disagree with half all of this. The GM is not in charge of the group and it is not the GM's job to ensure that everyone has the best possible experience (that's everyone's job).

Ok. Then we're just playing different games.

So the real disagreement is that I think you should play your game, and I should play my game. But you think you should play your game and I should play your game.

That doesn't bother me at all, and doesn't affect me at all. Differences of opinion are fine. Feel free to believe that your approach is "right for all groups everywhere," and that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of D&D players, including the authors, are just wrong.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That doesn't bother me at all, and doesn't affect me at all. Differences of opinion are fine. Feel free to believe that your approach is "right for all groups everywhere," and that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of D&D players, including the authors, are just wrong.

As I do with a great many things large groups of humans choose to do in the world. Fortunately tabletop roleplaying isn't particularly serious.

[Gizmogidget]

On the original OP comment I think the encounter could have easily been solved.

So a player makes a check and deduces that this guy won the tournament, neato but does that actually mean anything?

I mean if every other jouster is just a CR 1/8 guard it isn't impressive, but if this dude is going up against 11th level opponents or what have you then it means different things.

I would have said something along the lines of

"Yeah, the knight won the jousting tournament. He hit the other dude so hard that his lance turned to dust and spontaneously combusted in the air"

This I think is a much better indicator of the power of the knight.

This is just my two cents though, and I think others have probably said it.

[ArcanaGuy]

Worth noting: King's Joust. Lowbies and no-namers need not apply. Also, it was found by someone rolling, essentially, their "Know Famous People" skill. This danger was clearly laid out.

Let me share an example from my own past. I was running a sandbox game - the players were given a map and a booklet full of pertinent facts about the kingdom. The players were all level 1.

One player said "Let's go to the swamps of Doom!" He got the other players interested in doing this, too.

I said, "The one where no one who enters comes out alive?"

"Yeah! Let's find out why!"

"Look. We could do that. You will die. That is way out of your range. I would rather just roll up new characters now if the current ones are so dead set on suicide."

It was an hour's argument that he felt by the time they got there the group would be level 3 and able to take care of themselves. I insisted I did not want to waste my time on something so stupid.

In the end, he relented, but never forgave me for "railroading" like that. And nofun was had at all.

The same player was responsible for several other moments of TPK. And his response afterwards was always the same. "I dunno. I just didn't feel like the adult red dragon was a threat." ( to their 3 lvl 5 players.)

This story sounds exactly the same, except that the GM let him commit suicide instead of ruining the session arguing.

Some players are too impressed with themselves and will not take a hint.

[Pex]

Player responsibility: Don't be an idiot with the mentality of "I attack! What do I see?" The gameworld has flavor text. Play in the world, not against it.

DM responsibility: Don't be a tyrant by creating scenarios for the purpose of "teaching the players a lesson how dare they think they're all that. I'm the DM. I'll show them true power and that they're insignificant compared to the various denizens in MY world!"

[Beelzebubba]

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.

Why should he?

[Beelzebubba]

This is all about expected games.

'Here's the game I want to play: you are all in a living breathing world, you will have some really interesting potential for roleplay and experiences beyond combat.

There will be many things you can vanquish, and most of your adventures will be along those lines, but occasionally you will interact with beings much more powerful than you. When that happens, I will give plenty of hints and context so you will be acting in an informed way. I will never railroad you into instant death, but you will be able to choose that option if you wish.

If you lose the mentality that everything is a fight, then the world can be a much richer, more interesting place.'

I think a little of that goes a long way.