Keeping a Group Together

[redrick]

I think the "DM's don't have to reveal their information" argument fails to separate two very different things —

a) DM's don't have to reveal in-game information from their notes just because a player asks. Players certainly cannot expect the right to know things about their game world that their characters wouldn't know. Furthermore, DM's have the right to "lie" to players in the sense that PCs might "know" something that is in fact untrue. This is all in-game.

b) DM's do have to be honest with players about the kind of game that they are playing, because this is an issue of one player to another, not one character to another. As a human, if a player asks me if I am adjusting mechanics on the fly, I feel I would be obliged to answer truthfully. Now, I can say, "yes, but I won't tell you where I did it." or, "I reserve the right to make on-the-fly changes at my discretion, but I will never tell you whether or not I have actually done it." But if I say, "I did not fudge any rolls in that encounter," when I know damn well that I did, I'm lying.

When I play, I tell new players to my game, "You will encounter opponents who would kill you in a fair fight. And I will not fudge dice rolls to keep that from happening." We roll all of our dice in the open, except for discovery type checks. Personally, the sinking feeling of seeing the DM roll a natural 20 is far more satisfying, as a player, than having a DM announce across the screen, "It's a critical hit." I want players to ask me a lot of questions about apparent power levels of opponents, and then quake in their boots. I want players to see a PC take massive damage in one hit from an opponent and say, "oh crap, this is gonna be a TPK. New plan. Run away!" Hell, if it comes down to it, I want players to decide to leave one PC behind while everybody else sprints off. Maybe next time, they will come in with an exit strategy. And now I've got a strong plot hook to drive the game forward for a while. (Revenge. Maybe even finding the body of their fallen comrade for some resurrection magic.)

But if you want to run a game where you fudge die rolls, that's fine. You should be able to tell your players that, and they should be mature enough to be able to handle it. After all, if you are fudging, you are probably doing it because you are trying to make the game more fun. You don't need to fudge dice rolls to screw your players over. I have played at tables where the DM has announced afterwards, "I fudged a few die rolls there," as we packed up for the end of the night. I probably wouldn't want that in a regular game, but, whatever, it was a quick one-shot at a gaming store, and he just wanted to keep the thing moving, because he was working from a script and didn't have the time or energy to jump off the rails.

Ultimately, I feel that extemporaneous fudging is something that I do because I, as the DM, am not prepared to deal with the consequences of failure. When player characters need to flee a combat, or leave a character to die, I am forced to figure out, "oh crap, how do I keep this session going?" What happens next?

As for bringing in reinforcements, I see this as a little different from "fudging," because it's transparent — players see 5 more orcs come rushing in — and I can also usually pull those opponents from somewhere else in the dungeon. I'm making one encounter more exciting by eliminating another minor encounter. In fact, players should be prepared for any pitched combat to draw reinforcements. And, even if I do change the population of a dungeon (or wilderness area) on the fly, the players are getting the xp for facing more opponents.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I've had times when I came up with a monster, a rule, an item or some trick that the players couldn't figure out, and I've had players flat out demand an explanation, at the table, with the implication that I must be cheating somehow.

I tell my players that the DM is God, before they ever agree to play in my campaign. That way I don't get nonsense like that from them.

 

[Hussar]

I tell my players that the DM is God, before they ever agree to play in my campaign. That way I don't get nonsense like that from them.

I'm not sure it's nonsense though. Having sat through my share of Calvinball DM's, it can be very discouraging if the players start to think you're playing silly buggers with mechanics just to thwart them. Not that you necessarily are, but the perception of DM's doing this can be damaging to the enjoyment of the game.

I tend to be very forthcoming when asked things like this. Mostly because I know a few of my players are much more mechanically inclined than I am. It might very well be that they are right and I'm wrong.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not sure it's nonsense though.

The attitude that it has to be nonsense, by definition, is part of why I find topics like this quite vexing.

Having sat through my share of Calvinball DM's, it can be very discouraging if the players start to think you're playing silly buggers with mechanics just to thwart them. Not that you necessarily are, but the perception of DM's doing this can be damaging to the enjoyment of the game.

I actually just had a conversation about "Calvinball" behavior in D&D with a friend of mine, just last night. It was on the part of players rather than DMs, but I think it applies just as much. Specifically: There are two kinds of Calvinball. There's "let's all play with what the rules expect, while still achieving the goals the rules set." From this, you get things like the zany rogue who always makes situations more interesting (in both the exciting sense and the Chinese proverb sense), the warlord-type always coming up with a new "so crazy it just might work" scheme, or the wizard who introduces bizarre or oddball trivia that somehow manages to make the world richer, fuller, and more interesting (again in both senses). And then there's the antagonistic kind of Calvinball. The "look how much more clever I am than you" kind.

