D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[nevin]

Don't get me wrong - I've seen times when as a DM I want to bail the PCs' collective ass out of a jam, be it of their own making or mine, and I'm sure you've had similar moments.

Fudging behind the screen, though, isn't the answer. Instead, make the bail-out obvious and put it in the fiction!

A divine intervention or blessing of some sort is usually the easiest to both pull off and explain; and done in rarity, such events can make for good "war stories" later. Further, events like this can provide useful adventure fodder: for getting them out of trouble then, a deity wants a favour now.....

that's an opinion I can respect but I don't see things black and white and different circumstances require different solutions. We just aren't going to agree on where and when to fudge. And that's ok.

 

[Hussar]

No.

But if two rounds into what you'd hoped would be an epic battle all four thugs are down and the captain is sinking fast, having three more thugs show up "just because" is most definitely spawning-in (and, IMO, poor form).

But, is there any difference between that and changing a monster's HP? Or modifying any of the numbers?

Since, after all, I'm being told, again repeatedly, that this is perfectly fine and in keeping with traditional play. But, apparently, doing it for any other reason than "The DM feels like it" is apparently bad?

Like I said, I'm failing to see the difference here.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Turns out though that the characters got sidetracked and into several combats and are going to meet up with good ol' Bob. They're not at full health or resources. What was a tough combat is now going to be a likely TPK, so I lower the difficulty by dropping a thug (Chuck is back on the ship up-chucking).
/snip

So, you change the game world for meta-game reasons. The only reason you are changing this encounter is because of totally unrelated things that the PC's did.

LIke I said, I'm really confused now since you have insisted repeatedly that this is something you refuse to do. You would never change the game world based on meta-game reasons but only because of the "logic of the world". You claim that your primary priority is simulating the world. But, this change has nothing whatsoever to do with simulating the world. You are only doing it to make the game more fun.

Which is exactly the same as everyone else. The only difference is, some of us have a mechanical framework in place to guide these changes and you're doing them through fiat. It's a meaningless distinction.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, this is why I've pushed back so much in this thread. Over and over again, we see claims about how "traditional" gaming is done. Which, when you actually dig down a bit, is no different than how anyone else does it. It looks more and more like "traditional" just means "stuff I like".

 

[MichaelSomething]

Do you mean D&D alone, or TTRPG generally? I'll assume it's the latter (just because the former in the absence of the latter would seem incoherent.)

I like the notion of destabilising the argument (re: cheating) through setting D&D outside of games as such. Presumably with some accompanying argument that says, notwithstanding that D&D isn't a game on this account, it is still possible to cheat and altering the result on dice will still count as cheating. Although I suspect it would entail some extended rabbit-holing to get there, as well as a rather resolute position against a longstanding ontological norm.

Suffice to say that given the fictional creation is playful and structured, at least in part, by rules, I count D&D a game. If you don't, then I admit I'm curious, but not hopeful, about the arguments you will put forward to get there.

Crawl around these forums long enough and you'll find people who tolerate the rules of D&D to access the community and reach it has so they can do the immersive fiction creation/simulation that they actually want. I'm not one of them (and pointing out who I think they are could be too personal for Enworld's TOS) so I won't argue on their behalf.

 

[clearstream]

Like I said, I'm failing to see the difference here.

That brought to mind an analogy. Suppose for some reason apples and pears tasted the same to me... no difference between them. And then someone said they love apples but dislike pears. Because I fail to see any difference between them, their preferences don't make sense to me.

Perhaps it is because they can see a difference, that they are able to prefer one or other?

 

[clearstream]

Perhaps its because the GM is both supposed to be either neutral towards or a fan of the players (depending on system and preferences) and running NPCs who want to kill the PCs.

It's hard to find a balance there.

Is it right to conclude that on this view GMing is basically unfair? Or at least GMing in any TTRPG where they run the opposition.

So that it would be well-motivated for a GM to look for ways to redress that fundamental unfairness?

To avoid being disingenuous, my question appertains to a conclusion I feel unlikely to draw, although I haven't worked through the arguments in detail.

 

[Lanefan]

In theory, sure. In practice we all had the books and read them, and for those who didn't, they read the DMG and MM owned by someone else.

Not the case here, unless one also DMs. Many of our forever players have either never read the DMG and MM or, if they did, it was 40 years ago.

 

[Lanefan]

But, is there any difference between that and changing a monster's HP? Or modifying any of the numbers?

Since, after all, I'm being told, again repeatedly, that this is perfectly fine and in keeping with traditional play.

Not by me, you're not, for any of the above. The encounter is the encounter, and for better or worse the chips fall where they may.

 

[Hussar]

Not by me, you're not, for any of the above. The encounter is the encounter, and for better or worse the chips fall where they may.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming it. You don't need to convince me. But, apparently, adjusting encounters on the fly is perfectly in keeping with traditional play. Removing baddies from an encounter because the party is too weak due to them taking on extra encounters is perfectly in keeping with traditional play.

Like I said, I'm not quite understanding the difference then. If I can rewrite through improvization, setting elements based on the meta-game, then why is it bad to rewrite setting elements based on the meta-game?

Sure, maybe there's just something wrong with me, as @clearstream has intimated. Could be. Or, maybe, the arguments that people have been trying to make for quite a while now don't actually carry a whole lot of water.