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

[doctorbadwolf]

What rule is he going to break in order to be cheating?

Any rule they have established that the game will be following.

"We aren't using any houserules for crit damage, we're just going to run them RAW, if everyone is cool with that."

"Yeah sure."

later...

"Oh that's a crit. Ser Bertrand's lance slams into you like an avalanche as he charges you at surprising speed. You take....12 plus strength is 16, plus..." rolls a d12 "6, for 22 damage."

"Wait, we agree we aren't doing crits that way, we're running them RAW, right?"

Now, if the DM says, "Oh, right. Sorry, Forgot. So it's 6 plus strength for the die I already rolled, and lets see what the second die comes up" then they aren't cheating, they just forgot a thing.

If they say, "Yeah I don't want his crit to be weak because that would feel weird for this moment" then they are cheating. They're breaking a rule because they feel like it, because it's inconvenient.

If they say, "Hey, it feels not great for crits to sometimes be lower than a high damage roll on a normal hit. Any objection to using the max die plus a bonus die crit model?" that is also not cheating, they've just openly changed the rules from that point forward.

Changing the rules in a way that screws over the players can be an abuse of the authority granted by the players, and players should absolutely push back against that and remind the DM that this is a voluntary group activity, not a gift the DM is granting to the lowly PCs who should just be grateful and shut up, but I wouldn't personally call that cheating. I do know plenty of people who would, however, call that cheating.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

This discussion reminds me of the theological one "if God is all powerful, can't he create a universe in which is has no power at all?" except with the DM. "Is the rule saying that the DM can make any rule and is always right with the rules sufficent to let him edict a rule that would bind him?"

I'll collect the essays in 3 hours.

 

[J.Quondam]

This discussion reminds me of the theological one "if God is all powerful, can't he create a universe in which is has no power at all?" except with the DM. "Is the rule saying that the DM can make any rule and is always right with the rules sufficent to let him edict a rule that would bind him?"

I'll collect the essays in 3 hours.

The answer is "whatever happens when Rule Zero collides with Session Zero."

Spoiler

 

[Maxperson]

Any rule they have established that the game will be following.

Which the DM can change on the fly per RAW. If he changes it, which he does by virtue of using it differently, it's not a broken rule.

"We aren't using any houserules for crit damage, we're just going to run them RAW, if everyone is cool with that."

"Yeah sure."

later...

"Oh that's a crit. Ser Bertrand's lance slams into you like an avalanche as he charges you at surprising speed. You take....12 plus strength is 16, plus..." rolls a d12 "6, for 22 damage."

"Wait, we agree we aren't doing crits that way, we're running them RAW, right?"

Now, if the DM says, "Oh, right. Sorry, Forgot. So it's 6 plus strength for the die I already rolled, and lets see what the second die comes up" then they aren't cheating, they just forgot a thing.

That's all fine, but if the DM wants to change it on the fly, he can. If/when he does, it's not a broken rule or cheating.

If they say, "Yeah I don't want his crit to be weak because that would feel weird for this moment" then they are cheating. They're breaking a rule because they feel like it, because it's inconvenient.

No. He's changing the rule and not cheating. However, it would probably be an abuse of his authority. I say probably, because there are some oddball circumstances that would justify the change, and then it would simply be appropriate, not an abuse.

If they say, "Hey, it feels not great for crits to sometimes be lower than a high damage roll on a normal hit. Any objection to using the max die plus a bonus die crit model?" that is also not cheating, they've just openly changed the rules from that point forward.

None of it is cheating, because he has the authority to change it on the fly and without player input.

Changing the rules in a way that screws over the players can be an abuse of the authority granted by the players, and players should absolutely push back against that and remind the DM that this is a voluntary group activity, not a gift the DM is granting to the lowly PCs who should just be grateful and shut up, but I wouldn't personally call that cheating. I do know plenty of people who would, however, call that cheating.

And they would be wrong. The DM literally cannot cheat. It's just an abuse of authority, which is just as bad.

 

[bloodtide]

If a DM said something silly like "we" are not using any homebrew crit rules. That "We" is only the players. The DM can do whatever they want on a whim, the players can't.

Even if the silly DM said "no crit house rules for anyone, even me", and for some foolish reason wanted to follow that....it STILL does not matter. Lets say the DM wanted a foe to do x4 crit damage "against the silly thing they said"...ok, so the DM gives the foe a special ability: powerful crit x4 in the blink of an eye. It's not a "houserule" so the DM did not break what was said. They just added a custom thing to the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No they don't. It's likely or unlikely only depending on the character of the DM. The fact that the DM can't break the rules doesn't make it more likely, or it would happen a lot since the DM can't break the rules. Instead such abuses are rare.

So, you would say that in a place with no rules and no laws, people would act the exact same as in a place with rules and laws? The only difference is the character of the individual.

Or, do you imagine it might be possible that these limits on DM do exist, and that those are acting to inhibit bad behavior? And that you simply refuse to acknowledge them?

Granted BY the game, not part of the workings OF the game, or it would happen a lot instead of being rare.

What you seem to be saying here is that the authority of the DM granted by the game is not part of how the game works. Which seems nonsensical, so could you try and explain this in a way that makes sense?

Of course I hold firm. I'm not a liar. Since I understand the authority given to the DM by RAW, I can't be mistaken in my belief the way you are. That means that if I say the DM can cheat, I would be lying.

Wow. I let it slide before, but seriously, this is just an incredibly rude position. By making this about you lying (which isn't about at all) you have now set up an expectation that one of us is lying, and it can't be you because you don't lie. And you can't be mistaken, because you understand the game, implying you understand it better than those who disagree with you.

So, is it too much to ask for you to engage in a discussion without calling the people whom you disagree with ignorant/stupid and or liars? Because it really helps when one side doesn't paint itself as being the smarter more truthful side.

I suspect, but don't remember for certain, that all of the old TSR era games were like that.

Okay, how many of those games still hold a significant market share other than DnD and haven't gone over major revisions? Because the only one I can think of is GURPS and considering the main selling point of that game is ultimate customization, I don't think they really encourage GM supreme authority.

As I said before, I've been in dozens of very high quality games where the DM could not cheat, and 0 where he could. I have been a very few bad games where the DM abused his authority, though. Your belief isn't borne out by my experiences, so it's going to take a lot more than your simple declaration that the game is poorer when a DM has that power, for me to even think about changing my position.

Well, you have a massively biased perception. You have literally never been in any other type of game, so how would you know if a game where that was the case wouldn't be better? You are basically arguing "I've been blind from birth, so I know that Red is ugly and so it is going to take a lot of evidence to prove me wrong."

You've literally never seen the other side, so of course your perception would be that there is no problem.

No. The second sentence does not follow from the first. A DM who has abused his authority and lost his players is not going to sound like anything other than a douche if he calls them entitled.

Really? Because we have a DM here asking for advice, and showing a player who seems to my eye to simply be a little overly analytical and too excited to stop himself from talking out loud. He's been implied to be entitled and toxic to the game by at least three posters I believe.

How easy would it be to get a crowd on this site against a group of players who "refused to let me run the curated game I wanted"? I've seen that pop up on these threads multiple times, a few bits of careful phrasing and you'll have a lot of people defending the DMs right to do anything. All it took you to start posting massive treatises on the DM's ultimate authority was someone suggesting that they might not have an ultimate authority.

Literally nobody has argued that a DM who is abusing his authority isn't doing anything wrong. Not being able to cheat =/= unable to do anything wrong.

But it is such a small step to make, such a small slip of typing. I should know, I've had to be very very careful, because it is very easy to equate the two things. How easy is it for someone to hear, repeatedly "you can never cheat. Everything you do to improve the game is approved" and get the message "you can do no wrong."?

I think a lot of us instinctually realize that the limits exist. It's why most people only fudge die rolls the players can't see. Because they know it would be unacceptable to do so in front of the players. I mean, try it sometime Max. You and your table believe in the ultimate unquestioned authority of the DM. Spend a session rolling dice in the open, ignoring those dice and just making up the answers you want. See how long that lasts.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If a DM said something silly like "we" are not using any homebrew crit rules. That "We" is only the players. The DM can do whatever they want on a whim, the players can't.