DMs that engage in the former kind, IMO, work to bridge "play by the rules" and "screw the rules" play into a harmonious back-and-forth. DMs who engage in the latter kind are the issue you're talking about here: ones who change "the rules" without letting the players know, while expecting them to obey. Playing "D&D: Mao Edition," so to speak. I have little interest in playing such a game, and think it is a serious problem for D&D games, in fact.

I tend to be very forthcoming when asked things like this. Mostly because I know a few of my players are much more mechanically inclined than I am. It might very well be that they are right and I'm wrong.

But...but...you're *God.* How could you ever possibly be wrong? *Especially* if you decide to change your mind!

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I have little interest in playing such a game, and think it is a serious problem for D&D games, in fact.


/snip

Honestly, I think you hit on what, for me, is the big issue with 4e and why it was so strongly rejected by critics. People talk about how 4e was the "MMO" edition. I can see where they're coming from, but, I think they didn't quite think things all the way through. 4e isn't the MMO edition, it's the Organized Play (OP) edition. And that's really, really key to understanding 4e and all it's design goals.

Think about it for a second. The push for 4e was for there to be a very large growth in the number of gamers. There was supposed to be a virtual tabletop over the Xbox right out of the gate. The idea was that you would be able to play D&D at any time you wanted to play. But, you'd be playing with strangers. It's no different than playing in a convention game or OP game at an FLGS. Thing is, in order to do that, you really have to nail down the mechanics. Which brings me around to your point.

Imagine for a second that you want to run a game for 4 or 5 strangers. You say, "Hey, I have a 12th level adventure, so bring 12th level characters". In 3e that would be an absolute nightmare. Of the 5 characters at the table, two would almost certainly be mathematically wrong, 1 would be built using the Charops board and fifteen different splat books and 2 would be mostly ok. The game would be extremely difficult to run. Never minding that during play you run into all the high level 3e goodies like Polymorph and various other issues. I wouldn't dream of doing that in 3e. I'd have to nail down a very large list of restrictions and then audit the player's character sheets before I'd even consider starting to play.

But in 4e? With 5 characters built using the DDi? Wouldn't bother me in the least. I would know that 4 out of those 5 characters would be perfectly fine. That one guy who likes to exploit stuff might be a problem, but, odds are, not so much. There just weren't that many mechanical loopholes to exploit.

And there's the rub. The game was extremely tight. Everyone was built using the same (more or less) mechanics. The powers are discrete and largely self-explanatory with very little room for creativity, at least to the degree we saw in earlier editions. On one hand, it makes playing with strangers extremely easy. But, for established groups who've already sorted all the quirks and kinks of 3e, it wasn't going to be very welcome. And IMNSHO, virtually all the criticisms of 4e have their roots in this idea that 4e was the RPGA edition. It was built so that Calvinball (for good or for bad) just wasn't a thing at the table. Which critics viewed as needlessly restrictive, and, since I do believe that most of the most vocal critics rarely play with strangers, they just never saw the point of a game where the mechanics are so tightly woven.

Anyway, that's my little pontification for the day. I hope you find it useful.

 

[pemerton]

The powers are discrete and largely self-explanatory with very little room for creativity, at least to the degree we saw in earlier editions.

I want to disagree with this. There is plenty of room for creativity; but the GM is given robust mechanics for resolving it.

For instance, a player wants his/her wizard PC to use Icy Terrain (1st level encounter power) to freeze a stream solid so the party can cross it more easily? Make an Arcana check against an appropriate DC (if in doubt, default to Medium). Is this part of a skill challenge? Then make the check, add +2 for using an Encounter power (per DMG2) and the GM factors success/failure into the narration of the unfolding challenge.

The game doesn't have to be uncreative at all, and the PHB (in the sections on powers, skills and skill challenges) and both DMGs are full of suggestions around the creative use of powers and rituals. What is uniform and regimented is the method of resolution.

I would add a further point: these resolution methods make 4e hostile to railroading (as has been discussed at great length on the current "Best thing from 4e" thread), and I'm not sure that is a good or a bad thing from the point of view of organised play. But I suspect bad.

 

[Hussar]

I want to disagree with this. There is plenty of room for creativity; but the GM is given robust mechanics for resolving it.

For instance, a player wants his/her wizard PC to use Icy Terrain (1st level encounter power) to freeze a stream solid so the party can cross it more easily? Make an Arcana check against an appropriate DC (if in doubt, default to Medium). Is this part of a skill challenge? Then make the check, add +2 for using an Encounter power (per DMG2) and the GM factors success/failure into the narration of the unfolding challenge.

