Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
So I have a ... well, let's say a well-known dislike of the use of certain jargon, and a belief that some terms (such as "player agency" or the more recent "DM agency") tend to generate more heat than light. That said, I do think it might be interesting (again, for certain values of "interesting") to look more deeply into the ideas of rules and rulings, and to look at them in to the context of fairness. Because while fairness can certainly be a squishy and subjective concept, I think it is also at the heart of what animates many of these conversations.
To look at this in the context of Dungeons and Dragons, I'll start by first looking at a slightly related concept from the legal field; a standard called "arbitrary and capricious." From there, I'll then examine why people look askance at rules that they feel are aren't fair, and then follow that up with an examination of fairness in rulings from DMs (you can mentally substitute "GMs" or "Referees" or your preferred term).
Or, if you prefer, you can skip this essay entirely. Because as Mama Snarf always used to tell me, "Snarf, life ain't fair, so quit yer whinin' already. Jus' means that you need to do unto others before they do unto you. Now, get yer Mama a four-pack of that vintage Four Loko so she can get the party started."
1. What is Arbitrary and Capricious?
Let his vices be forgotten, and his virtues be remembered. It will not infringe upon your time.
When you're on the internet, people often sling legal terms at each other with the weight of sewer grates and the corresponding grace as well. And some of those terms include what are called "standards of review." Quick background- when you are appealing a decision, you go to an appellate court. One of the most important things an appellate court has to determine is the standard of review- in other words, how much (if any) deference do they give to what the trial court has already decided? The standard of review can make or break an appellate case. An example of one of those standards for an appellate court is de novo. Generally, when there is a pure question of law, the appellate court reviews it "anew" or de novo, and can review the issue without referring to any legal conclusions of assumptions being made by the lower court.
A much more deferential standard used in certain types of cases is called "arbitrary and capricious." Generally, this standard means that the lower tribunal acted with willful and unreasoning action without due consideration and in disregard of the facts. A longer definition of this, in more detailed legal-ese, was stated by Justice Douglas:
Under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard the scope of review is a narrow one. A reviewing court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. . . . Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. The agency must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. While we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given, we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86 (1974) (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied; formatting changed from the original).
Understanding this, you can see that the issue on review isn't whether or not the reviewing court believes that the agency made the right decision. It's whether or not the agency's decision was rational ... whether it could be supported by the facts. In other words, so long as the decision was not arbitrary and capricious, the decision will be upheld, even if it might not have been the "right" or "best" decision.
Which gets us to the idea of fairness in this context. This standard is usually employed in intensively fact-intensive proceedings. So long as the original decision was "fair," (not arbitrary and capricious), the reviewing court will not disturb it. Moreover, it would be unfair, after a lengthy, expensive, and fact-intensive proceeding, for an appeal to simply be another lengthy and fact-intensive proceeding re-arguing the facts that were already argued and decided ... so long as the final decision wasn't arbitrary and capricious. In the end, the concerns over fairness are what truly animates the various arguments related to jargon.
2. Fairness and Rules
I love criticism, so long as I am the critic.
I've used the story before, so I'll use it again. A commenter here once relayed a story about playing D&D (assumedly 3e?). They had a great time playing it- the DM was amazing, and the adventures were great. However, after some time, they realized that all of their carefully crafted bonuses and skills meant nothing- the DM was just looking at rolls and thinking, "Eh, looks about right," without actually doing any of the math. In short, high rolls succeeded, low rolls didn't. Immediately, this adventure, and all the prior adventures, became a horrible experience. The reason I like to use this example is because it illustrates a lot of points- here, it illustrates the issue of fairness. For the player, it was fundamentally unfair to spend time and optimize a character and work within the rules when it all meant nothing.
This often comes up in conversations we have about hypothetical rules. At some point, a person will always say, "Well, you could just have a ruleset that says whenever there is a conflict, you flip a coin." And while this is true, it also feels wrong. The reason it feels wrong is because this game, while having a completely valid rule, would feel unfair. Why bother doing anything when you know for a fact that no matter how you create a character, no matter how you position yourself within the fiction, no matter how you leverage your abilities ... it will eventually come down to a coin flip. It's a perfectly valid rule, and yet ... it's also unfair. It feels arbitrary and capricious. Imagine if you had a lengthy court case and at the end, the judge whipped out a coin and said, "Okay, heads plaintiff wins, tails defendant wins." It's certainly a rule! Yet ... unfair. Or a college professor who collects all of the term papers, and to grade them throws them down the stairwell and assigns them grades depending on where they land? Again, it's a perfectly valid rule that will produce grades ... and yet, also profoundly unfair.
