GM fiat - an illustration

[Maxperson]

Suppose that an assassin is following the PCs. And watches the Alarm spell be cast. And then tracks the passage of time (using an hourglass, or their near-mystical time sense, or an ability to detect the magic of the spell, or . . .).

That foe would attack immediately upon the spell dropping (ie so that it won't trigger, but the PCs are still in their restful state rather than a prepared state).

Why do you assume that the assassin would even know what spell was cast? Or that someone in the party wouldn't wake up 6 or 7 hours in and just be resting awake for the remainder of their long rest? Or that there wouldn't be someone awake on watch for redundancy? Or...

 

[pemerton]

Why do you assume that the assassin would even know what spell was cast? Or that someone in the party wouldn't wake up 6 or 7 hours in and just be resting awake for the remainder of their long rest? Or that there wouldn't be someone awake on watch for redundancy? Or...

I'm not assuming that. I'm identifying such a situation as one in which someone might attack just after the 8 hour duration of an Alarm spell expires. Which was the question that @TiQuinn asked.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not assuming that. I'm identifying such a situation as one in which someone might attack just after the 8 hour duration of an Alarm spell expires. Which was the question that @TiQuinn asked.

Sure. There are corner case scenarios where something like that could occur. Not enough to worry about, though, and when they do there are reasons behind the rare exceptions, so the players are okay with them if/when they occur.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes you did, but you are wrong. Contained games like sports or board games just aren't the same as uncontained RPGs. You can equate them all day long, but you will be wrong when you do.

False equivalences are false.

That there are differences doesn’t mean there aren’t also similarities. I mean, in your response, you point out how board games and sports are similar. Someone could claim that’s a false equivalence.

The truth is that they are all games. And games have rules and processes that make them function. Those rules and processes shape the experience of play… they help shape what’s considered fair or unfair. They simply do… it’s obvious.

What’s happening is that there are two types of unfair being discussed. There’s the unfair where something is clearly in violation of the rules. Let’s say like stacking bonuses that aren’t meant to stack, or altering/lying about a die roll. Unfair… no doubt about it.

Then there’s the unfair of the type you’re hinting at. Where it’s not a violation of the rules, but seems like a violation of some kind of social expectation. Something like a GM setting a DC higher than they should, or bringing in an adversary who is way beyond the capability of the PCs, and similar.

This is the kind of unfair that can be incredibly hard to agree on. Sure, most folks would agree on extreme examples, and there will be times where folks generally agree. But the way it works… in this case the Alarm spell… it invites problems.

I mean… every DM can come up with an enemy that can bypass the alarm spell. It’s trivially easy to do so and then to simply cite (or make up) reasons that their decisions “make sense” and then justifying it all as “fun”.

The Alarm spell is rife with points where this can happen.

Now, that may be fine with you (or anyone else). You may prefer to rely that much on the GM “getting it right” and the effect it has on player agency. But that doesn’t change what it is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure. There are corner case scenarios where something like that could occur. Not enough to worry about, though, and when they do there are reasons behind the rare exceptions, so the players are okay with them if/when they occur.

Generally speaking, if I use the Alarm spell and the DM just bypasses it, I’m gonna find that pretty annoying. I’m probably not gonna flip the table and quit or anything, but I’d definitely cite it as cheesy.

 

[bloodtide]

That there are differences doesn’t mean there aren’t also similarities. I mean, in your response, you point out how board games and sports are similar. Someone could claim that’s a false equivalence.

The truth is that they are all games. And games have rules and processes that make them function. Those rules and processes shape the experience of play… they help shape what’s considered fair or unfair. They simply do… it’s obvious.

Well, video games come to mind as games with no rules: video games have programs. Unless your saying 'rules' and 'programs' are the same things.

Board games and sports are both examples of Very Limited Activities. In order to make the activities fun and safe, tons of very tight restrictive rules are put into place to make the game direct, easy and simple. You play a board game or a sport by doing only the very narrow things that the rules allow, and then those rules tell you if you 'win' or not.

