D&D General No Fixed Location -- dynamically rearranging items, monsters, and other game elements in the interests of storytelling

Saelorn said:

No, the burden is on you to try and defend meta-gaming. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where does it say that the DM can (or should) alter anything about the world, to force an outcome based entirely on personal preference?

Click to expand...

Firstly, what you're arguing against is not meta-gaming, it's forcing an outcome. Meta-gaming would be viewing the game as a game, and forcing an outcome is distinct from that.

Secondly:

1st Example: Ignoring the Dice, pg 236 of the 5E DMG:

"One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations. With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so. This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you've described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character's special abilities. A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn't like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one "correct" action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle."

2nd Example: Rule -5, Obvious, no quotation necessary:

The DM can do whatever they want with their game, as the game is inherently flexible. Show me where the DMG forbids a DM from forcing an outcome. The DM is not barred from doing anything. Whether those things should be done is another question entirely. Given that I agree with you on the basis that I prefer a much more impartial and natural DMing style, I'm not sure why you've decided to focus on me.

You will notice that the quoted example discourages having only one correct condition, but not having all conditions lead to a success.

Aebir-Toril said:

Firstly, what you're arguing against is not meta-gaming, it's forcing an outcome. Meta-gaming would be viewing the game as a game, and forcing an outcome is distinct from that.

Click to expand...

You're forcing an outcome based on factors that exist outside of the setting, such as: your personal preference, or what you think would be more exciting, or to promote a specific narrative. You aren't making your decisions from an in-game perspective. That is meta-gaming.

Aebir-Toril said:

"One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations. With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so. This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you've described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character's special abilities. A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn't like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one "correct" action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle."

Click to expand...

All of which just goes to elaborate on the basic process of play, where the DM adjudicates uncertainty. How does the DM adjudicate uncertainty? By considering in-game factors, such as their knowledge of how the world is set up, and the specifics of the approach that the character is taking.

Fundamental limitations of an organic being, such as favoritism and bias, are the listed downsides to this approach. It flatly says that you shouldn't make decisions on such a basis, but that some DMs end up doing it anyway, because nobody is perfect.

Aebir-Toril said:

The DM can do whatever they want with their game, as the game is inherently flexible. Show me where the DMG forbids a DM from forcing an outcome. The DM is not barred from doing anything.

Click to expand...

There's a limit to how far you can push the game, before it isn't even that game anymore. Replacing the d20 roll with pogs would be one such ridiculous possibility, but if you do that, you can't expect anyone to still consider it D&D anymore. Allowing the DM to force an outcome is even more absurd than that.

"D&D, but with FATE mechanics" is about as absurd as "D&D, but the DM is meta-gaming the whole time". It completely invalidates a fundamental aspect of the game.

I re-arrange elements all the time - and I also do it in Call of Cthulhu, where it is even MORE entertaining in terms of surprises to players.

Saelorn said:

No, the burden is on you to try and defend meta-gaming. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where does it say that the DM can (or should) alter anything about the world, to force an outcome based entirely on personal preference?

Click to expand...

DMG p.4, literally the next sentence after my previous quotation: "your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!"

A little earlier on that page: "A dungeon master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players' characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM breathes life into the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

I feel like Saelorn only read the "architect" sentence and then stopped.

I fudged a dice roll the other night and the player liked the game better. The thief was fighting a displacer beast by himself waiting for help and the NPC I had with the party cast a +2 to AC spell on him to help. The player was like "Yeah, my AC is now 17." A few rolls later I rolled an 18 and knew I would hit him, but was all, "Does a 16 hit you." He had a big smile when he said it missed.

Saelorn said:

If you're using that one rule, then there are no other rules; there are merely suggestions. You don't have a cohesive game remaining, against which you can check whether anything is or is-not allowed.

Click to expand...

You’re incorrect. There are still plenty of rules. They don’t all vanish simply because I hold the ability to adjust them when needed.

And also, a lot of these elements aren’t even rules. The DM decides how many monsters are in a room, right? Ideally, for you, he decides this before hand.

What if he erred? What if he made the encounters too tough and by the time the PCs reach the final encounter, it’s beyond them?

What rule is the DM breaking when he decides to reduce the number of monsters in that final room?

It’s not a rule.

Saelorn said:

The ban on meta-gaming is a fundamental mechanic of how the game is played, at least to the same degree that rolling a d20 rather than a d30 is a fundamental game mechanic. It's a basic mechanic for determining what happens.

Click to expand...

I don’t think there is a “ban on meta gaming”, not do I think such a ban could conceivably apply to the DM.

I realize we disagree on this, and that I’m not going to change your mind, and that’s fine. But let’s just settle for not calling people cheaters, cool?

Last year, I ran a group of friends through "The Lost Mines of Phandelver," because everyone wanted to play and I didn't have time to write an adventure of my own. The players all insisted they had never read or played it before, so I figured it would be a fun way to spend 3-4 gaming sessions.

During the first gaming session, it became clear that one person had read the entire thing. Which is fine, I didn't mind as long as he kept it under his hat and didn't spoil it for anyone else. But this was a guy who enjoys knowing stuff that others don't, and likes to make a big show of it. He warned them of the first ambush, warned everyone about the water trap, coached them on what to ask Agatha and predicted what she would say, that sort of thing.

I asked him about this clairvoyance between each gaming session, and he maintained that he had never read or played this adventure before. I didn't believe him, so I moved a few things around and added a couple of monsters to certain places in Wave Echo Cave.

During the game, after his character spent several minutes searching a certain place for a certain thing and not finding it, he accused me of cheating. Then he got really quiet and pouted for the last two gaming sessions, rarely contributing at all except to mumble his attack rolls. Everyone else at the table sensed the tension, and it really squelched their enthusiasm at the table.

I'm still not sure if I made the right call.

I cheat all the time. On everything. I'm a dirty, lousy, cheater as a DM.

But no one gives a rat's ass in my games. Reason being is simple... cheating only matters if you care about "winning". And I think worrying about trying to "win" D&D is stupid, and I specifically curate my groups so none of players are at all concerned about "winning". They all want to tell a collective adventure story with thrills and excitement, and it doesn't matter to them very much how it comes about. So if that means I declare the ogre with 59 hit points dead when the fighter one-shots him for 57 HP with a massive crossbow shot... my players are not at all concerned that I cheated and removed those extra two HP from the ogre's total. The story of the one-shot quarrel through the head beats whatever else would have resulted from making the next PC up have to plink off those that two points.

aco175 said:

I fudged a dice roll the other night and the player liked the game better. The thief was fighting a displacer beast by himself waiting for help and the NPC I had with the party cast a +2 to AC spell on him to help. The player was like "Yeah, my AC is now 17." A few rolls later I rolled an 18 and knew I would hit him, but was all, "Does a 16 hit you." He had a big smile when he said it missed.

Click to expand...

I think this example is one of being a good GM. We don't want to just hand easy wins to players, but altering things on the fly to keep players engaged and wanting more requires continual tweaking. Players getting battle fatigue? Skip that next planned encounter or shorten a fight. Players getting restless? Throw in Chandler's "man with a gun."
Everyone is down and out and the warrior is staggering, but so is the "big bad." Warrior hits but doesn't quite finish him off... let the baddie die and give warrior that moment of heroism.

This doesn't mean GMs are constantly altering things, willy nilly. It's tweaking to ensure stories run smoothly and players are having a great time.

As a GM, strictly following prep notes to the letter would bore me no end.