D&D General Dice Fudging and Twist Endings

[EzekielRaiden]

Who says the owlbear in my campaign is the same as the owlbear from the MM?

...I literally just said I don't expect that.

Why would any two owlbears be exactly the same?

Consider the context I just gave. At the same level, in the same general location. Don't you think one adult bull moose (to use a real world example) should be, generally speaking, about the same as any other adult bull moose if you're looking at moose in the same forest within a few days of each other, unless there's something noticeably different about it? Variation exists, but I wouldn't expect to see one at 500 pounds (massively below normal weight) and the other at 4000 pounds (about 2.5x max normal weight) unless I'm given a reason why they differ.

I tweak monsters all the time. Sometimes there's in world explanations, sometimes it's just that you stumbled across a particularly ornery owlbear.

That's an explanation though. That is something the players SHOULD be able to observe, but which they might not necessarily observe in practice (through being blasé or failing a check or simply not putting the pieces together.)

It's not going to start breathing fire unless there's an in world reason, but some individual creatures may well be more or less dangerous than standard. I will likely give descriptive hints but just because you've never run across a dragon that casts spells doesn't mean this one won't.

Turn that "likely" into "will" and you are perfectly describing what I'm asking for. The hints do not have to be picked up—but you must play fair and actually make it reasonable that someone really could have. That way, the fact that they did not do so is genuinely on them.

Truly exceptional monsters are rare, but a fair amount of variance can happen more often.

There are certain ironies in asserting such a strong position on monster variability but not other forms of perfectly equivalent variability.

If the PCs don't know or somehow
learn something, I see no reason to inform the players.

Okay, have you even been reading what I've said? Because I explicitly said that. Repeatedly. You are not responsible for guaranteeing that the party learns something. But when you make secret changes like this, you are responsible for ensuring they genuinely COULD learn it, even if (by happenstance, bad luck, unwise choices, overconfidence, etc., etc., etc.) they don't ACTUALLY learn it.

I have said this in no less than three previous posts, including the one you just quoted.

 

[Oofta]

I guess it’s not surprising that those GMs who like strict simulationism are the ones who also tend to like confrontational styles of play. It might be that you need one for the other; if you give yourself the power to change things as you go along, you probably can’t get much fun from a confrontational style of gaming; it’s a necessary way to play so that you can feel good about how fair it was that the party got hosed.

Curious if there are GMs who run confrontational style games (where you talk in terms of the players beating or outsmarting the GM, where you feel poor play deserves character death, etc.) but aren’t die-hard simulationists?

I want the world to feel (relatively) real and logical but I don't consider myself a confrontational DM. I don't think the two have any real correlation. A DM could fudge on the side of the enemy to ensure that they aren't otherwise defeated too easily.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I guess it’s not surprising that those GMs who like strict simulationism are the ones who also tend to like confrontational styles of play. It might be that you need one for the other; if you give yourself the power to change things as you go along, you probably can’t get much fun from a confrontational style of gaming; it’s a necessary way to play so that you can feel good about how fair it was that the party got hosed.

Curious if there are GMs who run confrontational style games (where you talk in terms of the players beating or outsmarting the GM, where you feel poor play deserves character death, etc.) but aren’t die-hard simulationists?

My favorite edition is 4e, my favorite D&D-child game is 13A, and my favorite non-D&D game is Dungeon World. I'm about as far away from a "simulationist" as you can get, assuming the term means something useful to you.

But.

In order for the dramatic action to have meaning, there must be a world with durability, where consequences can occur and amount to something. That world must have true facts of the matter--even if nobody (not even the DM) knows what those facts are yet. Once something is established, even in a relatively weak way, it must be preserved unless and until new revelations appear.

Usually, I find "simulationism" (or at least what people call that) produces very bad outcomes. "Simulationism" as I have seen others advocate leads almost inevitably to worse gameplay (usually becoming tiresome, overwrought, and/or pulled away from the point of play), and also to worse stories, as it encourages a cold, calculating, dry approach, turning everything into an optimization problem or a logic puzzle to be dispassionately evaluated or ruthlessly exploited, rather than an engaging narrative or an exploration of a theme or concept.

