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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7753911" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>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.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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. </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <strong>every </strong>right to overrule the dice <strong>at any time</strong>," and, "Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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: <a href="https://orbitalflower.github.io/rpg/people/gary-gygax-quotes.html" target="_blank">https://orbitalflower.github.io/rpg/people/gary-gygax-quotes.html</a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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. </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7753911, member: 6778044"] 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. [indent] 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. [/indent] 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. 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. 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 [B]every [/B]right to overrule the dice [B]at any time[/B]," and, "Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation." 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: [url]https://orbitalflower.github.io/rpg/people/gary-gygax-quotes.html[/url] 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. 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. 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). [indent] 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.[/indent] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top