A lot of the time when we talk about "unfairness" in this squishy kind of way, we are really looking at whether the rule is, for lack of a better term, arbitrary and capricious. Whether there is a rational connection between the "facts" that go into the rule and the "choices" that the rule provides.
Once you start to see this, you begin to realize that many of the debates about rules in D&D have, underlying them, concerns about fairness. Of course, fairness is not just subjective, it is also system-dependent! What can be a fair rule in one system might seem less fair in another. Let's use the example of the Druid 'splodin' in metal armor. In the context of AD&D (1e), this rule was eminently fair. Because the entire game was built on various "game-y" restrictions! Druids can't wear metal armor. Magic Users and Illusionists and Monks can't wear armor. Thieves and Assassins only wear leather armor. Clerics can't use edged weapons. Magic Users only use staffs, darts, and dagger. Monks can't use oil. Paladins have to be lawful stupid. Etc. On the other hand, 5e no longer has that restriction-based system, so those sweet, sweet Druid 'splosions seem not just out of place, but arguably ... unfair as a rule. Why? Because it seems arbitrary and capricious. There is no longer a rational connection between the facts that go into the rule and the choices that the rule provides; there is no system reason (like 1e) and there is no real explanation for what happens, either.
3. Fairness and Rulings
Once you put down the 5e DMG, you simply can't pick it up.
While the application of the concept of fairness to rules seems somewhat easy, I think it is the application of fairness to rulings that really allows us to examine the usefulness of the concept. In many versions of D&D, the DM is afforded an amazing amount of latitude, and this includes 5e. A good DM can make a campaign, a bad DM will break it. But what, exactly, makes a good DM? Is it hours and hours of prep time? The ability to do funny voices? Weeks spent watching every episode of Critical Role? A place to play? An unlimited pizza budget? Knowledge of the rules? The ability to raise their hand when someone says, "Who wants to DM?"
It could be one, or all of these. Heck, I'm not turning down pizza ... well, Derek and I are going to throw hands if he orders pineapple and anchovies again, but still. Anyway, I would say that the fundamental quality of a good DM is that they are fair, which is a nebulous, squishy, yet indispensable quality. And by fair, I mean that they are not arbitrary and capricious. That the DM is consistent, and that their decisions (their rulings) have a rational connection to the facts.
This is where I want to detour briefly and re-introduce that whole, long, boring legal section I started with and that you skipped over (it's okay, I did too!). A DM can be fair, and be wrong. I would go so far as to say that a DM who has never been wrong, has never DM'd. But there's a difference between being wrong, and being arbitrary and capricious. To understand that, we first need to look at what it means for a DM to be wrong.
DMs can mess things up, just like all of us. They might screw up the math. They might forget about an ability. They might not remember the way a rule works (or a rule). A fair DM, when this is mentioned, will correct it, because this is a simple issue, and we are all here to have fun and gain XP through the killing of intelligent creatures. Um .... have fun and play a game. But sometimes a DM will be "wrong" in a way that you just disagree with. The way that various rules interact. The setting of a DC. The way that an NPC reacts. The effect or narration of your failure (or success, or partial failure or partial success if you're using optional rules). The difference between a fair DM, and an arbitrary and capricious DM, is that the fair DM's rulings (decisions) should have a rational connection between the choice the DM made and the facts prior to the decision. You, as a player, may have made a different decision. You may think that there is a better decision that could have been made. But so long as the DM's decision is rational- it is defensible, it is a fair decision.
This gets to the the heart of most conflicts regarding the DM in any given game; not whether the DM is making the "right" rulings all the time, but whether the DM is making rulings that are consistent and fair. Whether the DM is, in good faith, applying what the DM knows in such a way that, if asked after the session is over with, the players would be able to determine the path the DM took in making this decision.
When looked at through this lens, you can see many of the discussions we have, whether about "illusionism," or "railroading," or "agency," or whatever term is currently percolating up and down the boards essentially boil down to fairness. In short, whether the DM the fairly applying the facts (including the decisions of the players) when making rulings. After all, what is a quantum ogre (ugh) but the DM being arbitrary and capricious and deciding that no matter what the facts are, the result will be an ogre?
4. Conclusion
The trouble is that the stupid people, who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of all nations, do believe and are molded by what they see on the 'Gram.
I don't expect that this will add much to the omnipresent theory discussions that occur; after all, fairness is far too understandable to be of much use, yet too difficult to pin down to argue over endlessly. But it might be of help when you think about how you frame different conversations, given that it is a quality that should be indispensable for a DM. After all, no one in the history of ever has uttered the phrase, "As beautiful as an airport." Or, for that matter, "What I'm really looking for is a partial and completely unfair DM."