As far as I'm concerned, the things I hear people call "simulationism" are the siren-song of tabletop game design: they sound so good, so beautiful, so deeply and fundamentally right, they HAVE to be good for the game! But they aren't. I do not at all blame people for wanting a world they can apply rational thought to--I also want that. I do not at all disagree that, where possible, the rules should support a reasonable imitation of a world that follows naturalistic rules. The problem comes in when we elevate that "naturalism is valuable, and should be preserved when you can" concept into an absolute and universal maxim, where every action taken which improves conformity to a naturalistic procedure is guaranteed to make the game better. Because it doesn't. It might seem like it does; it very much feels like it should. But it doesn't. Having a game you can reason about naturally in order to get good results is a good thing, a high honor worth pursuing. But it cannot be pursued at the cost that so many fans of "simulationism" are willing to pay. It's...like achieving absolute, pitch-perfect audio playback fidelity, at the cost of not actually being able to record any music with it. Sure, you've made an astounding technical breakthrough, but to do it you had to give up the entire point of making the breakthrough in the first place.

 

[robus]

Serious question: Should every fight always be uniformly "exciting"? Or is it healthy to have the occasional anticlimax?

Of course not. I’ve been clear that this in relation to climactic encounters where a certain level of drama needs (in my DMing opinion) to be attained to deliver a satisfying challenge.

And I certainly let my players have a clever easy victory. They once whisked a storm giant out from under some cultists noses when I expected quite an epic battle. It was a fantastic moment and well planned by the players. Of course the place where they magically reappeared wasn’t quite built to hold a storm giant but when the dust settled they had their victory and were rightly proud of their accomplishment.

Edit: typo

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course note. I’ve been clear that this in relation to climactic encounters where a certain level of drama needs (in my DMing opinion) to be attained to deliver a satisfying challenge.

And I certainly let my players have a clever easy victory. They once whisked a storm giant out from under some cultists noses when I expected quite an epic battle. It was a fantastic moment and well planned by the players. Of course the place where they magically reappeared wasn’t quite built to hold a storm giant but when the dust settled they had their victory and were rightly proud of their accomplishment.

Would your players feel the same way if they knew this only happened because (by your own admission) you "let them have" it, not because they had truly earned it?

I struggle to see how one can call it an "accomplishment" to be herded into an intended victory.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Of course note. I’ve been clear that this in relation to climactic encounters where a certain level of drama needs (in my DMing opinion) to be attained to deliver a satisfying challenge.

And I certainly let my players have a clever easy victory. They once whisked a storm giant out from under some cultists noses when I expected quite an epic battle. It was a fantastic moment and well planned by the players. Of course the place where they magically reappeared wasn’t quite built to hold a storm giant but when the dust settled they had their victory and were rightly proud of their accomplishment.

Would your players feel the same way if they knew this only happened because (by your own admission) you "let them have" it, not because they had truly earned it?

I struggle to see how one can call it an "accomplishment" to be herded into an intended victory.

More charitably read, "let them have it" means the DM is not drumming up some reason that the players/PCs' clever plan could not work so that the DM's epic combat that was prepped meticulously is forced to happen.

 

[robus]

Then here, finally, we have the actual problem. I expect—indeed, absolutely require—there to be some amount of underlying reality in order to feel any excitement whatsoever. If, as you say, at any moment for no reason whatsoever you can just say "rocks fall, everyone dies, good game, hope to see you around," that kills my investment in the game stone dead. If there is no underlying reality, there is no story. No adventure. Nothing to speculate about, nothing to plan for, nothing to investigate. It becomes an entirely empty experience, and I can have those whenever I like by numerous different means.

I guess we really do see things very differently. Sure I have some broad strokes of what the major NPCs that the players have heard of or encountered want, but I’m mostly reacting to what the players desires are. I try to hold the reality loosely so that I can adapt to what the players are doing.

