D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Oofta]

I didn't refer to a "type" of game. I referred to a particular RPG: Apocalypse World.

And? So what? Does that particular game not fall into a type of games? It's a PbtA game.

And I conjectured more than asserted that D&D 5e does not have a way to resolve all declared actions, based on the fact that (i) many 5e players seem to say this, and (ii) many 5e players seem to take different views about what the way is to resolve a wide category of "non core" action declarations, and (iii) the only mooted way for resolving any declared actions - GM decides - is often rejected by 5e players as a mid-description of the game. (Although in this thread, multiple 5e players seem to endorse it.)

If people are rejecting the core concept of the game then perhaps D&D isn't the game for them. Other games have different restrictions and roles, I wouldn't expect every resolution to be handled the same. It's simply false to say that D&D doesn't have a resolution system, you just don't like it. Which is fine, from what I've seen of PbtA based games I don't like their system. There is no one true way and people should play games that work for them.

Besides, I rarely if ever see these complaints outside of this forum. I may not care for a specific DM and how they run their game, but that's different.

I don't think I've written that DL-ish/AP-ish module play isn't GM decides: generally, it's a special case of GM decides based on "secret notes".

If the GM can, on the basis of secret notes, have the befriended NPC nevertheless betray the PCs, then the system is 100% GM decides in my view. This comes out in your framing: the players have to declare more actions to detect that something is "off", to gain info about the kidnapped children, etc. As opposed to (just as one example) the successful befriending by the PCs meaning that the NPC shares with them his fears for his children (just as one might with friends).

I don't want my character to have complete control over the world. I don't want complete transparency. If Bob the Baker is really Mad Billy the Butcher I want to be surprised by that. Bonus points if there were little hints along the way. Super-duper bonus points if one person in the party had figured it out but the rest of the group disagreed with them.

Just like when watching a movie or reading a book, sometimes an unexpected betrayal will add greatly to the story.

What follows from dice rolls? And what rules/constraints govern the GM's decision-making?

If the GM is free to disregard successful checks - as in the NPC betrayal example - then the dice rolls aren't actually moving the procedure away from GM decides. They're just a gloss or twist on it.

If I ask or allow a roll when I know the answer it's because I'm maintaining an illusion, keeping the player just as uninformed as the player.

 

[Maxperson]

They emphatically are not. Set dressing is purely aesthetic. At least a suggestion has the (incredibly minimal) weight of being inherently serious, while set dressing has zero gameplay presence beyond being set dressing.

And what you described wasn't anywhere remotely close to being "set dressing." For dice to be set dressing, the DM would have to ignore all or nearly all rolls. Just fudging things once in a while lands it squarely into the realm of suggestion where it belongs.

I did not say it did. I said, verbatim, "Dice that the DM can directly defy whenever they think it's warranted are not even suggestions--they're set dressing." I meant every word of it.

And that is very clearly suggestion. "Whenever" does not equate to "always" or even "nearly always."

Yes. I'm aware.

I vehemently disapprove. Specifically because that--that exact, specific thing--is the active support for really, really bad forms of DMing.

So it's right and proper to TPK the party on some meaningless random encounter because of extreme bad luck on die rolling on the part of the players and extreme good luck on the part of the DM?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And what you described wasn't anywhere remotely close to being "set dressing." For dice to be set dressing, the DM would have to ignore all or nearly all rolls. Just fudging things once in a while lands it squarely into the realm of suggestion where it belongs.

Not at all.

The fact that any roll can be treated so is what does it.

And that is very clearly suggestion. "Whenever" does not equate to "always."

But it is always the case that every roll has absolutely no force to it. Only the DM has force. The procedures--dice, rules, rulings, whatever--do not have force. At all. Period. They exist, they have value, they do anything at all solely and specifically because the DM elected to go along with them this time. Nothing, nothing whatever, prevents them from not doing so, at any point, for any reason.

Hence: the rules aren't even suggestions. They contain no force, not even the force of "we'd like to see this, please?"

So it's right and proper to TPK the party on some meaningless random encounter because of extreme bad luck on die rolling on the part of the players and extreme good luck on the part of the DM?

Nope!

Instead, you work within the rules to address that problem. Fudging doesn't actually SOLVE the problem. It pretends the problem doesn't exist--and actively deceives the players to preserve the hollow pretense that no problems ever occur. That's why I can't stand it.

 

[Remathilis]

Precisely. Dice that have no binding force are merely a suggestion, at best. Dice that the DM can directly defy whenever they think it's warranted are not even suggestions--they're set dressing.

