D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[jaelis]

Well, I called it. That player is a problem at my table.

I am sure that player is not a problem at other tables. And that's good, because vive la différence.

Well if that is your position that's your position. I hope that you play with old friends who all understand each other well and have lots of fun together.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well if that is your position that's your position. I hope that you play with old friends who all understand each other well and have lots of fun together.

I play with as many people as possible so that the poison of rules literalism does not take hold in my community.

So far, I am doing a bangup job of ensuring that fun > rules.

 

[Fenris-77]

DM fiat isn't a negative term at all. It just represents the ability of the person in the DM chair to decide something is so, for rules, narrative or whatever reason - i.e. a portion of the ability to make rulings, an ability not shared by the players in the D&D rules set. This is essential to how the game works, so it's not negative. However, particular implementations of DM fiat certainly can be negative if they are ill considered. Fun certainly should be the prime mover though, and that's usually what guides my rulings as DM.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

DM fiat isn't a negative term at all.

Let's say that there are some occasions where the DM sets the rules to one side and rules by fiat that the PC dies.

"Rocks fall, everyone dies" is a famous example of a DM acting UN-fairly. If the DM is ruling by fiat and deliberately ignoring already existing rules, this is an occasion where he will be judged by his players as to whether he is being fair or not.

What if the DM ruled by fiat that you died anyway? Would that be fair?

Yeah, the DM could use the already existing rules, but what if the DM rules by fiat that you die.

But the DM could rule by fiat. The lower level ones would be more likely to die, right?

is the one that more deserves death by fiat is not fair or consistent, and this is contrary to the behaviour we expect from a fair and consistent DM.

Maybe. But context matters, doesn't it?

Didn't I just write that? DM Fiat, Creature. Language is hard.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe. But context matters, doesn't it?

Didn't I just write that? DM Fiat, Creature. Language is hard.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I was just expanding on my use of the term for everyone following along at home.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I was just expanding on my use of the term for everyone following along at home.

There are emojis?



Oh no. I probably shouldn't have discovered those.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Let's say that there are some occasions where the DM sets the rules to one side and rules by fiat that the PC dies.

"Rocks fall, everyone dies" is a famous example of a DM acting UN-fairly. If the DM is ruling by fiat and deliberately ignoring already existing rules, this is an occasion where he will be judged by his players as to whether he is being fair or not.

Guillotines don't kill by reducing hit points. No damage is rolled. They kill by removing your head. Therefore, if one removes your head and the DM rules that you are dead, is he being fair?

Most of us you say yes, that's fair. But what if you are a creature which in game does not die if its head is removed, like an elemental or a golem? What if the DM ruled by fiat that you died anyway? Would that be fair?

Dragons, the most ancient and powerful dragons, are very dangerous. Let's face it, a gargantuan magical genius with all the dragon stuff, both in concept an in game terms, should easily kill a mere human. Let's say your 1st level fighter charges the dragon. Yeah, the DM could use the already existing rules, but what if the DM rules by fiat that you die. You might think that it's fair enough. But what if your epic barbarian with his Boots of Flying, Dragon-Slaying weapon, Armour of Immunity to Dragon Breath and the epic Magic Resistance ability? Would it be fair if the DM decided by fiat that your barbarian was dead without bothering with the rules?

I think that fewer of us would think that was fair. Further, I think that most of us, thinking of a spectrum of PCs fighting this dragon, from 1st level to epic, would believe that it is more fair to decide by fiat that the PC dies the further the PC is toward the 1st level end of this spectrum, and less fair to arbitrarily decide that higher level PCs die by DM fiat.

That seems reasonable. The less likely the PC to survive, the more likely to decide by fiat that they die, and the more likely they are to survive by the game rules, the less fair it would be to kill them by fiat.

Now look at the falling rules, and a fall of over 200 feet. We know that the rules say that this does 20d6 damage, and we know it's much more likely to kill a 21hp PC than a 119hp PC.

But the DM could rule by fiat. The lower level ones would be more likely to die, right? Just like the dragon example.

But the impression I get from this thread is that there are those who would be happy to use the rules instead of fiat versus the 21hp PC, the ones for whom we could forgive death by fiat, and eager to rule death by fiat for those who they know the rules mean that the PC is overwhelmingly likely to survive!

This is on its face unfair. The DM isn't taking a shortcut to the same conclusion as the rules, he is ruling opposite the conclusion that the rules indicate!

Two pupils are taking a hard exam. The pass mark is 80%. Thicky McShort-Plank is unlikely to pass, while Captain Brilliant is likely to pass with flying colours.

Instead of having them actually take the exam, the teacher, Mr. D. Master, has the power to choose one boy to go straight to Harvard and the other to Burger-Flipping school. Most of us would think the fair decision is that Captain Brilliant goes to Harvard.

But I'm arguing in this thread against those who would send Thicky McShort-Plank. Deciding that a PC most likely to survive taking 20d6 falling damage is the one that more deserves death by fiat is not fair or consistent, and this is contrary to the behaviour we expect from a fair and consistent DM.

