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

[Maxperson]

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.

The vast majority of people would still be decent. The trouble makers would still make trouble. Laws don't actually prevent crime. They exist to punish it.

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?

The power isn't exercised to that degree in typical game play.

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.

Dude. There's a reason I went out of my way to say that you're just mistaken(that means not lying in case you needed to know). I mean seriously. I'm getting really, REALLY tired of you misrepresenting me constantly. There was no expectation set about either of us lying.

And yes, you quite literally cannot cheat at a game where you control the rules. If you don't understand that, then yes I do understand it better than you do.

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.

I don't know, and I really don't care. Just like I don't know or don't care if there are any other RPGs out there that give DMs the kind of control that D&D does. We're discussing D&D, not any of those other games.

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."

It doesn't matter because 1) the dozens games I've played in were fun for all of the players, and 2) many of those players have played many other RPGs and so they HAVE played in those kinds of games and still enjoyed the games where the DM has the authority, which proves that 3) it's not the level of authority the DM holds that makes a game good or not.

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

Yes. My perception of hundreds of happy players shows that there is no problem.

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.

And what does this have to do with what I said? Show me where the player above and the other players left the OP's game and then got called entitled by him. I'll wait for you to show me that equivalence to what I said, and not the False Equivalence above.

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."?

It's not easy at all. Especially since the bolded message isn't even being sent here. How about you stick to what's actually being argued, instead of creating fiction and then attributing it to me?

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.

I have done it. There have been times where I rolled for something out in front of them(I do it sometimes) and then decided on a course and told them never mind, X happens. That's me deciding to ignore what was rolled and effectively change it to the result I decided on. 0 issues so far.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

LOL good lord. Okay.

You're cleaving desperately to a ridiculous definition of cheating that is not at all the common usage, but have fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Sure. I've had an uphill task in getting my DnD group to think of DnD as the sort of game where I operate the physics engine but we all equally operate the story engine, and even the physics engine is prioritised less than the story engine, meaning that players can push a fact into existence because it serves the fiction and I need to have a good reason to deny them. (ie, if I don't, I cannot deny them. Not just "I shouldn't")

But this should be expected in a discussion of DnD, because the default state of DnD is what it is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Not sure why you laughed at my non-humorous post, but I wanted to single this out and reply to it specifically. You seem to think that people who are talking about DnD, which has a specific structure baked into the actual rules text, don't have any "inkling of the idea" of a different way to run games. That is...confirmation bias run wild, at best. In fact, we are simply discussing a specific game which has a specific structure.

DnD 5e specifically and intentionally works by having the DM run the world, and decide how to apply and use the toolkit presented in the rulebooks, to create their groups version of DnD.

When my friend runs games whose only mechanic is "2d6, pbta style success ladder, if your character seems like they would know about the thing or how to do the thing, roll 3d6 and take the higher 2d, if they are a noob, take the lower 2d", we aren't playing GM-may-I, we are building and running and playing the game collaberatively with the role of the GM being only to establish the scene and present the world. We have played games where the presentation of the world is a group exercise, or where there is no GM. I've considered not having a GM in my own system.

Said system features a mix of traditional and indie devices, and gives a broad set of tools to the players to create the fiction as an equal partner with the GM and other players.

But this thread is in the DnD forums, using DnD examples from OP's DnD 5e game. So that's the context in which most of us are participating.

Edit: snobbishly trying to tell people that they just aren't aware of other ways to do things is...not great.

 

[Stalker0]

"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?"

To which a smart DM actually replies, "Oh we are, its just Ser Bertrand has a special crit ability."

And done. Because NPCs are not beholden to the same rules as PCs, a DM can always tailor npc rules on the spot.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

Actually, that is very intentionally being used that way on purpose. The teacher is indicating that they also show their work on every problem. (Is a teacher and has been in k thru 3rd grade classrooms in that role). Now, the teacher isn't doing that work, but they are creating a sense of solidarity instead of dividing between teacher and student.

But yes, it does get misused from time to time. But I'll also call upon that teaching experience to point out that putting forth rules "everyone" has to follow, then not following them is a good way to lose the trust and respect of your students. Because there becomes a clear divide between how you expect them to act, and how you act yourself.

 

[Lyxen]

A note: Can we try breaking these up less? This is a pain to try and respond to and I'm sure no one is eager to see these walls.

I'm fine with that, and honestly we have drifted far from the discussions here, just showing how different our games are. You game by the rules and give the players every opportunity to explore them and the way they interact during the games, for me the rules are just a tool that we might be using (or not) to support the story.

At this point, with the importance of the rules for you, it's clear that not abiding by the ones that you fixed at the start is a form of cheating, and not following them are mistakes. For us, telling the story through the rules is not what we are interested in, and the mistakes are to think that the rules should define what happens at the table, and therefore there can be no cheating, as rules are flexible.

Just be aware that saying that we are making mistakes by not following the rules to the letter, or that we are inaccurate in our way of gaming, or that we are cheating when changing the rules on the fly is actually fairly offensive, so you might want to reconsider the words that you are using when describing someone else's way of gaming. None of the previous terms have any justification even in the rules themselves, only in the view that you have about how the game should be played.

On top of this, we also have differences about the role of the DM, you think he is mostly a referee, where I think that we don't really need a referee because the rules are not important, so he is more the game's lead storyteller. Once more, both are fine, it's just that it leads us to completely different answers to this thread's question.

And you can think what you want, but so can I, I do believe that doing any kind of work is more worthy of respect than not doing any. General principle of life, cultural if you want. After that, this does not mean that every person is not entitled to some measure of respect, especially friends players at your table, but assuming that it is the case, and all over things being equal at a table (which, actually, there are not, for example in every sport there is a special respect allocated to the referee, especially in your interpretation of the DM's role), it still makes the DM more worthy of respect than his players.

Onto more specific points:

• It's all well and good to bring up things like mage slayer, but you should not forget that it works within 5 feet of you, not across the battlefield anyway: "As noted in the Player’s Handbook, you normally don’t know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect." Edit: ALso feats are optional, and bringing a single one of them as a "proof" that the whole system should work a specific way seems a very weak argument.
• As for Xanathar, you are reversing the sentence "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component." It does not mean that it HAS to be perceivable in any circumstances from across the battlefield, it just says that if it does not involve these elements, it is not perceivable. And in the original example, the act of spellcasting was clearly visible, the "ranger" muttered before attacking (again, the Verbal component does not require you to be specifically loud or particularly distinct as "The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power"), which considering the distance is a perfect interpretation of something that is perceivable and was actually perceived. But because the spell did not create any perceivable effect,

So, once more, please don't try to force a strict interpretation of the rules on us, it might work in a few cases, but it's also one of the reasons for me liking 5e, even RAW, the rules have been written to have myriads of interpretations depending on your sensibilities.

So, back to this thread, if a DM wants to preserve the mystery of spellcasting, and go on with the story without being hounded to death by players trying to force rules interpretations to pry secrets out of him, it's absolutely his right, he is 100% supported by the game as well, and suggesting that he is not doing his job well is actually offensive (and from my perspective, keeping the secrets and encouraging players to roleplay in character is actually a worthy goal of the way we are playing the game).

In conclusion, please stop telling anyone that they are making mistakes when playing because they do not play the way you do. Once more, I leave you with this sentence from the devs: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

 

[Chaosmancer]

The vast majority of people would still be decent. The trouble makers would still make trouble. Laws don't actually prevent crime. They exist to punish it.

I don't doubt that the vast majority of people would still be decent, but that has nothing to do with the point. The point is that some people would stop acting decently. You say laws don't prevent crimes, and yet to a degree they do. Speed Limit signs don't prevent everyone from speeding, but they do prevent most people from speeding, and there are a few that wouldn't go 30 miles per hour through a residential section if the sign wasn't there. In fact, they didn't, which is why the sign exists.

The power isn't exercised to that degree in typical game play.

So, it isn't part of how the game works because most DMs don't take their authority as far as they are "legally" allowed to in most games? If that is the case, what would be the issue with putting a sign post up at those extreme edges where you don't see it in typical game play and saying "You are reaching the limits of your authority"? In typical game play, you wouldn't even notice the difference. It would be a purely hypothetical limit on your power as a DM.

Dude. There's a reason I went out of my way to say that you're just mistaken(that means not lying in case you needed to know). I mean seriously. I'm getting really, REALLY tired of you misrepresenting me constantly. There was no expectation set about either of us lying.

