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

[J.Quondam]

I'm glad to see wanting good information (still haven't had time to read it) available to more people is so offensive to you.

Criminy.

 

[Maxperson]

A consistency of what ?

I answered that multiple times in the post. There is only one fiction in an RPG.

What, the elf in your group wants to become the slave of a mind flayer and become a mentally dominated thrall with little personal will if any ?

Maybe, or maybe it happens involuntarily. The point is that if it can happen to an NPC, it must be able happen to a PC or your fictional game world(since you needed know) or your fiction is inconsistent.

It's only an option if they know it exists, for one, and second I'm absolutely fine with it, it's just that the PC becomes an NPC as it is now totally deprived of player agency.

Sure, but what if it's an ability that an NPC has that doesn't deprive a PC of its agency. What if the NPC was granted +8 to strength by Orcus in exchange for becoming a wraith upon death? A PC should be able to make the same bargain.

Again, it's the consistency of the world that matters, not the consistency of the rules.

That's what we are saying. If only NPCs can get an ability and not the PCs, your world is inconsistent.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you have a DM who is not so smart, wise or creative you will have a bad game. A DM that does not know the rules, or can't do any of the math will have a bad game. Same with a DM that is not creative.

In your opinion. This is not necessarily true. I know plenty of people who struggle with math who can run excellent games. Creativity is hyper-subjective, and declaring someone more creative than another is often an exercise in futility. And I've known the rules better than many DMs. That doesn't make their games bad.

Also, you have moved the goal posts. Before it was "smarter, wiser and more creative than their players" now it is "smart enough to do math and wise enough to read the rules, and creative"

I'm not saying someone just pours Mt. Dew on their head, says that "are the DM" and then they get to be crowned the smartest, wisest and most creative of all. Anyone can grab some dice and say they are the DM, sure. But it takes lots of skills to run a game, from game skills, creativititvity to social skills. Skills are not exactly "special", but they are uncommon. And note you yourself says it takes courage, so guess that counts as something special.

Sure, courage. You don't need to be smart, wise or creative to have courage. Don't really need social skills if you have a group who is willing to support you. Many game skills can be supplemented by friends and just learning the game, and you can be the DM without having learned the game yet.

The kid who opens his boxed set, hands his friends pre-made character sheets from WoTC and starts reading the adventure is a DM. You don't really get to say "they aren't a real DM". If they are the DM, then they are the DM. You might be right that they aren't a good DM yet. But the claim isn't that "the best DMs are smarter, wiser and more creative than their players" it is that DMs are by default, smarter, wiser and more creative than their players. Which is wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

You can alter a tool without harming the usage of that tool. What about how you use it requires unlimited and unfettered power that cannot be countermanded? Why is it a good thing that that is the tool you need?

Not if you remove functionality you can't. And I already showed how it's a tool that I need in my example earlier in the thread. You would remove that ability from me and in the process ruin a good tool.

An assertion you seem to refuse to support in any manner. That isn't convincing.

I've given support multiple times. Once with a specific example recently used by me.

Because you said stopping the game to explain the situation ruins the game. Right here: "To have to stop the action in order to discuss the situation, proposed a new rule, receive counter proposals, and then vote on a replacement would destroy the session. It's much better for the DM to just have the authority to just make a ruling and quickly move on with the fun."

You do know that a quick explanation isn't the same as an involved discussion, right? You're conflating the two things and in the process getting what I said completely wrong.

If you are stating that you do not stop the action to discuss the situation, which is your implication, then you must be making the change without explanation.

Objectively false. The two words do not mean the same thing at all. A lack of involved discussion doesn't even come close to meaning without explanation.

Because you didn't stop the action to discuss the situation. I see now that that wasn't your intention, so you do intend to stop long enough to have a brief conversation, which is all that would be required, you just don't allow the players any say in the rule that you propose and implement.

No. There was no conversation. I informed them that I was going to include magic weapons without pluses as weapons unable to harm creatures with resistance/immunity to magical weapons. Then I explained that it was so that I could give them some cool magic weapons, rather than them finding none at all or nearly none, which was to their benefit. Explanation =/= conversation.

And we aren't discussing your personal enjoyment. We are discussing the role of the DM. If you hadn't cut out the next sentence that would be clear.

They are intertwined. You cannot take away a tool that I use to great effect without reducing my personal enjoyment of the game. Discussing my role as DM and the tools available invites my personal enjoyment to be part of the discussion as it has relevance to the discussion.