Thanks for the discussion, it’s been interesting.

 

[robus]

Would your players feel the same way if they knew this only happened because (by your own admission) you "let them have" it, not because they had truly earned it?

I struggle to see how one can call it an "accomplishment" to be herded into an intended victory.

Poor choice of phrasing on my part!

 

[Oofta]

My favorite edition is 4e, my favorite D&D-child game is 13A, and my favorite non-D&D game is Dungeon World. I'm about as far away from a "simulationist" as you can get, assuming the term means something useful to you.

But.

In order for the dramatic action to have meaning, there must be a world with durability, where consequences can occur and amount to something. That world must have true facts of the matter--even if nobody (not even the DM) knows what those facts are yet. Once something is established, even in a relatively weak way, it must be preserved unless and until new revelations appear.

Usually, I find "simulationism" (or at least what people call that) produces very bad outcomes. "Simulationism" as I have seen others advocate leads almost inevitably to worse gameplay (usually becoming tiresome, overwrought, and/or pulled away from the point of play), and also to worse stories, as it encourages a cold, calculating, dry approach, turning everything into an optimization problem or a logic puzzle to be dispassionately evaluated or ruthlessly exploited, rather than an engaging narrative or an exploration of a theme or concept.

As far as I'm concerned, the things I hear people call "simulationism" are the siren-song of tabletop game design: they sound so good, so beautiful, so deeply and fundamentally right, they HAVE to be good for the game! But they aren't. I do not at all blame people for wanting a world they can apply rational thought to--I also want that. I do not at all disagree that, where possible, the rules should support a reasonable imitation of a world that follows naturalistic rules. The problem comes in when we elevate that "naturalism is valuable, and should be preserved when you can" concept into an absolute and universal maxim, where every action taken which improves conformity to a naturalistic procedure is guaranteed to make the game better. Because it doesn't. It might seem like it does; it very much feels like it should. But it doesn't. Having a game you can reason about naturally in order to get good results is a good thing, a high honor worth pursuing. But it cannot be pursued at the cost that so many fans of "simulationism" are willing to pay. It's...like achieving absolute, pitch-perfect audio playback fidelity, at the cost of not actually being able to record any music with it. Sure, you've made an astounding technical breakthrough, but to do it you had to give up the entire point of making the breakthrough in the first place.

There are good DMs and bad DMs. There are DMs that run a style of game that won't be a good fit for some players. But I will never tell people that they're running a game wrong solely because they run a different style of game. It may not be a style I personally care for but that just means they aren't the DM for me. Bad DMs can justify bad decisions based on any number of reasons, not just a stylistic choice.

 

[Oofta]

Of course note. I’ve been clear that this in relation to climactic encounters where a certain level of drama needs (in my DMing opinion) to be attained to deliver a satisfying challenge.

And I certainly let my players have a clever easy victory. They once whisked a storm giant out from under some cultists noses when I expected quite an epic battle. It was a fantastic moment and well planned by the players. Of course the place where they magically reappeared wasn’t quite built to hold a storm giant but when the dust settled they had their victory and were rightly proud of their accomplishment.

While I may play it up a bit when the PCs stomp on or cleverly avoid what I thought would be a tough encounter I also let them know I'm really cheering for them. After all, there's always next time!

Along the same lines, one of my pet peeves of video games is the dreaded cut scene where your protagonist has been successfully sneaking past and/taking out dozens of guards until the "you're captured" cut scene. Just as bad is the TV series that can't let the antagonist be defeated too early in the season. Somebody will drop the McGuffin or the hero will let the bad guy get away while they check on someone who stubbed their toe, something.

So I never guarantee my BBEG's escape just like I'll never change things mid encounter just because the PCs are wiping up the floor with my bad guys. I do try to run challenging and engaging combats because combat is frequently not the main focus of a game session but I don't plan plot lines or stories. I plan goals, motivations and actors (individuals or organizations). If the PCs stop some plot the bad guys have, there are always more plots and more bad guys. Probably one of the reasons I don't use published mods.