But this idea of fairness, which is inextricably bound with ideas of trust, animates notions of gameplay. We want to be treated fairly. We want DMs to adjudicate fairly. We want players to play fairly. We want rules to be fair. Fairness may be hard to define, but is easily observed in its absence. After all, every dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.
To look at this in the context of Dungeons and Dragons, I'll start by first looking at a slightly related concept from the legal field; a standard called "arbitrary and capricious." From there, I'll then examine why people look askance at rules that they feel are aren't fair, and then follow that up with an examination of fairness in rulings from DMs (you can mentally substitute "GMs" or "Referees" or your preferred term).
Or, if you prefer, you can skip this essay entirely. Because as Mama Snarf always used to tell me, "Snarf, life ain't fair, so quit yer whinin' already. Jus' means that you need to do unto others before they do unto you. Now, get yer Mama a four-pack of that vintage Four Loko so she can get the party started."
1. What is Arbitrary and Capricious?
Let his vices be forgotten, and his virtues be remembered. It will not infringe upon your time.
When you're on the internet, people often sling legal terms at each other with the weight of sewer grates and the corresponding grace as well. And some of those terms include what are called "standards of review." Quick background- when you are appealing a decision, you go to an appellate court. One of the most important things an appellate court has to determine is the standard of review- in other words, how much (if any) deference do they give to what the trial court has already decided? The standard of review can make or break an appellate case. An example of one of those standards for an appellate court is de novo. Generally, when there is a pure question of law, the appellate court reviews it "anew" or de novo, and can review the issue without referring to any legal conclusions of assumptions being made by the lower court.
A much more deferential standard used in certain types of cases is called "arbitrary and capricious." Generally, this standard means that the lower tribunal acted with willful and unreasoning action without due consideration and in disregard of the facts. A longer definition of this, in more detailed legal-ese, was stated by Justice Douglas:
Under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard the scope of review is a narrow one. A reviewing court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. . . . Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. The agency must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. While we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given, we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86 (1974) (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied; formatting changed from the original).
Understanding this, you can see that the issue on review isn't whether or not the reviewing court believes that the agency made the right decision. It's whether or not the agency's decision was rational ... whether it could be supported by the facts. In other words, so long as the decision was not arbitrary and capricious, the decision will be upheld, even if it might not have been the "right" or "best" decision.
Which gets us to the idea of fairness in this context. This standard is usually employed in intensively fact-intensive proceedings. So long as the original decision was "fair," (not arbitrary and capricious), the reviewing court will not disturb it. Moreover, it would be unfair, after a lengthy, expensive, and fact-intensive proceeding, for an appeal to simply be another lengthy and fact-intensive proceeding re-arguing the facts that were already argued and decided ... so long as the final decision wasn't arbitrary and capricious. In the end, the concerns over fairness are what truly animates the various arguments related to jargon.
2. Fairness and Rules
I love criticism, so long as I am the critic.
I've used the story before, so I'll use it again. A commenter here once relayed a story about playing D&D (assumedly 3e?). They had a great time playing it- the DM was amazing, and the adventures were great. However, after some time, they realized that all of their carefully crafted bonuses and skills meant nothing- the DM was just looking at rolls and thinking, "Eh, looks about right," without actually doing any of the math. In short, high rolls succeeded, low rolls didn't. Immediately, this adventure, and all the prior adventures, became a horrible experience. The reason I like to use this example is because it illustrates a lot of points- here, it illustrates the issue of fairness. For the player, it was fundamentally unfair to spend time and optimize a character and work within the rules when it all meant nothing.
This often comes up in conversations we have about hypothetical rules. At some point, a person will always say, "Well, you could just have a ruleset that says whenever there is a conflict, you flip a coin." And while this is true, it also feels wrong. The reason it feels wrong is because this game, while having a completely valid rule, would feel unfair. Why bother doing anything when you know for a fact that no matter how you create a character, no matter how you position yourself within the fiction, no matter how you leverage your abilities ... it will eventually come down to a coin flip. It's a perfectly valid rule, and yet ... it's also unfair. It feels arbitrary and capricious. Imagine if you had a lengthy court case and at the end, the judge whipped out a coin and said, "Okay, heads plaintiff wins, tails defendant wins." It's certainly a rule! Yet ... unfair. Or a college professor who collects all of the term papers, and to grade them throws them down the stairwell and assigns them grades depending on where they land? Again, it's a perfectly valid rule that will produce grades ... and yet, also profoundly unfair.
A lot of the time when we talk about "unfairness" in this squishy kind of way, we are really looking at whether the rule is, for lack of a better term, arbitrary and capricious. Whether there is a rational connection between the "facts" that go into the rule and the "choices" that the rule provides.