And yes, you quite literally cannot cheat at a game where you control the rules. If you don't understand that, then yes I do understand it better than you do.

If there is no expectation about either of us lying, why did you feel the need to specifiy THREE TIMES that you will not lie, and therefore you must say yadda yadda yadda. No one was bringing up lying. Yet you felt the need to specify that you aren't a liar. Because if you agreed with me, then you'd be a liar. And you want to make sure we know you aren't a liar. Which you would be if you agreed with me.

It cuts real close to calling me a liar, since you felt the need to keep repeating it. Even though, again, NO ONE was talking about any of us lying. Having a different viewpoint isn't lying. So drop it.

I don't know, and I really don't care. Just like I don't know or don't care if there are any other RPGs out there that give DMs the kind of control that D&D does. We're discussing D&D, not any of those other games.

Right, and DnD is an anomaly in this respect. Holding onto these out-dated notions of needing absolute control over the game held by one person. Looking to other games that run in similar fashions, there is no issue brought up by balancing the power more between players and DMs. And I think it leads to a far healthier game, because it makes it more true that the game is about a group of people telling a story together, rather than one person telling a story and a group of people trying to conform to that story.

It doesn't matter because 1) the dozens games I've played in were fun for all of the players, and 2) many of those players have played many other RPGs and so they HAVE played in those kinds of games and still enjoyed the games where the DM has the authority, which proves that 3) it's not the level of authority the DM holds that makes a game good or not.

Yes. My perception of hundreds of happy players shows that there is no problem.

Yes, it does matter. Because you have played in games where people were unhappy, where the game was bad. And since you have, by your own admission, never once played a game without DM ultimate authority, you have no idea if those bad games had been held in a different context, if they'd have turned out differently.

And considering the sheer number of stories I have heard of terrible DMs who make up rules on the spot to enforce the story they want to tell... I think there is some evidence that there are bad games created by this rampant idea of unlimited and unquestioned DM authority.

And what does this have to do with what I said? Show me where the player above and the other players left the OP's game and then got called entitled by him. I'll wait for you to show me that equivalence to what I said, and not the False Equivalence above.

Okay, I'm not playing this game yet again Max. Evidence of a trend does not need to be identical in every way to a proposed situation. Not having identical situations is not a False Equivalence. Get a new buzzword.

It's not easy at all. Especially since the bolded message isn't even being sent here. How about you stick to what's actually being argued, instead of creating fiction and then attributing it to me?

Didn't attribute it to you, so stop taking it personally. There is a general sense that as long as the DM is working to make "a better game" that they are in the right. This has come up in multiple contexts where a player who isn't happy with how the DM has set up or run the game is labeled as the problem, with a nearly implicit understanding that the DM cannot be wrong.

And, again, I don't think setting up conversations that start with the premise that one-side is nearly always in the right, barring extreme abuses, is a healthy way forward. Which is exactly what started this tangent. People began posting about how this player was entitled, this player was a problem, this player ect ect ect. And yet, looking at the rules of the game, a PC is supposed to know when a spell is cast. And reading their actual questions, none of them were distrusting the DM or seeking to undermine them, it was all just analysis. And yet, the player was the problem, and I think part of that comes from this conception that the player HAS to be the problem, because the DM is incapable of being the problem unless they are doing something extreme.

I have done it. There have been times where I rolled for something out in front of them(I do it sometimes) and then decided on a course and told them never mind, X happens. That's me deciding to ignore what was rolled and effectively change it to the result I decided on. 0 issues so far.

Not what I said. I'm not talking about occassionally rolling the die, then deciding that you didn't want to roll the die. I'm talking about for an entire session, rolling the die, then declaring the numbers you want to see, instead of what the die says.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I think I'm having a Poe's Law problem here. Are you mocking the "GM is always right" argument or are you arguing in favor of it?

 

[FrozenNorth]

As for what’s on the players’ character sheets, I like to review them because my players have a habit of making mistakes. Like not having all the skill points, feats, or other things they should have. This was particularly bad when I was running Pathfinder 2e because that system is pretty tightly tuned, and several of my players had missed things.

DM side, too. My first PF2 game had the DM apply the Fighter’s Exacting Strike to all attacks, regardless of whether it applied, whether the Fighter said he was using it or not.

In a finely-tuned system, something definitely felt off, but it took us some time to figure out what.