D&D 5E Would you change a monster's hit points mid-fight?

[SirAntoine]

You have spoken of a GM telling players they don't ever fudge, but then going ahead and doing it anyway. That sounds like a pretty fundamental and active lie, to me, and a misrepresentation of the GM's basic GMing style. If you tell players that when they join your campaign, then yes, your gaming relationship with them is founded on a lie, one that is rather serious to some players.



I thought I was fairly clear - I am merely noting what I know of human psychology. Some small fibs are generally acceptable (even required, from a social standpoint), but others aren't. Humans aren't an "all or nothing" creature. We have subtleties.



I know that's what you are trying to do. But you will not convince them of that when your argument is, "It is okay to tell people the rule is X, but then you play with rule Y" (tell them you don't fudge, but go ahead and do it). That's going to come across as the very essence of cheating, no matter what the rulebooks say.

Meanwhile, my approach makes occasional fudging one of the rules, so I am not cheating.

Any uncertainty will continue to raise the question. A denial just works best in this case.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Edit: not beating a dead horse.

 

[Umbran]

Any uncertainty will continue to raise the question. A denial just works best in this case.

If you are playing long-term with folks for whom the uncertainty is a problem, you probably shouldn't be using the technique.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You have spoken of a GM telling players they don't ever fudge, but then going ahead and doing it anyway. That sounds like a pretty fundamental and active lie, to me, and a misrepresentation of the GM's basic GMing style. If you tell players that when they join your campaign, then yes, your gaming relationship with them is founded on a lie, one that is rather serious to some players.

Fine, it's a lie.

But, deceiving or 'tricking' your players and withholding details of the rules from them was a big part of classic D&D. Read the 1e DMG, EGG tells you to do that sort of thing all the time. The DM/player dynamic simply wasn't co-equal back then. 5e harkens back to that with it's 'rulings not rules' philosophy. In essence, a lot of rules don't exist, or actively call for a DM ruling, or are open to re-interpretation or overruling moment by moment, so the player doesn't have a sense of certainty to begin with. Being 'lied to' doesn't change that much. You don't know exactly what your character can do, nor exactly how the challenges he faces work. You make decisions in the face of that uncertainty - uncertainty that makes easy (or even automatic) things seem risky, so when you succeed it seems like a dramatic success, even though it might have been a forgone conclusion. By the same token, when you're confident of your plan, it can always fall apart. Run just right, that style can create tension, excitement, and even a sense of your characters being heroic - it can also easily slip into paranoia, futility, and cynicism, so making good use of all your DMing tricks is a good idea.

And, even if you want to look at it as lying, one could just look at that lying as part of the DMs role. It's not like the world he's presenting really exists. He's a 'professional liar' in the same sense an actor or author of fiction could be said to be.

 

[KingsRule77]

I lie to my players and am lied to by DMs all the time. The point is no one ever knows. Or cares. Why am I even taking part in this nonsense? Stop typing Kings... Stop... Damn it STOP. There... That's better.

 

[Umbran]

But, deceiving or 'tricking' your players and withholding details of the rules from them was a big part of classic D&D.

There are several problems with this argument.

1) This was generally understood to be the case. Which is rather like my telling them ahead of time, "I may fudge."
2) This was generally done on the basis of in-game knowledge - the PCs do not know how a particular creature or trap, or magic worked, and if they guessed wrong, they were in trouble. This was not generally done on the level of player knowledge of the rules of the table.
3) It was generally done by way of omission, rather than outright speaking blatantly untrue statements to the players (rather than to the PCs - NPCs can lie to PCs all the time).
4) That the Ancient Ones did it that way, doesn't mean it is a great idea today.

Thus, overall, not what I consider a compelling argument.

Remember, I'm all for allowing the GM to fudge, and not tell the players at the time. I am speaking against the GM saying, "I never fudge," and then doing it anyway. That's pretty low.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4) 5e consciously harkens back to the Old Ways.

3) lie by omission, sure. By the same token you could just not mention that you'll be fudging roll like crazy.

2) not entirely, there was advice in the DMG to withhold rules knowledge from the players, in general. That you had to know the game better than them to maintain the DM's mantle. And there wasn't quite the distinction back then, players weren't trusted to keep 'character knowledge' and 'player knowledge' separate, so the idea was to keep the player in the dark, OT1H, and yet also let the player use what he's 'learned' from experience later, even with a different character, OTO.

1) Maybe, generally. Not necessarily always, and not with the 'social contract' ideal we'd assume today.


Understandable distinction. Depending on the DM's proficiency with and style of deceit, one or the other might work out better for him. In the context of the game, and the unequal DM/player relationship, and for a 'good' DM acting for the 'good' of the game, though, I wouldn't call it 'low.' Not like lying, and lying about it, would be low in other contexts.

 

[Sunseeker]

I thought I was fairly clear - I am merely noting what I know of human psychology. Some small fibs are generally acceptable (even required, from a social standpoint), but others aren't. Humans aren't an "all or nothing" creature. We have subtleties.

To quote TARS from Inception regarding 90% honesty: "Absolute honesty isn't always the most diplomatic nor the safest form of communication with emotional beings."

 

[AverageCitizen]

To quote the prestige: "Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled."

Players want to feel like they won fair and square, but really, we just made up the whole system anyway. To that end, when they win they aren't exactly leaping over the screen to check my math.

 

[The Human Target]

This is still going?

DMs can't cheat, because they aren't actually playing a game.

Do my players know I fudge?

No idea.

Do they really want to know?

No more than they want to know their wife thinks the ironic mustache they grew is ugly.

As long as the game is fun and they don't think I'm going on some power trip to force them through my crappy novel idea, they're happy.

Like laws and sausages, its better not to see how fun D&D sessions are made.