Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7753696" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'll quote it again, from p 9 of his DMG, ie the first page under the heading <strong>Introduction</strong>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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. <strong>No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. </strong>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.</p><p></p><p>I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between <em>introducing content</em>, which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and <em>resolving conflicts</em>, where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be <em>contrary to the major precepts of the game</em></p><p></p><p>I have quoted that passage (from p 110) multiple times upthread. I will quote it again, in full, and emphasising some salient elements:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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 <strong>you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"</strong> . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Now and then<strong> 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</strong>. 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 <strong>invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done</strong>. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character <strong>when they have played well</strong>. <strong>When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!</strong></p><p></p><p>In both the passage on p 9 and the passage on p 110, the distinction between <em>playing well</em> (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 <em>failing to take precautions</em> or otherwise <em>doing something stupid</em>, hence <em>deserving what befalls one</em>, is drawn very clearly.</p><p></p><p>And the need to <em>respect what a monster has done</em> - so that a loss in combat still counts as a loss in combat, just not a fatal one - and to <em>always give a monster an even break</em>, 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 <em>playing well</em> means <em>making rational choices to overcome the challenges posed by the game</em>, and one doesn't <em>overcome</em> challenges if the GM hands one victory by fudging.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>go contrary to the major precepts of Gygax's game</em>.</p><p></p><p>I think it's worth noting that what Gygax is advocating in the interviews you refer to <em>contradicts what he says in his DMG</em>. His advice may be good or it may be bad. But it goes directly against his direction to <em>always give a monster an even break</em>, to <em>not seriously harm a NPC</em>, and to <em>not allow the PCs an easy victory</em>. 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>To quote <a href="https://plus.google.com/+lukecrane/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5" target="_blank">Luke Crane, in his discussion of Moldvay Basic</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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."</p><p></p><p>(He goes on with the following:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text.[/url]</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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 <em>the GM</em> wants to happen, then it's a poorly designed system.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7753696, member: 42582"] I'll quote it again, from p 9 of his DMG, ie the first page under the heading [B]Introduction[/B]: [indent]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. [B]No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. [/B]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.[/indent] I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between [I]introducing content[/I], which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and [I]resolving conflicts[/I], where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be [I]contrary to the major precepts of the game[/I] I have quoted that passage (from p 110) multiple times upthread. I will quote it again, in full, and emphasising some salient elements: [indent]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 [B]you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"[/B] . . . Now and then[B] 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[/B]. 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 [B]invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done[/B]. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character [B]when they have played well[/B]. [B]When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may![/B][/indent] In both the passage on p 9 and the passage on p 110, the distinction between [I]playing well[/I] (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 [I]failing to take precautions[/I] or otherwise [I]doing something stupid[/I], hence [I]deserving what befalls one[/I], is drawn very clearly. And the need to [I]respect what a monster has done[/I] - so that a loss in combat still counts as a loss in combat, just not a fatal one - and to [I]always give a monster an even break[/I], 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 [I]playing well[/I] means [I]making rational choices to overcome the challenges posed by the game[/I], and one doesn't [I]overcome[/I] challenges if the GM hands one victory by fudging. 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 [I]go contrary to the major precepts of Gygax's game[/I]. I think it's worth noting that what Gygax is advocating in the interviews you refer to [I]contradicts what he says in his DMG[/I]. His advice may be good or it may be bad. But it goes directly against his direction to [I]always give a monster an even break[/I], to [I]not seriously harm a NPC[/I], and to [I]not allow the PCs an easy victory[/I]. 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. 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. 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. To quote [url=https://plus.google.com/+lukecrane/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5]Luke Crane, in his discussion of Moldvay Basic[/url]: [indent]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."[/indent] (He goes on with the following: [indent]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 [I]the GM[/I] wants to happen, then it's a poorly designed system.)[/indent] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top