 

[Lyxen]

I answered that multiple times in the post. There is only one fiction in an RPG.

Maybe, or maybe it happens involuntarily. The point is that if it can happen to an NPC, it must be able happen to a PC or your fictional game world(since you needed know) or your fiction is inconsistent.

Certainly not. At this stage, I would like to point out that you are again using negative words (inconsistent) to talk about a different style of playing. See how easy it is to do this: "And I prefer a world that is not gimped by technical choices and constraints, a world where freedom is not severely limited by artificial constraints from pure gaming that restrict a DM's creativity".

It has nothing to do with consistency, and it has nothing to do with fiction. It is a purely gamist element you want to tell your players to make them feel like you will not be "cheating" on them. But I actually can't find a real world of consistent fiction that abides by that very technical TTRPG rule that you want to impose on your game.

Sure, but what if it's an ability that an NPC has that doesn't deprive a PC of its agency. What if the NPC was granted +8 to strength by Orcus in exchange for becoming a wraith upon death? A PC should be able to make the same bargain.

Again, why ? Maybe his personality does not suit Orcus. Maybe he is not "death's chosen one". NOTHING whether in the rules of the game or in any rule of writing fiction mandates this.

And actually, the rules of 5e point you EXACTLY in the other direction, most of the NPCs have abilities that the PCs don't have and cannot have, and there are even villainous class options that have been designed specifically for NPCs and not PCs. So obviously the authors of 5e don't think that this detracts from the game.

Again, you are perfectly free to impose constraints like this on your game if you think it makes the GAME more consistent, but its' certainly not needed for a consistent world, story and fiction.

That's what we are saying. If only NPCs can get an ability and not the PCs, your world is inconsistent.

No, it's not. It's only your vision of your gaming world that looks like it. But I don't think that you will be able to point out many works of actual fiction that work that way. Please try, because where it's LotR, the Wheel of Time, any Sanderson book, etc. you will find that the adversaries have abilities that the heroes don't have, and never will.

 

[Maxperson]

Certainly not. At this stage, I would like to point out that you are again using negative words (inconsistent) to talk about a different style of playing. See how easy it is to do this: "And I prefer a world that is not gimped by technical choices and constraints, a world where freedom is not severely limited by artificial constraints from pure gaming that restrict a DM's creativity".

No. I'm not. I'm using inconsistent to mean inconsistent. If you have things available to NPC elves and those same things are not available to PC elves, you are being inconsistent in the fiction.

It has nothing to do with consistency, and it has nothing to do with fiction. It is a purely gamist element you want to tell your players to make them feel like you will not be "cheating" on them.

This has to be a joke. It has nothing to do with gamism or any other type ism. It's purely a consistency issue. And "cheating" my players wasn't even a thought of mine in this debate. It's simply not a part of it.

And actually, the rules of 5e point you EXACTLY in the other direction, most of the NPCs have abilities that the PCs don't have and cannot have, and there are even villainous class options that have been designed specifically for NPCs and not PCs. So obviously the authors of 5e don't think that this detracts from the game.

Yes. 5e steers DMs towards inconsistent fictional worlds. That doesn't mean I have to follow.

No, it's not. It's only your vision of your gaming world that looks like it. But I don't think that you will be able to point out many works of actual fiction that work that way. Please try, because where it's LotR, the Wheel of Time, any Sanderson book, etc. you will find that the adversaries have abilities that the heroes don't have, and never will.

Now you're trying to conflate novels with RPGs. It won't work, because they simply aren't the same or even all that similar.

 

[Lyxen]

No. I'm not. I'm using inconsistent to mean inconsistent. If you have things available to NPC elves and those same things are not available to PC elves, you are being inconsistent in the fiction.

OK, i'll stop here, your words don't mean anything to me. I give you tons of examples, and you can only repeat these meaningless words. You find my fiction inconsistent, I find yours limited, restricted and gimped. Why don't we leave it at that ?

This has to be a joke. It has nothing to do with gamism or any other type ism. It's purely a consistency issue. And "cheating" my players wasn't even a thought of mine in this debate. It's simply not a part of it.

Yes. 5e steers DMs towards inconsistent fictional worlds. That doesn't mean I have to follow.

Yeah, right, you are of course welcome to your opinion about this, I just think that the millions of DM who play 5e by the books and channeling its spirit in their games would be amused at your condescendence here, I know I am.