If the DM is bound by the results of the dice at all points, why not have a computer DM? Assuming you can program it enough to avoid illogical results, then the computer DM is 100% fair and unbiased, never forgets a rule, and has no concept of "cool" for a rule to be made from. With sophisticated enough scripts and perhaps AI, you could eliminate the need for a meat DM and use a software system where you can set the parameters (high fantasy, horror, dungeon crawl lethal) and never need a DM again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The differences you cite are not mandatory. There are other ways to implement the DM role that do not cash out exactly as you described.

In D&D? The DM role in D&D shakes out just as @Maxperson described unless you're really trying to be different.

And do you not believe in hidden information? Sometimes the PCs just don't find out the answer to a question in game.

 

[tetrasodium]

And do you not believe in hidden information? Sometimes the PCs just don't find out the answer to a question in game.

I've seen a lot of players who started with 5e very much believe that this is forbidden. IMO some of Wotc's regular comments in videos & tweets pushing AL's near total redefinition of RAW as "Thy GM must Run As Written.. however Thee may chooseth to level when decided and select from this list of magic items at levels x y & z"☆. I've even had players at non-AL tables literally complain that I was being unfair by not telling them the module so they could look it up to prepare for the adventures. It's unfortunate because that mindset is contagious & cannot be shut down by anyone but the other players acting aggressively or the GM showing the hidden cards they can expect to be metagamed hard.

☆ Rough summary of the relevant bits in ALPG & ALDMG. They did eventually soften some of the shackles on the GM, but it was done in such a way that the GM still starts out needing to prove that changes fall in the narrow window of allowance.

 

[Lanefan]

They emphatically are not. Set dressing is purely aesthetic. At least a suggestion has the (incredibly minimal) weight of being inherently serious, while set dressing has zero gameplay presence beyond being set dressing.


I did not say it did. I said, verbatim, "Dice that the DM can directly defy whenever they think it's warranted are not even suggestions--they're set dressing." I meant every word of it.

From this can I take your stand on fudging to be "outright no"?

I vehemently disapprove. Specifically because that--that exact, specific thing--is the active support for really, really bad forms of DMing.

The very existence of the game provides support for really bad DMing. And for really good DMing. And for the most-of-us who are somewhere between those two things.

 

[Lanefan]

So it's right and proper to TPK the party on some meaningless random encounter because of extreme bad luck on die rolling on the part of the players and extreme good luck on the part of the DM?

To the specific question: yes.

And keep in mind there can't be a TPK as long as someone's willing to bail out and run away.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the DM is bound by the results of the dice at all points, why not have a computer DM?

Because a human DM can communicate with, respond to, and understand human players. A computer can't.* A human DM can say to the players, "How should we address this?" A computer can't. A human DM can show both spontaneity and foresight that are well beyond what a computer can do.

*Even the best LLMs and other "AIs" do not understand anything at all. They're just complicated matrix multiplications.

Assuming you can program it enough to avoid illogical results, then the computer DM is 100% fair and unbiased, never forgets a rule, and has no concept of "cool" for a rule to be made from.

The bold is precisely why it cannot be used.

With sophisticated enough scripts and perhaps AI, you could eliminate the need for a meat DM and use a software system where you can set the parameters (high fantasy, horror, dungeon crawl lethal) and never need a DM again.

Nope. A sophisticated nonsapient AI could do clever things. But it could not be kind, enthusiastic, and heartfelt. Only a sapient AI could do those things, and it would be slavery to design such an AI. (Unless, of course, the AI is free to choose...at which point you can't be sure that it will be fair.)

 

[Oofta]

Because a human DM can communicate with, respond to, and understand human players. A computer can't. A human DM can say to the players, "How should we address this?" A computer can't. A human DM can show both spontaneity and foresight that are well beyond what a computer can do.


The bold is precisely why it cannot be used.


Nope. A sophisticated nonsapient AI could do clever things. But it could not be kind, enthusiastic, and heartfelt. Only a sapient AI could do those things, and it would be slavery to design such an AI. (Unless, of course, the AI is free to choose...at which point you can't be sure that it will be fair.)

Off topic, but a sophisticated enough AI could easily fool people the vast majority of times. We don't even understand how people think, much less how an AI would think. We have no reason to believe it would actually want anything in the sense that people want things, if it was designed to run TTRPGs that could well be it's life's calling.

On the other hand I don't personally believe we will have a sapient AI anytime soon, although it may be hard to tell.