Many RPGs are not like that. The tagline forever of most RPGs is "you can do anything". For many, it is the whole point of RPGs. Unlike every other sort of game, an RPG has no limits or restrictions "built in". You can do whatever you want.

And some do play RPGs in the Very Limited Way. There are groups that do the "Ok, ready for game #15, it is Fetch Quest #15! Where for the 15th time your PC must find a item hidden in a dungeon.....again!" And this is a fine way to play an RPG.

Of course, there is the other way, where you can do anything.

Generally speaking, if I use the Alarm spell and the DM just bypasses it, I’m gonna find that pretty annoying. I’m probably not gonna flip the table and quit or anything, but I’d definitely cite it as cheesy.

On the other side here, and I'm quite annoyed at players that think casting a spell alters game reality to their whim. By default, I make it clear to players that at least 50% of anything they do or try will likely fail. Not to depress them into not trying, but to get them to understand the stakes of the game play.

Yep. Sports games and board games are like that. Roleplaying games are very much not. You cannot equate one type of game with the other. They don't line up like that.

Role Playing games are unique and not like other games.

 

[Maxperson]

That there are differences doesn’t mean there aren’t also similarities. I mean, in your response, you point out how board games and sports are similar. Someone could claim that’s a false equivalence.

They are similar in that their rules contain the entire game. RPGs don't do that, at least D&D is far from contained in such a manner.

The truth is that they are all games. And games have rules and processes that make them function. Those rules and processes shape the experience of play… they help shape what’s considered fair or unfair. They simply do… it’s obvious.

The truth is, RPGs are not anywhere close to being contained by their rules like sports and board games are. They simply are not... it's obvious.

Some RPG rules are about fairness. Others have nothing to do with fairness. And a lot of the game doesn't have a rule that fits the situation, so the DM needs come up with a ruling/house rule. That last situation doesn't really come up in board games or sports games more than once in two or three blue moons.

What’s happening is that there are two types of unfair being discussed. There’s the unfair where something is clearly in violation of the rules. Let’s say like stacking bonuses that aren’t meant to stack, or altering/lying about a die roll. Unfair… no doubt about it.

Really? Let's say the DM and players all get to stack the same bonuses that aren't meant to stack. That's fair. Not the rules, but still fair.

Then there’s the unfair of the type you’re hinting at. Where it’s not a violation of the rules, but seems like a violation of some kind of social expectation. Something like a GM setting a DC higher than they should, or bringing in an adversary who is way beyond the capability of the PCs, and similar.

That's the only real fairness that there is. Any rules that touch on unfairness are ones that touch the social contract. Like no cheating.

This is the kind of unfair that can be incredibly hard to agree on. Sure, most folks would agree on extreme examples, and there will be times where folks generally agree. But the way it works… in this case the Alarm spell… it invites problems.

I mean… every DM can come up with an enemy that can bypass the alarm spell. It’s trivially easy to do so and then to simply cite (or make up) reasons that their decisions “make sense” and then justifying it all as “fun”.

The Alarm spell is rife with points where this can happen.

Not really. The Alarm spell isn't as rife with points as the OP would suggest.

"* Does the player's character have an uninterrupted minute of time to cast the spell?"

There will be somewhere close to zero times that this ever is an issue. If there are so many monsters that close to you, you probably aren't stopping for a minute to cast the spell. Outside of there being monsters everywhere around you, there the minute casting time just won't be an issue.

"* Does any potential intruder come within 8 hours, or do they turn up (say) 8 hours and 5 minutes after the spell was cast?"

It takes a rare corner case for this to ever be an issue. DMs aren't going to sit there and just have monsters show up right after the spell ends. And you know what? So what if the DM does. It lasts 8 hours so that the party can long rest and 8 hours and 5 minutes later, the long rest has happened and the encounters hits a fresh party that is awake for it already. This is the second non-issue brought up as a "point where it can happen."

"* Does a potential intruder come within the warded area, or open the warded portal? Or do they sneak around the warded portal, or inspect/attack from outside the area?"

