I'll quote it again, from p 9 of his DMG, ie the first page under the heading
Introduction:
The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well-thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them. If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance. The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play.
I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between
introducing content, which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and
resolving conflicts, where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be
contrary to the major precepts of the game
Yep. Note that he doesn't say "don't alter the rules," but rather "don't allow them to encounter monsters without consequence." He's already given permission to alter or ignore a rule (roll for wandering monsters every x amount of time), and stated that it's a better option than having a wandering monster and no consequences.
I have quoted that passage (from p 110) multiple times upthread. I will quote it again, in full, and emphasising some salient elements:
You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!" . . .
This would be altering the results in the opposite direction - consequences should never seriously harm the party. But also remember that there should be consequences.
Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!
This is more specifically about combat, although a player could also die from traps, etc. Once again he's allowing the DM to alter the results. One of the most common reasons (if not THE most common reason) a DM fudges is to avoid killing a character. But make sure there are consequences. Go ahead and alter it if you must, I'd recommend that you don't most of the time, but if you do, there must be consequences.
In both the passage on p 9 and the passage on p 110, the distinction between playing well (ie taking precautions, preparing sensibly, moving quickly and quietly through the dungeon, etc - all this stuff is spelled out in more detail on pp 107-9 of the PHB) and failing to take precautions or otherwise doing something stupid, hence deserving what befalls one, is drawn very clearly.
And the need to respect what a monster has done - so that a loss in combat still counts as a loss in combat, just not a fatal one - and to always give a monster an even break, and thus for instance not allow the PCs to easily defeat a monster or unnaturally escape from it, is likewise emphasised very clearly. Which only makes sense, given that playing well means making rational choices to overcome the challenges posed by the game, and one doesn't overcome challenges if the GM hands one victory by fudging.
Agreed again. The DM shouldn't even consider fudging for stupidity. It's really a tool that is best suited for those circumstances (freakish roll of the die, a mistake made by the DM) where the rules of the game interfere with the excitement of the game.
Thus, as I have repeatedly said, I don't see that anyone can read all that Gygaxian text, and then conclude that he was advocating that the GM fudge monster hp to (sya) let the PCs win, or to delay a PC victory, or anything of that sort. That sort of thing would obviously go contrary to the major precepts of Gygax's game.
And that depends entirely on which words you feel are more important. For example, I don't recall a sentence as specific as "you do have the right to overrule the dice at any time," that states the opposite. The closest I'm aware of is also very specific (and exclusive): "Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead." Not "one of the die rolls," but "one die roll." This is in the same section you've quoted where he's quite clearly stated twice ("you have
every right to overrule the dice
at any time," and, "Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation."
I think it's worth noting that what Gygax is advocating in the interviews you refer to contradicts what he says in his DMG. His advice may be good or it may be bad. But it goes directly against his direction to always give a monster an even break, to not seriously harm a NPC, and to not allow the PCs an easy victory. I am not talking about what Gygax himself did, or what he said in interviews. I'm saying that the classic D&D texts (AD&D; Moldvay Basic; OD&D and Chainmail as best I know them, though I don't know them as well; and I would assume Holmes also, though I know it least well of all) did not advocate GM control over outcomes in the way that the 2nd ed AD&D books, with their focus on the GM doing "what is good for the story" did.
And yet, if you're understanding of the quoted passages is that the DM is similar to mine, he very rarely contradicted himself. Here's a whole list of them:
https://orbitalflower.github.io/rpg/people/gary-gygax-quotes.html
Does that mean his opinion never changed? Of course not. What he says in later years is also colored by years of additional game design by him and others as well. But the overall thrust fits quite comfortably with the way I've thought D&D should be played.
I'll also add a personal opinion: I think that, in cases where an AD&D GM has made an encounter "too difficult" (whatever exactly that means), then Gyagx's advice to ameliorate the results of death blows seems to me to be better advice than adjusting the hit points on the fly. The result is likely to be a PC defeated but not dead, who then must be rescued by henchmen or associates, which seems the appropriate sort of outcome for a "skilled play", dungeoneering game.