Now you're trying to conflate novels with RPGs. It won't work, because they simply aren't the same or even all that similar.

Well, it's bizarre that every single edition of D&D provides a list of novels that they offer you to use as inspiration. Again, reading the intro of the PH: "They were tired of merely reading tales about worlds of magic, monsters, and adventure. They wanted to play in those worlds, rather than observe them."

 

[Lanefan]

It might and it might not, again, nothing obliges any story including a TTRPG one to offer the same possibilities to the heroes and their adversaries. Pick any work of the genre and I'll show you that it's not the case in general.

A non-interactive story can do whatever it likes.

An RPG where players have characters who are native to the setting* in which the game is set have, I think, every right to expect that their PCs are representative of the populations they were born-raised in. If nothing else, there's other proto-PCs out there - the replacements for the current ones once character turnover sets in - and as they too are part of the general population but as yet we have no idea who they will be, the whole population has to be treated as if any member could become a PC at any time. Result: PCs and NPCs within a species are the same.

* - obviously this does not apply in cases where the PCs are transplanted into the setting from elsewhere; but good luck finding replacement PCs when those ones die.

And by the way, the different sub-species is just as debatable, the player could also ask "and why can't I play that sub-species ?"

If I'd introduced the subspecies into the game as playable then it would be potentially available for play by anyone (I say "potentially" because I keep uncommon or rare species gated behind die rolls so as to keep them unusual in parties as well).

And in that case, why is he still the DM with players abusing him ?

He isn't. That campaign collapsed after just a few months.

Also, there's a distinction between the players abusing the DM (not the case there) and the DM allowing the players to abuse the game (which was).

And I'm perfectly fine with PCs and NPCs being non-standard at any time. If it makes for a more interesting play, I put absolutely no restriction as to what I can offer my NPCs and, to a lesser extent, my PCs. To a lesser extent because I am still mindful of the power gap at least with some of our more powergaming kind of players.

I'd like to think I and the players can keep things interesting even within those constraints; never mind that it's very true that constraint breeds creativity.

Please, don't badwrongfun other types of play again. We only do it when there is no problem with the consistency of the story, and in any case, it happens infrequently because as DMs we try to make it so that the choices the players make result in fun in the game, so they have no real incentive to make different ones.

That's fair. I've seen it happen more when a DM has become frustrated with some major part of the rules, or the whole system, but rather than start a new campaign the existing one has been changed on the fly.

The 3-to-3.5 change example I gave earlier would have had some hellacious effects on the story had things played out, in that it's almost certain my character - having been the cause of the change - would have been driven to suicide after the adventure; both because of what she'd done and in knowledge that every powerful person who had just been weakened by the change would potentially find out she was responsible and come gunning for her. She wouldn't have wanted her friends to have to spend the rest of their lives defending her and maybe dying themselves in the process.

This never happened largely because my PC died later in the same adventure (killed by her own party after one too many mis-aimed fireballs) and simply declined revival.

 

[Lanefan]

Certainly not. At this stage, I would like to point out that you are again using negative words (inconsistent) to talk about a different style of playing. See how easy it is to do this: "And I prefer a world that is not gimped by technical choices and constraints, a world where freedom is not severely limited by artificial constraints from pure gaming that restrict a DM's creativity".

It has nothing to do with consistency,

It has everything to do with consistency; as consistency is the point.

Again, why ? Maybe his personality does not suit Orcus. Maybe he is not "death's chosen one". NOTHING whether in the rules of the game or in any rule of writing fiction mandates this.

Agreed. What @Maxperson missed including was the word "potentially"; thus if an NPC has made that deal with Orcus then a PC potentially ought to be able to as well provided Orcus finds said PC acceptable.

No, it's not. It's only your vision of your gaming world that looks like it. But I don't think that you will be able to point out many works of actual fiction that work that way. Please try, because where it's LotR, the Wheel of Time, any Sanderson book, etc. you will find that the adversaries have abilities that the heroes don't have, and never will.

Can't speak to Sanderson (not much of a fan of his) but in LotR the whole point is that the "PCs" (the Fellowship, etc.) CAN potentially gain access to the enemy's powers, abilities etc. and much of the conflict arises from how the PCs deny themselves these powers and-or their temptations yet still persevere with what they have. (never mind that in game terms Sauron is about triple the level of anyone else in the setting) Within itself, LotR is in fact impressively consistent with how it handles powers and abilities.