This one is more common than the first point above, but still very rare. The overwhelming majority of encounters will enter the warded area, but a few might inspect or attack from outside if they typically are a ranged attacker. Still not an issue, though.

"* If the caster (and friends) are asleep, and are woken by this spell, how much can the intruder accomplish while they rouse themselves?"

They get to roll initiative since they are not surprised, which means they get their full round of stuff to do. They may or may not be wearing armor, and they may need to spend half their move to stand up, but they can do anything they would normally do. This is also a non-issue.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, video games come to mind as games with no rules: video games have programs. Unless your saying 'rules' and 'programs' are the same things.

Board games and sports are both examples of Very Limited Activities. In order to make the activities fun and safe, tons of very tight restrictive rules are put into place to make the game direct, easy and simple. You play a board game or a sport by doing only the very narrow things that the rules allow, and then those rules tell you if you 'win' or not.

Many RPGs are not like that. The tagline forever of most RPGs is "you can do anything". For many, it is the whole point of RPGs. Unlike every other sort of game, an RPG has no limits or restrictions "built in". You can do whatever you want.

And some do play RPGs in the Very Limited Way. There are groups that do the "Ok, ready for game #15, it is Fetch Quest #15! Where for the 15th time your PC must find a item hidden in a dungeon.....again!" And this is a fine way to play an RPG.

Of course, there is the other way, where you can do anything.

I would consider video game programming to be the equivalent of rules. That's why ways to bypass that programming are called cheat codes.

In an RPG, you very clearly cannot do anything. As a player, what you can do is limited. You can declare actions for your character. That's what players do. Some games go a little farther... but D&D is not really one of those.

In the made-up world of the game, the characters can likewise not do anything. They are bound by the rules of the game as well as setting and/or genre logic, and also in many cases, the whim of the DM.

On the other side here, and I'm quite annoyed at players that think casting a spell alters game reality to their whim. By default, I make it clear to players that at least 50% of anything they do or try will likely fail. Not to depress them into not trying, but to get them to understand the stakes of the game play.

I mean... casting a spell is literally the caster altering the game reality to their whim. That's pretty much the definition.

Bypassing the rules of such a spell by whim alone seems like pretty crappy GMing to me.

Role Playing games are unique and not like other games.

All the subsets of games are unique in ways from the others. That doesn't mean they don't have commonalities as well. They're still all games... clearly they have common elements.

One of those things is rules that tell us what is allowed, when, and by whom.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There’s no problem so much as it is a comparison of two different approaches to play. Depending on one’s given preferences, one or the other approach may be problematic.

One is describing a method with open procedures, allowing players to understand the impact of their decisions on play. It is clear and allows them to make informed decisions for play. When we reach some point in play, the players can look back at what happened and know why things are the way they are.

The other approach has many areas that are unknown to the players (or, very likely unknown). This leads to less informed decisions with unclear impacts on play. When we reach some point of play and look back, there is enough information missing that we cannot say why play has arrived at this point.

Your explanation makes it very clear which approach you consider problematic.

 

[Maxperson]

I would consider video game programming to be the equivalent of rules. That's why ways to bypass that programming are called cheat codes.

Despite the name, video game RPGs aren't true RPGs. They are limited in scope and are more like board games. In a roleplaying game, you wouldn't need "cheat" codes to do some of the stuff "cheat" codes allow.

In an RPG, you very clearly cannot do anything. As a player, what you can do is limited. You can declare actions for your character. That's what players do. Some games go a little farther... but D&D is not really one of those.

And what you are limited to is far greater than any person could think of in their lifetime. It may not be infinite, but it might as well be.

In the made-up world of the game, the characters can likewise not do anything. They are bound by the rules of the game as well as setting and/or genre logic, and also in many cases, the whim of the DM.

No. No they are NOT bound to the rules of the game. They cannot be and we are explicitly told that within the rules. The rules cannot and will not ever encompass everything, which the game tells you. When you encounter things the rules cannot or should not cover, the DM is supposed to make a ruling that is outside of the written rules.