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

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Not at all. 3e (and its children, e.g. PF) and 4e (and its cousins, like 13A) both show examples of other ways. Dungeon World, which was very specifically designed to capture the feel of early D&D as its creators remembered playing it (which, of course, is not the same as actually being 1:1 the same as early D&D), has specific rules that the GM is not allowed to break.

The situation is nowhere near as hegemonic as you want it to be.

And do you not believe in hidden information?

I believe in information that can be found. Fudging is, by explicit intent, information that is never meant to be found, not even in principle. Same with secretly (NOT openly, secretly) rewriting monster stats on the fly, "invisible railroads", and other techniques that put up the front of imperfection-free DMing.

If you level with your players (so it isn't secret in the first place), or make it genuinely discoverable within the game with a truly fair shot (none of this "well if they'd double crit after asking the exact correct question then it could have happened!" nonsense), then there is no problem. But that's not what people talk about with fudging and "invisible railroads" and these other deceptive DMing tools.

Sometimes the PCs just don't find out the answer to a question in game.

And if that is genuinely the result of a player not thinking to ask a reasonable question (you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, after all), or trying to but the dice were uncooperative, then fine. As said, the techniques Max and others refer to go far, far beyond that.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Assuming running is possible, which it often isn't because most monsters move faster than most PCs.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, random encounters. I remember a DM we had that for some reason hated us having horses. We'd get into town, have to travel to some remote area, so we bought horses. First random encounter? Ancient red dragon looking for a snack. So we abandon the horses, the dragon eats them we move on.

Kind of weird, but okay. Then it happens a second time, and a third. Every single time we bought horses for travel the first random encounter was an ancient red dragon.

I suspect he may have been fudging the die rolls.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all.

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

This is flat out wrong. A suggestion is only a possibility that you can accept or ignore. Just like die rolling. It is only when all or nearly all rolls are ignored and the DM just chooses that dice can be called window dressing. Your dislike of occasional fudging doesn't change that.

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.

This is also wrong. Dice have force, because the DM will rarely alter a roll. He will have good reason to ignore a die roll, or he wouldn't have asked for a roll in the first place.

Just to show you how absurd your stance is, your claim means that because rule 0 has existed in all editions of D&D, every D&D edition has been 100% window dressing.

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

Again, your stance is flat out wrong. You are vastly overstating the degree that fudging once in a while affects die rolling or the rules.

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.

Give the variety of problems that occur, I'm not sure how you can say that. Fudging a couple rolls once every campaign or two doesn't do what you are claiming it does.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

wouldn't that be the player's decision so explicitly the one thing the GM doesn't have control over? or do you expect them to decide a decisively winning side develops an intense bout of cowardice purely to ensure the survival of the party?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Correct. But note that (like with random, permanent, irrevocable death), breaking either of the two critical components of fudging eliminates the problem:

1. Don't hide. Be honest. Let your players know that something isn't right, and (ideally) work with them to fix it. Or, if you prefer to fix it yourself, at least let them know, "hey, this didn't work the way I wanted, but I'm going to make it right."
2. Make it diegetic. You altered a monster's stats? The players can see it. They may not know what is happening, but they do know that something is happening. Changed your mind about how a roll should work? Show that the scene or context is different now. Etc.

Fudging is not required—ever. It's doubly unnecessary if you're able to build in solutions in advance, but that's not always possible.

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.

There is a difference between "this is flat land upon which any sort of structure could be built" and "this area already has sturdy rail ties, storage areas for fuel and equipment, road access, and a lot specifically laid out in advance for building a train yard." The former is only "support" in the loosest and most basic sense. The latter is "wow, this is practically half built already!"

5e and its text specifically support, and occasionally even encourage, DMing without responsibility.

 

[Maxperson]

The bold is precisely why it cannot be used.

Except that according to your stance the rule of cool invalidates every rule in the game by altering/ignoring a rule because of cool, rendering them all window dressing. Or is your stance that altering/ignoring a rule in a way that you like = okay, but altering/ignoring a rule in a way that you don't like = rending every rule window dressing?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Give the variety of problems that occur, I'm not sure how you can say that.

Quite easily. Fudging pretends that problems never happen. Actually making diegetic changes or leveling with your players solves the problems fudging merely spackles over.

Fudging a couple rolls once every campaign or two doesn't do what you are claiming it does.

It absolutely does. You, the DM, always are the one actually deciding what happens. Every single time. It just coincidentally happens that you decide to follow the rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except that according to your stance the rule of cool invalidates every rule in the game by altering/ignoring a rule because of cool, rendering them all window dressing. Or is your stance that altering/ignoring a rule in a way that you like = okay, but altering/ignoring a rule in a way that you don't like = rending every rule window dressing?

Nope!

My stance is that altering rules IN WAYS THE PLAYERS KNOW OR CAN LEARN is fine. Secretly doing it is deceptive, and takes away the players' ability to actually play the game. If it is done secretly, it is genuinely impossible for them to know what is actually the game and what is DM manipulation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ah, random encounters. I remember a DM we had that for some reason hated us having horses. We'd get into town, have to travel to some remote area, so we bought horses. First random encounter? Ancient red dragon looking for a snack. So we abandon the horses, the dragon eats them we move on.

Kind of weird, but okay. Then it happens a second time, and a third. Every single time we bought horses for travel the first random encounter was an ancient red dragon.

I suspect he may have been fudging the die rolls.

If only there were some way to address this without such deception! But alas, you certainly can't just ask your players not to use mounts... that's just unacceptable.