And this is exactly what I think he was saying all along - that it's the DMs job to ensure that the consequences are commensurate with the challenge. If the consequences are not, either by die roll or DM error, then don't slavishly follow the rules or the die roll, because that's not the major precept of the game. It's not the point of the game.
I don't believe that it is wrong. I do think it's a sign of poor design - unsurprising i the transition from Chainmail to AD&D, but by the time we get to 2nd ed AD&D a sign of an unwillingness to grapple with the reality that the rules for a dungeoneering wargame simply don't make a very good vehicle for playing something like Dragonlance.
Well, the design team wanted to alter 2e quite a bit more than they were allowed, simply because it had to remain compatible with 1e. I think 3e initially handled the switch to new mechanics extremely well, but it altered the power scale significantly, although that wasn't immediately apparent either. Trying to maintain the general balance and feel of a game while at the same time radically redesigning the mechanics is a very difficult thing to do, especially since much of the feel is dependent upon the mechanics. This was extremely evident with 4e. But also with various OD&D variants such as Dungeon World that are directed toward a specific style of play (and then take it farther).
To quote
Luke Crane, in his discussion of Moldvay Basic:
I've a deeper understanding why fudging dice is the worst rule ever proposed. The rules indicate fudging with a wink and a nudge, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game." Seems like good advice, but to them I say, "Don't put bad die rolls in your game."
(He goes on with the following:
To expand on the point: The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.
So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text.[/url]
I think that this is good advice also for Dragonlance play - if your system can't give you epic drama without the game becoming about what the GM wants to happen, then it's a poorly designed system.)
And this is one opinion of the effect of fudging a roll. But in an RPG I see at least two points where a player's sense of accomplishment can be attained (and they aren't mutually exclusive). One is in the master of the rules, that is, the mechanics. We entered this dungeon, and through good play (including playing the mechanics), we conquered the dungeon. This is particularly important in organized and the old tournament play, where every table is playing the same adventure. Even if it isn't an official tournament, there is a satisfaction of being able to compare your group to others.
But in another approach, it's about the characters' accomplishments more than the players'. The rules are there to help the DM adjudicate the circumstances. It could be following an epic storyline like Dragonlance or Lord of the Rings, where the players are playing the known characters that cannot die for the story to continue. Things like resurrection in epic tales of this nature are not an option, because death is meant to be permanent. In LotR, Gandalf's return is more meaningful because Boromir did not. Had he simply been resurrected too, then it would have had less of an impact. Maybe D&D isn't the best design for this, but it works very well nonetheless. Perhaps something like Dungeon World is better suited, but for my tastes it loses the feel and flavor that I'm looking for when I play D&D. So it's not a good fit for me.
I totally disagree that you take it away, nor do I think it's a flaw. I think it's one of D&D's greatest strengths. That the rules don't control the flow of the game for the PCs or the DM. It's not just a wink and a nudge. There are statements throughout the OD&D/AD&D era in the books that are constantly instructing the DM to make the game their own. And they aren't just limited to the setting, they also state that if a rule isn't working for you, don't use it.
What it really comes down to from my perspective is how my importance you place on the rules themselves, and things like the dice. From a designer standpoint, "don't put bad die rolls in your game." Fair enough. But it's very, very difficult to do. Historically, each iteration of D&D has tried to clarify rules, it's easy to follow in the spell descriptions, and it was often done in response to "rules lawyers" and players that would find loopholes that allowed them to exploit the rules. Gygax and others from the era lamented the fact that the more rules they put in, the more the rules lawyers had to hold onto. That it often became a debate about the reading of the rules (like this), rather than playing the game. That adding and "clarifying" rules had more unintended consequences than benefits.
For me, all we need is a set of rules that gives us a basic resolution mechanic, and some guidelines on how to set up difficulties, and that takes care of the majority of the resolutions. If it takes care of 90%+, and I have to adjust on the fly the rest, I'm good to go. I'm not worried about a rule set that can handle every situation without error, because it requires too many rules. I like the general rule structure and game structure of D&D.
I'm not saying your interpretation, or even the post you quote here is wrong. But it's also not right for everybody. And that's my point. The rules fully support these two and many other ways that folks want to play D&D.