Once you start to see this, you begin to realize that many of the debates about rules in D&D have, underlying them, concerns about fairness. Of course, fairness is not just subjective, it is also system-dependent! What can be a fair rule in one system might seem less fair in another. Let's use the example of the Druid 'splodin' in metal armor. In the context of AD&D (1e), this rule was eminently fair. Because the entire game was built on various "game-y" restrictions! Druids can't wear metal armor. Magic Users and Illusionists and Monks can't wear armor. Thieves and Assassins only wear leather armor. Clerics can't use edged weapons. Magic Users only use staffs, darts, and dagger. Monks can't use oil. Paladins have to be lawful stupid. Etc. On the other hand, 5e no longer has that restriction-based system, so those sweet, sweet Druid 'splosions seem not just out of place, but arguably ... unfair as a rule. Why? Because it seems arbitrary and capricious. There is no longer a rational connection between the facts that go into the rule and the choices that the rule provides; there is no system reason (like 1e) and there is no real explanation for what happens, either.
3. Fairness and Rulings
Once you put down the 5e DMG, you simply can't pick it up.
While the application of the concept of fairness to rules seems somewhat easy, I think it is the application of fairness to rulings that really allows us to examine the usefulness of the concept. In many versions of D&D, the DM is afforded an amazing amount of latitude, and this includes 5e. A good DM can make a campaign, a bad DM will break it. But what, exactly, makes a good DM? Is it hours and hours of prep time? The ability to do funny voices? Weeks spent watching every episode of Critical Role? A place to play? An unlimited pizza budget? Knowledge of the rules? The ability to raise their hand when someone says, "Who wants to DM?"
It could be one, or all of these. Heck, I'm not turning down pizza ... well, Derek and I are going to throw hands if he orders pineapple and anchovies again, but still. Anyway, I would say that the fundamental quality of a good DM is that they are fair, which is a nebulous, squishy, yet indispensable quality. And by fair, I mean that they are not arbitrary and capricious. That the DM is consistent, and that their decisions (their rulings) have a rational connection to the facts.
This is where I want to detour briefly and re-introduce that whole, long, boring legal section I started with and that you skipped over (it's okay, I did too!). A DM can be fair, and be wrong. I would go so far as to say that a DM who has never been wrong, has never DM'd. But there's a difference between being wrong, and being arbitrary and capricious. To understand that, we first need to look at what it means for a DM to be wrong.
DMs can mess things up, just like all of us. They might screw up the math. They might forget about an ability. They might not remember the way a rule works (or a rule). A fair DM, when this is mentioned, will correct it, because this is a simple issue, and we are all here to have fun and gain XP through the killing of intelligent creatures. Um .... have fun and play a game. But sometimes a DM will be "wrong" in a way that you just disagree with. The way that various rules interact. The setting of a DC. The way that an NPC reacts. The effect or narration of your failure (or success, or partial failure or partial success if you're using optional rules). The difference between a fair DM, and an arbitrary and capricious DM, is that the fair DM's rulings (decisions) should have a rational connection between the choice the DM made and the facts prior to the decision. You, as a player, may have made a different decision. You may think that there is a better decision that could have been made. But so long as the DM's decision is rational- it is defensible, it is a fair decision.
This gets to the the heart of most conflicts regarding the DM in any given game; not whether the DM is making the "right" rulings all the time, but whether the DM is making rulings that are consistent and fair. Whether the DM is, in good faith, applying what the DM knows in such a way that, if asked after the session is over with, the players would be able to determine the path the DM took in making this decision.
When looked at through this lens, you can see many of the discussions we have, whether about "illusionism," or "railroading," or "agency," or whatever term is currently percolating up and down the boards essentially boil down to fairness. In short, whether the DM the fairly applying the facts (including the decisions of the players) when making rulings. After all, what is a quantum ogre (ugh) but the DM being arbitrary and capricious and deciding that no matter what the facts are, the result will be an ogre?
4. Conclusion
The trouble is that the stupid people, who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of all nations, do believe and are molded by what they see on the 'Gram.
I don't expect that this will add much to the omnipresent theory discussions that occur; after all, fairness is far too understandable to be of much use, yet too difficult to pin down to argue over endlessly. But it might be of help when you think about how you frame different conversations, given that it is a quality that should be indispensable for a DM. After all, no one in the history of ever has uttered the phrase, "As beautiful as an airport." Or, for that matter, "What I'm really looking for is a partial and completely unfair DM."
But this idea of fairness, which is inextricably bound with ideas of trust, animates notions of gameplay. We want to be treated fairly. We want DMs to adjudicate fairly. We want players to play fairly. We want rules to be fair. Fairness may be hard to define, but is easily observed in its absence. After all, every dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.
Last edited:
