D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Screw that badwrongfun BS.

You can fudge the dice if you want. I do not fudge dice rolls in my game.

 

[billd91]

You can fudge the dice if you want. I do not fudge dice rolls in my game.

And I don't impugn anyone who makes the same choice you do. See the difference?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I tolerated this for some time. Never again. Players like that sap the joy from GMing and ruin the game. You either trust me to GM or you don't. If you don't trust me, leave.

And if it isn't a trust issue, but an issue of clarity or a desire to understand the system, do you still boot them because you feel like they are distrustful?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Assuming no ill intent on the player's part here:

If what they are doing is truly disruptive to game play, step one is to have an adult conversation outside the game. It doesn't have to be harsh or inflammatory or anything. Just talk it through, be empathetic, and be sure to explain that multiple interruptions each session is getting in the way of the flow of play. Let them suggest ways we can improve the situation together. People can learn to improve their social skills, after all. The excuse of "poor social skills" is not an excuse to be disruptive, even if it is not intentional.

If it happens again - time for another adult conversation. How can we collectively conduct ourselves differently for a better gaming experience?

If it happens yet again - really, it is time for that player to find another table. There are other people at the table and everyone should be respecting each other's time and commitment.

And that's fair, I'm not sure I'd go with three strikes, because changing how you act is hard, but it is fair.

I'm not trying to say it is an excuse, I'm just looking at this thread and seeing a lot of people who are very quick to start labeling this player with all sorts of things, and I just want to take a step back and realize that it could all be unintentional and non-malicious. People seem awfully quick to judge this guy as not trusting the DM or being a bad actor, and personally, I just don't see it.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

While I don't give all information out in terms of DCs, stats and such during the game (because that should be gated behind checks to recall knowledge or other processes of investigation) I treat the game rules like they might as well be the laws of physics for the world, I want the players to look at them and feel comfortable problem solving utilizing the natural consequences of the rules and world build around them to facilitate that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why use a loaded die when I can just declare a number if I want? Fudging is RAW. And nothing else there is an example of anything other than DM power abuse.

Page 235 of the DMG.

"Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it.
Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites."

Because then you can roll in the open and still declare any number you want.

But, allow me to make sure I understand. Using loaded dice isn't cheating. Does that apply to players as well?

It is absolutely healthy when used properly(ie not DM power abuse). And there are no double standards. At no point is one side cheating and the other side not allowed to. The DM can't cheat and players aren't allowed to cheat. If you want an RPG where the DM is the same as a player, you need to play a different game. In D&D the DM has far more things that he can do and far more power and authority granted to him by the game.

There is absolutely a double standard. One side is bound by the rules, the other side can do anything they please. Oh sure, you can call it "abuse of power" but when one side has all the power then you are automatically dealing with a double standard. One side can do something and be punished, the other side doing the exact same thing is not. That is the definition of a double standard.

And, while you are thinking it is healthy for the game at the table in the moment, I see something else. I see players who ask questions being derided for "not trusting their DM" right next to people telling me that a DM can make up any numbers they want and do anything they want, and the rules allow it. We end up with the discussion focused unduly on bad player behavior, yet the DM is spotless. And so, when for no reason the discussion of cheating players came up, I brought up this point, which has been met with an undue amount of vigor about how it is impossible for the DM to do more than "abuse their authority" in some undefined way. I guess you abuse your authority if the players aren't having fun, and then you just kick those players because they are a bad match for your table and keep on doing the same things. Which I also find unhealthy for the game.

And now you know it's a cultural thing.

And I didn't when I made your comment and you asked me "who said that" as though I was making it up.

It's cheating if you break the rule for the purpose of gaining advantage. If you fail to get that advantage, you just suck at cheating.

"sucking at cheating" =/= "didn't cheat" just like attempting to bribe an officer of the law, even badly, is still a crime.

Facts matter.

Truth matters.

An interesting theory, I'm not sure it applies in this situation. I think there may be other factors at play here than a desire for truth.

Say what? How the hell did you get from DMs and their inability to cheat, to the possibility that homebrewing will die? It's not possible by the way. People will always homebrew games.