The game doesn't have to be uncreative at all, and the PHB (in the sections on powers, skills and skill challenges) and both DMGs are full of suggestions around the creative use of powers and rituals. What is uniform and regimented is the method of resolution.

I would add a further point: these resolution methods make 4e hostile to railroading (as has been discussed at great length on the current "Best thing from 4e" thread), and I'm not sure that is a good or a bad thing from the point of view of organised play. But I suspect bad.

Let me rephrase then. The powers were presented in a very matter of fact manner and were very specific about what they did. And, I think many people did not look much beyond that presentation. And, let's not forget, that most of the open ended powers were removed from the game, or at least strongly curtailed. The easiest things that come to mind are polymorph, illusions and summoning. Granted, these were problematic issues in 3e and that's exactly why they got curtailed in 4e - thus, back to my point about 4e being the RPGA edition.

Could you go above and beyond? Sure, of course and you should. But, I think that many people couldn't see that, and it was not until a fair bit down the road that you saw any real examples of this in official books. Unfortunately.

 

[pemerton]

The powers were presented in a very matter of fact manner and were very specific about what they did. And, I think many people did not look much beyond that presentation.

That seems true.

most of the open ended powers were removed from the game, or at least strongly curtailed. The easiest things that come to mind are polymorph, illusions and summoning.

Polymorph is the most obvious nerf here - the game has a range of disguise and shapechange powers over multiple classes, themes and levels, but nothing on a par even with classic D&D polymorph self (which in B/X is basic physical abilities only, and in AD&D 1st ed is movement only) let alone the ultra-powerful 3E version.

Summoning waited on Arcane Power and PHB2, and is very cautious in respect of action economy - I'm sure many think too cautious. Personally I haven't seen it in play.

The PHB did contain two illusion rituals, but I've not seen them in play and don't recall ever seeing anyone post about them. In my game the only illusions that have seen regular use have been the Prestidigitation cantrip, and Wizard's Screen (? - the ritual that I think is from FRPG, which reduces the visibility of characters behind the screen), used to set up ambushes.

 

[Talmek]

I just realized that this thread is (was?) about methods of keeping a group together and I wanted to share some things that I learned over the years of GM'ing that have kept my groups going, even in some of the worst circumstances.

First, living in a war zone tends to help keep the group playing together. Now, I know what you're thinking but I mean living in a real life, real bullets, real death war zone will do something to the group. One of the very first campaigns I ever GM'ed in was while stationed in one of the worst places in Iraq. Our group didn't consist of a "Band of Brothers" type scenario, but actually using downtime to play a game (because it's not like you were going to be able to sleep much after just coming off of a job outside the wire, anyway) was a way for us to decompress and try to forget about some of the horrible, awful, no-good things that occurred right outside. We were all living it and we all needed an escape.

Second, having a relationship with your gaming group outside of the game is especially helpful to cohesion. Granted, there may be some folks/groups that just don't want to spend another minute more than necessary with members of their gaming group and I can understand/relate. However, if you can find one that you can hang out with, perhaps you can turn it into two and so on...

Third, there's an element of trust that I feel almost must be established within the gaming group. It can start small (hey man, I'll cover the food tonight - no worries!) but over time it can (and in most non-sociopathic ways will) grow into more. For instance, when I first considered playing D&D once I came home from the service I had no idea how to find a group...so I just went to gaming stores and posted flyers on the bulletin board looking for other players. Rather than try to even start into a group I simply invited everyone to dinner at a local restaurant and had (kind of) a session zero - "what are you looking for in a campaign/what kind of TTRPGs do you like to play?" From there we further defined the group and now, 5 years later we are still gaming, helping one another move, celebrating births, mourning deaths and generally being friends with one another.

To summarize I think keeping a group together is very much like any other relationship one would have in life - slow to anger, quick to forgive and quicker to laugh alongside someone else. To some this may seem far too in-depth but if you apply those things in your gaming group how many arguments would you believe couldn't be resolved over a beer?

My thoughts - do with them what you will.

 

[S'mon]

I don't feel it's something the DM has enough latitude to do in the open. There are too many players who would object, and if it would break a group apart, it certainly should be kept secret.

No, I was fine when my DM told me last session that the 22 hp zombie died after my paladin divine
smited it for 21 radiant damage, because that's what she thought should happen. She was being
completely honest, I was fine with that, so was everyone else (maybe she overdid it a bit when she said 'don't worry, you won't die in this encounter'). Whereas I dislike it strongly when GMs 'secretly' fudge to
ensure their desired outcome, it feels dishonest to me. I leave those games pretty fast.