Star Wars is an even clearer example: the dark side has greater power which the "PCs" can access - provided they pay the cost, now or later. Again, it's all about temptation and potential; and there's no inconsistency involved.

 

[Lyxen]

A non-interactive story can do whatever it likes.

An RPG where players have characters who are native to the setting* in which the game is set have, I think, every right to expect that their PCs are representative of the populations they were born-raised in.

And again, even if it was the case, there is not rule anywhere that prescribes that all members of any population can do whatever the PCs and their adversaries can do.

The basics is that the PCs are exceptional, but also that their adversaries are exceptional, and nothing prescribes that the mass population can do what these do, and nothing prescribes that the paths to power that the PCs can follow are the same the NPCs. Nothing except your own views that it has to be so, but it has nothing to do with consistency.

If nothing else, there's other proto-PCs out there - the replacements for the current ones once character turnover sets in - and as they too are part of the general population but as yet we have no idea who they will be, the whole population has to be treated as if any member could become a PC at any time.

And that is the exact contrary of the D&D paradigm since the beginning of time. PCs are exceptional.

Result: PCs and NPCs within a species are the same.

This is a pure sophism (incorrect logical reasoning)

• A is exceptional
• B is exceptional
• So A=B

* - obviously this does not apply in cases where the PCs are transplanted into the setting from elsewhere; but good luck finding replacement PCs when those ones die.

There is absolutely no such problem, you are creating those for yourself with your own constraints that exist only in your representation of consistency.

He isn't. That campaign collapsed after just a few months.

Really too bad, my point was just that it's certainly not a DM horror story, unless by these you refer to horror stories for poor DMs who deserved better for trying to run a game for abusive players.

Also, there's a distinction between the players abusing the DM (not the case there) and the DM allowing the players to abuse the game (which was).

There can be, but in that case, they are one and the same.

I'd like to think I and the players can keep things interesting even within those constraints; never mind that it's very true that constraint breeds creativity.

Huh, no, in general constraints stifle creativity, or at best channel it along very narrow paths.

That's fair. I've seen it happen more when a DM has become frustrated with some major part of the rules, or the whole system, but rather than start a new campaign the existing one has been changed on the fly.

Again, I'm not advising it (in particular not as something to be done lightly or every other session), but I've done it once or twice, it can sometimes be justified.

It has everything to do with consistency; as consistency is the point.

The problem is that you mandate consistency when there is no need for it except in your vision of what the world should be. But D&D was only that way during the relatively short lived 3e, and a lot of the DMs out there, including all those who started with 5e with its major explosion don't see consistency problems there...

Agreed. What @Maxperson missed including was the word "potentially"; thus if an NPC has made that deal with Orcus then a PC potentially ought to be able to as well provided Orcus finds said PC acceptable.

And then, because it's absolutely the DM's prerogative to say that Orcus does not find the PC acceptable, that way is officially closed. Does it make it inconsistent ? No, it's actually a common fantasy trope "the chosen one" who does not have to be a PC.

Can't speak to Sanderson (not much of a fan of his) but in LotR the whole point is that the "PCs" (the Fellowship, etc.) CAN potentially gain access to the enemy's powers, abilities etc. and much of the conflict arises from how the PCs deny themselves these powers and-or their temptations yet still persevere with what they have. (never mind that in game terms Sauron is about triple the level of anyone else in the setting) Within itself, LotR is in fact impressively consistent with how it handles powers and abilities.

It is absolutely not the case. No PC apart from Gandalf can decide to wield magic (assuming that it is what Gandalf does). No PC in the fellowship can hope to match the Witch-King of Angmar or have any of his powers. As for the One Ring, it's just an item, and gaining it does not give you the powers of Sauron. For example, Gollum never acquires them, and neither of the two hobbits do when wielding the ring. And neither did Isildur, for example. There was no path to Sauron's power, who is a being of a higher order any way.

Star Wars is an even clearer example: the dark side has greater power which the "PCs" can access - provided they pay the cost, now or later. Again, it's all about temptation and potential; and there's no inconsistency involved.

And again, no one can hope to match Anakin, who is the chosen one, apart from another Skywalker. The path is closed to a few chosen ones, and not all PCs (depending who you see as PCs) can chose to be whatever they want despite the race they were born in. Even being a Jedi is not race specific, it's a gift.