1) If they say "we" to mean "You (plural)" then they need to brush up on their language skills. I won't say English, because I do believe literally every spoken language differentiates between these two pronoun forms.

1a) Think about that conversation for a moment. "You all will not be using any homebrew crit rules" immediately begs the question "Wait, what rules will you be using then?". And, can you really imagine a staying at a table to play where the DM says "Whichever rules I feel like using at the time." That isn't a red flag, it is a blaring siren that this person is not going to be running a game I want any part of. Because it is a very clear sign that the DM isn't going to be consistent, and therefore we can never predict anything.

Even if the silly DM said "no crit house rules for anyone, even me", and for some foolish reason wanted to follow that....it STILL does not matter. Lets say the DM wanted a foe to do x4 crit damage "against the silly thing they said"...ok, so the DM gives the foe a special ability: powerful crit x4 in the blink of an eye. It's not a "houserule" so the DM did not break what was said. They just added a custom thing to the game.

I like how agreeing to abide by the same rules the other people of the table are playing by is "being silly" and "a foolish reason".

But, I agree, a DM could add that ability. Personally, I feel like if you do something like that, giving some foreshadowing is best, to differentiate a pre-planned ability from a random whimsy the DM had. And actually, they wouldn't even need to add a "unique" thing. They just need to add Brutal Critical or the Half-Orc racial ability. Both increase critical damage, and combined they'd amount to a x4 damage.

And do you know what I find great about that? Reflavoring and reskinning and all that is a fairly trivial thing. Would anyone really blink if you told them that you reskinned a enemy from a Half-Orc Barbarian? Seems like a rather trivial thing, after all.

 

[Lanefan]

The answer is "whatever happens when Rule Zero collides with Session Zero."

Sounds like a zero-sum proposition to me...

 

[Lanefan]

1) If they say "we" to mean "You (plural)" then they need to brush up on their language skills.

Teacher: "Now kids, remember, we show our work on every problem..."

That usage of "we" gets ingrained at an early age.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Any rule they have established that the game will be following.

"We aren't using any houserules for crit damage, we're just going to run them RAW, if everyone is cool with that."

"Yeah sure."

later...

"Oh that's a crit. Ser Bertrand's lance slams into you like an avalanche as he charges you at surprising speed. You take....12 plus strength is 16, plus..." rolls a d12 "6, for 22 damage."

"Wait, we agree we aren't doing crits that way, we're running them RAW, right?"

Now, if the DM says, "Oh, right. Sorry, Forgot. So it's 6 plus strength for the die I already rolled, and lets see what the second die comes up" then they aren't cheating, they just forgot a thing.

If they say, "Yeah I don't want his crit to be weak because that would feel weird for this moment" then they are cheating. They're breaking a rule because they feel like it, because it's inconvenient.

If they say, "Hey, it feels not great for crits to sometimes be lower than a high damage roll on a normal hit. Any objection to using the max die plus a bonus die crit model?" that is also not cheating, they've just openly changed the rules from that point forward.

Changing the rules in a way that screws over the players can be an abuse of the authority granted by the players, and players should absolutely push back against that and remind the DM that this is a voluntary group activity, not a gift the DM is granting to the lowly PCs who should just be grateful and shut up, but I wouldn't personally call that cheating. I do know plenty of people who would, however, call that cheating.

Not actually being critical, but this is sort of what I was observing before. There isn't even an inkling of the idea that the game could be a joint exercise with narrative, backstory, and setting inputs, as well as presumably mechanics plus genre/tone from all parties in a mostly equal way. Now, even in games in groups I've GMed and played in the GM has SOME extra duties, in for example describing new scenes and picking their exact form. I think IN PRACTICE most stable groups have some of this, but what I've seen to a great extent is GMs expecting to pretty much determine the direction of the narrative. I find that frustrating at best when I play in those games.