You're excluding a very significant detail.

Under normal circumstances Cpt Brilliant would be sure to get the recommendation. I doubt there's anyone in this thread who would disagree.

This would be a case of the characters both falling off the same cliff. The high HP character would be likelier to survive.

However, in this particular scenario Cpt Brilliant commits a grievous act of HUBRIS. He goes to his teacher and tells him what a joke of a teacher he is and that the teacher should be thanking Cpt Brilliant for being his student. Guess who the teacher is going to recommend for Harvard? Cpt Brilliant sank his own ship.

In this case, the low hp character falls off a cliff, but the high hp character decides to do a swan dive off the cliff onto the rocks below to show up the low hp character. The low HP character is doing his utmost to survive, and the gods/luck may also intercede on his behalf. The high hp character is not doing anything to try to survive (as swan diving is a poor survival strategy when falling onto rocks) and has forsaken the favor of the gods/luck by acting out of hubris, (wrongly) certain that he can force their hand. At that point, IMO, the high HP character is as good as dead while the low HP character has a chance to survive.

I see nothing unfair or inconsistent about it. The DM should certainly warn the high hp player of the consequences so that they can reconsider, but that's an issue of gotcha DMing which isn't pertinent. It's not inconsistent, since if the low HP character swan dives off the cliff, his death is similarly assured.

 

[Oofta]

But who is claiming that the players are arbiters of the rules? At best I've seen the claim that the DM should arbitrate their own rules consistently. But mostly the argument is that DMs should not punish players for assuming that they will enforce their own rules consistently.

There have been many things said on this thread that implies that if a DM does not follow the letter of the rules as interpreted by the player that the DM is, amongst other things, "cheating".

Not quoting anything you have specifically stated, and it may not have been the intent. DMs are the ones who make a final call on all rules in the games they run. If they are changing the rules constantly and being inconsistent or overriding clear language then they are probably not a DM I would want to play with.

Every DM I've ever played with for a period of time has now and then made rulings I disagree with. I may or may not ask for clarification, but the DM is always right and cannot "cheat". You can't cheat if you make the rules.

There are many reasons someone can be a bad DM. Making rulings I disagree with does not automatically qualify them as bad.

 

[jaelis]

There have been many things said on this thread that implies that if a DM does not follow the letter of the rules as interpreted by the player that the DM is, amongst other things, "cheating".

I don't believe anyone has made that claim. What was said (by @Arial Black) is

TLDR: neither acting rationally nor acting foolishly should cause the DM to essentially cheat by altering the laws of the universe to punish. Let the game roll on, and naturally wise decisions will out-evolve foolish ones.

You could argue that calling it abuse of power is more accurate than cheating, but in no way is it claiming that the problem is letting the player interpret the letter of the rules.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't believe anyone has made that claim.

Not following their own rule is still cheating. DMs are players, as mentioned on page 5 of the PHB.

....
f you have already ruled that chickens ARE creatures, then you are breaking your own rule if you say that it stops being a creature every time I try to target it.

Breaking your own rule is still cheating.
....
'Nah'? 'NAH'?

So your position is that DM's don't have a responsibility to be fair and consistent? Who would want to play with a cheat? .. But if he says 'all' for his mate and 'some' for the opponent, then the referee is cheating and will lose his job. And so he should, because such cheating is low-down, dirty, despicable, detestable, execrable, and in all other ways vile, and he shouldn't be given the responsibility of referee.
......

The DM has all the powers you describe. What bad DMs do is remember this power and disregard their responsibilities.

The DM is the arbiter of the rules. It is the duty of the DM to interpret the rules fairly! That means that if the DM rules that chickens are creatures, then they are valid targets for hex. But if the DM rules that chickens are not creatures, then they are not creatures for any rule in the game. They would also need to provide a rule defining 'creature' in a way not before seen in the English language or in this game which even defines animated objects as 'creatures'.

'Schrodinger's chicken' is cheating. The DM's duty is to judge the game fairly. As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". DM's who forget that become "Hulk smash puny players", and I'm totally happy to lose such an abusive DM.
..........

This is what we call....cheating.

A chicken either is or is not a creature. It is, by the way, but whether it is or isn't then it always is or isn't. It cannot be that a chicken is a creature unless you cast a spell on it that the DM doesn't want, whereupon it ceases to be a creature for the duration of the player trying to target it with this spell!

This is cheating!

That's just .... one poster.

And please note that it is quite explicit that he says that a DM ruling in a way that he disagrees with (aka, Bag o' Rats / Chicken Sacrifice) is cheating.

I don't know how much more clear it needs to be. But if you don't expand it-

'Schrodinger's chicken' is cheating. The DM's duty is to judge the game fairly. As Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". DM's who forget that become "Hulk smash puny players", and I'm totally happy to lose such an abusive DM.

This is what we call....cheating.