It is the only reasonable thing that I can imagine as a negative of admitting a DM can cheat. I mean, what else could you possibly lose other than the potential that DMs won't homebrew anymore?

That's an advantage for the player, but not the DM. That's even more obvious.

If the DM doesn't want the character to die, how is it not an advantage for the DM? Do you realize how much more convenient it is for a character to be alive for their subplots rather than dead? That is a boon for a DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Because then you can roll in the open and still declare any number you want.

I can do that anyway. By RAW. Nothing requires me to fudge behind a screen.

But, allow me to make sure I understand. Using loaded dice isn't cheating. Does that apply to players as well?

Why would it not apply to the players? The rules apply to the players, so breaking them for advantage is cheating.

There is absolutely a double standard. One side is bound by the rules, the other side can do anything they please.

That's how you play D&D. Unless the DM house rules shackles onto himself anway.

Oh sure, you can call it "abuse of power" but when one side has all the power then you are automatically dealing with a double standard. One side can do something and be punished, the other side doing the exact same thing is not. That is the definition of a double standard.

Cheating is a double standard then. Players can do it, but the DM cannot, so it needs to be banned from the game. Oh, wait.

And, while you are thinking it is healthy for the game at the table in the moment, I see something else. I see players who ask questions being derided for "not trusting their DM" right next to people telling me that a DM can make up any numbers they want and do anything they want, and the rules allow it. We end up with the discussion focused unduly on bad player behavior, yet the DM is spotless. And so, when for no reason the discussion of cheating players came up, I brought up this point, which has been met with an undue amount of vigor about how it is impossible for the DM to do more than "abuse their authority" in some undefined way. I guess you abuse your authority if the players aren't having fun, and then you just kick those players because they are a bad match for your table and keep on doing the same things. Which I also find unhealthy for the game.

I've been in dozens of healthy games run like that and 0 unhealthy games that didn't involve abuse of authority.

And I didn't when I made your comment and you asked me "who said that" as though I was making it up.

No. That's just you reading into it again. I was asking the question, because I hadn't seen it on this forum. Now I have, albeit in a cultural sense and not an abusive one.

"sucking at cheating" =/= "didn't cheat" just like attempting to bribe an officer of the law, even badly, is still a crime.

That's what I said.

An interesting theory, I'm not sure it applies in this situation. I think there may be other factors at play here than a desire for truth.

Not in my arguments. Facts and truth are why I'm arguing this.

It is the only reasonable thing that I can imagine as a negative of admitting a DM can cheat. I mean, what else could you possibly lose other than the potential that DMs won't homebrew anymore?

I won't admit to a lie. If I said DM's could cheat, I would be lying. They can't. It's not possible.

If the DM doesn't want the character to die, how is it not an advantage for the DM? Do you realize how much more convenient it is for a character to be alive for their subplots rather than dead? That is a boon for a DM.

It's a snap of the fingers to insert a new character and in 5e it's another snap of the finger to make a PC. Two snaps and done.

 

[Lanefan]

And I don't impugn anyone who makes the same choice you do. See the difference?

Fudging rolls is the start of a steep and slippery slope leading down toward bad-faith play*, never mind loss of trust in the DM once the fudging inevitably becomes known to the players; and I'll happily impugn bad-faith play all day long.

* - and yes, even if done with the noblest of intentions it's still bad-faith play. Doesn't mean we don't all do it now and then, but let's call it out for what it is.

 

[billd91]

Fudging rolls is the start of a steep and slippery slope leading down toward bad-faith play*, never mind loss of trust in the DM once the fudging inevitably becomes known to the players; and I'll happily impugn bad-faith play all day long.

* - and yes, even if done with the noblest of intentions it's still bad-faith play. Doesn't mean we don't all do it now and then, but let's call it out for what it is.

More of the badwrongfun BS. It's like clockwork around here from some people.

 

[Lanefan]

More of the badwrongfun BS. It's like clockwork around here from some people.

So it's BS now to call out bad-faith play as simply bad, and as something that isn't good for the game, and therefore shouldn't be done?

Interesting take...