That all seems pretty one sided to me. That it's only ever the DM that is destroying the fun of the game. Which I know now you'll say "I never used the word destroy". You may have never stated that but the message comes across as "Give the players what they want or you're being a bad DM" whether that was your intent or not.
I was mocking the phrasing a user used, where they referred to their players as treating literally ANY houserules, regardless of their nature, as being treated like, and I quote, "the most oppressive abusive hostile GM styles."
I am NOT the one who pushed the rhetoric to incredibly overwrought extremes. I was being sarcastic because someone else had already made the literal claim that ever saying no for ANY reason whatsoever was treated by all players everywhere as some kind of heinous crime when it absolutely, positively is not. 5e is, in fact, probably the most pro-houserule, pro-restriction edition WotC has published, to the point that most conversations about rules include numerous admonishments to "ask your DM" because you never know what they do or don't keep. Riffing off what I was once told by a Massachusetts native about their stoplights, the rules are merely a
suggestion.
So if you're going to repeatedly put words in my mouth (and get mad at me for balking when you do so) while ignoring the fact that I have very literally only been responding to someone who already did make an incredibly overwrought and extreme position, I'm done engaging with you.
This is hyperbolic. Your paradigm is that if a DM changes an AC by a single point, that's cheating if it's done after battle is joined. "Sizing up an opponent" is not equivalent to "knowing its exact AC."
Some people are talking about that, but I'm not talking about that. My comments are directed at your blanket claim that it is all "cheating", including the things I'm talking about. I never said that there's nothing that could be considered cheating. I am objecting to your blanket statement.
Alright. Let's call it fnording.
If an umpire changes his evaluation of whether something is or is not a foul based on what he thinks would make a more exciting or entertaining game, he is fnording. His deceptive actions necessarily favor one party over another (though not necessarily the same one every time) in a competitive space, despite him not actually being one of the competitors. Just as D&D combats are competitive spaces, between PCs and their enemies, but the DM is not one of those enemies himself. The umpire's deception of the players leads them to believe their actions cause the consequences that appear, when in fact, due to his fnording, the consequences are only those which he permits to appear. By deceiving the players about the very nature of the game being played, he denies them the ability to actually learn how to play baseball; they are instead learning how to induce him to give them consequences they prefer and not ones they dislike. His fnording, even when used sparingly, has prevented the ability to learn to play the game of baseball, or whatever variant of baseball is relevant. His dishonest refereeing may be an effort to produce something good, but it is still dishonesty.
If a croupier at a blackjack table changes the values of her cards in order to create a more exciting or entertaining game, she is fnording. Her players are not wagering stakes on predictable probability, they are wagering stakes on the croupier's emotions. Those emotions may only disagree with (and thus alter) the outcome of a game occasionally, they may even do so in the players favor (ignoring how unlikely this would be in an actual casino), but the fundamental fact that the croupier is fnording. She is deceptively manipulating the cards whenever she thinks doing so makes a more entertaining or exciting experience, purely because she believes she knows better than the players themselves what they will find exciting or entertaining. Her intent may be noble, but a noble lie is still a lie.
If I'm playing chess with a friend (and somehow not being utterly destroyed because I'm garbage at chess), and I permit myself or my friend to make moves that are against the rules but which would make for a more entertaining game, I am fnording. The other player and I may have a great time as a result, but what we are doing is not playing chess. We are instead playing "what rules does Ezekiel feel like enforcing this turn?" My opponent, if we play enough games, will begin to learn what rules I like and don't like to enforce, but won't learn much of anything about playing the game I have purported to play with them. And it is that purporting, that assertion that "hey let's play some chess," that is the fundamental dishonesty arising from the deceptive act.
Changing whether something succeeds or fails by deceptive means (which you agree is what is going on here) in order to produce a specific, intended state of play is fnording. It is fundamentally deceptive. It merits being identified explicitly for its inherently deceptive nature. That is why I call it "cheating" and not "fnording."
Well, at least we're not concerned about being pedantic.
And I am well within my rights to say that using this term is inflammatory, counterproductive, and unfair.
You're the one who challenged the meaning of the word. I provided ample evidence that that is exactly how the word is used. Whether it is
inflammatory has nothing to do with whether the word's usage reflects the meaning I am using it for. "You should not call it cheating because that will just make people angry and reject your claims out of hand" would have been a much more difficult thing to respond to, because demonstrably you would be correct, at least about it being inflammatory and likely counterproductive.
Unfair, though? You're talking about the DM altering the parameters of play while play itself is actually happening. This is not, and has never been presented as, "a monster off in one corner that no one has done anything but look at yet." This is "the monster just got hit by a critical hit, and it WOULD have died from the damage dealt, but I turned it into a miss/increased the monster's HP so it would survive longer, because I think that's a more interesting result than letting the players win so quickly." This is "aw beans, these monsters have rolled super lucky tonight, this could kill off someone's PC, I'll just drop their hit bonus for the rest of combat, because I think that will be more interesting than letting the players decide whether to risk death or flee."
Has literally anyone in this thread actually spoken about modifying stats completely before any attack rolls or saving throws have been made, other than as a hypothetical "well would this be okay?" Because if not, your focus on that side of things doesn't really do your argument much good.
