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

[EzekielRaiden]

Having an exception 1 out of a million times doesn’t mean you cannot learn. Whatever you learn will work 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times.

But that chance applies to every single thing. Period. That's the problem. It's an everpresent specter.

It’s apparently only d&d where DM judgement calls are bad?

When those judgment calls aren't actually part of the rules. Which is literally what I said. "Break the rules whenever you feel like!" isn't productive. "Decide which of these options makes sense" is a very different thing. I don't see how the difference isn't obvious.

Doesn’t dm judgement call whether by rule or not mean ‘you cannot know the results and thus not actually learn to play’? That was your whole premise above after all.

Nope! Because, at least in DW, when you do that...it's obvious. The player always knows what they've rolled (GMs only roll damage dice, never roll for moves), so they always know if they've gotten a failure. And when the GM makes a soft move...the player knows what that is, or they're going to find out sooner rather than later. There is no possibility that the player just...doesn't ever know what the consequence was. The whole point of moves is to resolve an unresolved question in the fiction--which means that the output of a rule must always produce something in the fiction that the players can observer, know, or learn.

 

[FrogReaver]

But that chance applies to every single thing. Period. That's the problem. It's an everpresent specter.

Like… What’s the problem if everything you try doesn’t work as you expect 1 out of a million times? That’s not a specter, those are much better odds than almost anything in life and we play the game of life just fine.

When those judgment calls aren't actually part of the rules. Which is literally what I said. "Break the rules whenever you feel like!" isn't productive. "Decide which of these options makes sense" is a very different thing. I don't see how the difference isn't obvious.

In 5e they are part of the rules.

Nope! Because, at least in DW, when you do that...it's obvious. The player always knows what they've rolled (GMs only roll damage dice, never roll for moves), so they always know if they've gotten a failure. And when the GM makes a soft move...the player knows what that is, or they're going to find out sooner rather than later. There is no possibility that the player just...doesn't ever know what the consequence was. The whole point of moves is to resolve an unresolved question in the fiction--which means that the output of a rule must always produce something in the fiction that the players can observer, know, or learn.

But the player doesn’t know what consequence they will be facing if rolling a failure or partial success. Since they cannot know they cannot learn, right?

 

[Oofta]

While I don't remember the last time I fudged a roll (I do sometimes roll when it's an unnecessary contested roll as explained above), I am still making decisions all the time as a DM based on what I think the party will enjoy. I don't send a tarrasque to fight a level 1 party, I don't expect people playing 20th level PCs to go through a fight with a lone goblin. Every single time an enemy's turn comes around, I'm deciding for that monster what they are going to do.

I know any explanation will likely be torn apart because I'm not using the precisely correct technical terms, but here goes. I just don't accept this idea that a GM can be kept from making decisions based on what makes sense for the scenario they've set up without restricting their options in ways I don't care for. Yes, you can have limits on what either side of the GM screen that can be done. But as a player I'm not immersed in a simulation, I'm playing a game where I know the rules restrict the GM to certain options. I'm playing a pawn in a game where I know all the possible counter moves. The specific counters may surprise me but they come with restrictions and rules that must be followed. For me it becomes a different kind of experience of tactical counters on both sides; it's akin to a game of chess in too many ways.

Obviously the freedom the DM has can be abused, but it rarely is. At least not if the DM wants to continue DMing.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm not going to change my preferred gaming system because you don't like it. You may believe a different system is "more effective", I don't. I don't care for the process used by PbtA and related games. Stating "the game I like does it better" is meaningless.

Not to mention, there are things 5e does more satisfactory for me than PbtA, and vice versa. I’ve tired so much of this quixotic search for the “perfect” system that does all the things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not going to change my preferred gaming system because you don't like it. You may believe a different system is "more effective", I don't. I don't care for the process used by PbtA and related games. Stating "the game I like does it better" is meaningless.

I didn't say you should. I was saying, the rule as it exists in D&D is obviously flawed; that's why everyone has to do ridiculous or deleterious things in order to address a rule being used in clearly problematic ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Obviously the freedom the DM has can be abused, but it rarely is. At least not if the DM wants to continue DMing.

The chronic shortage of DMs puts a pretty big hole in this theory. You'd have to (somehow) develop a pervasive reputation of bad DMing. Not an easy thing to do on the internet, where anonymity is practically assured.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Like… What’s the problem if everything you try doesn’t work as you expect 1 out of a million times? That’s not a specter, those are much better odds than almost anything in life and we play the game of life just fine.

Perhaps not to you. To me, it is.

And the way people actually talk about this stuff? It's a HELL of a lot more than "one in a million." It's "this monster isn't doing what I want, I'm going to change its stats." It's "I don't want this boss to die before it gets to attack." It's "the players have already figured out the mystery, I'm going to change who is guilty." It's quantum ogres and "invisible rails" that guide an entire game.

In 5e they are part of the rules.

But are you saying fudging is the same sort of thing as that? Because as soon as you do, then your argument falls apart. I genuinely do not understand the difference between "lie to your players about what a roll's result was" and "decide that you don't have to make a hard move, even though the rules permit it, a soft move is adequate". The former is very clearly "dispense with the rules, they don't matter." The latter is literally obeying the explicit, direct rules text about how to respond to moves: you can always choose to make a soft move if doing so fits the fiction.

Or do you genuinely mean to say that the rules of 5e are explicitly saying, "You can ignore a player's die roll at any time if that suits what you intend to do"? Because that would sound rather like a concession of my point, not a refutation thereof.

But the player doesn’t know what consequence they will be facing if rolling a failure or partial success. Since they cannot know they cannot learn, right?

How can they not know? It literally is whatever happens next! Like...that's how DW works. "Begin and end with the fiction." It's literally right there.

 

[Maxperson]

But if every rule is "...unless the DM secretly decides to do otherwise," you cannot ever learn what you're doing. Every single action's consequences are branded with the caveat "...but what happens might only be what the DM decided to do."

A rare exception does not invalidate a rule. When quite literally 99.99% of the time rolls are adhered to, that .01% of the time an exception happens does no keep you from learning what you are doing or how to do things. You can rely on it being the way you think it works, because 99.99% is very reliable. You're letting your strong feelings on the matter cloud your judgment I think.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't say you should. I was saying, the rule as it exists in D&D is obviously flawed; that's why everyone has to do ridiculous or deleterious things in order to address a rule being used in clearly problematic ways.

Your "obviously flawed" is my "a different approach I prefer".

 

[Oofta]

The chronic shortage of DMs puts a pretty big hole in this theory. You'd have to (somehow) develop a pervasive reputation of bad DMing. Not an easy thing to do on the internet, where anonymity is practically assured.

When I couldn't find a DM I liked I decided to DM. At the same time, I've had a ton of DMs over the years the truly bad DMs are less than 1%. If that's not the case for you either I'm incredibly lucky or the problem hasn't been the DMs.