D&D General A DMG for all of us

[TiQuinn]

The issue of fudging vs fate is as old as D&D itself, and outside of Gygax's notion that all rolls be fair regardless of outcome, most of the advice I've ever seen in RPGs is that in a choice between fun and fair, fun should win. So much so that I thought it was universally assumed a DM can alter his rolls in pursuit of the greater good of people having fun. (The notion that a DM who does is cheating wasn't something I ever saw expressed until within the last decade, when OS purity became en vogue).

Which I think is why I prefer separate game systems rather than merely DM advice when it comes to game systems. 2nd edition (where I cut my teeth) was a terrible mismatch of expectations and rules. 2e wanted narrative focused adventures with heavy role playing and storytelling and then used a version of D&D that was full of instant death, randomized chargen and shackles on PC power. No matter how many essays the Dragon Mag and the DMG made, the rules were at odds with the mission statement.

So if a game comes along with a "let the dice fall where they may" style of play (something like Hackmaster or DCCRPG) the rules will support that, and a game like Doctor Who AiS&T which is all about the narrative over the dice, the rules support that. But I wouldn't want both to run off the same engine because their goals are too widely different.

I think this cuts to the heart of it. If I as a DM have to fudge the dice to make the game work, something broke. I either overdid things on the encounter scaling side or the game was way too swingy, but what I don’t want to see is something in the rules that undercuts that and says “If you didn’t like the outcome, just fudge the result so it’s what your table would prefer or what benefits the story.”

No. That’s what I’m looking to you, the designers, to help manage. If that’s simply the rules and the way the game goes, I want the text to reflect that. I know I can always fudge the roll. You, however, shouldn’t get the easy out as game designer to make that acceptable.

 

[Distracted DM]

On the contrary - we want bias.

If someone is writing an instructional piece about a style of play, to allow others to pick it up, that piece ought to be written by a knowledgeable fan of the style. They should, in fact, be enthusiastic about the thing in question, not artificially neutral.

If I were editor of such a series, I'd probably insist on style guidelines to the effect of not tearing down another style to make the one you are boosting look good, but that's a writing thing, not a bias thing.

Yeah, I really do want things to be opinionated. I don't like it when something tries to lowest- common -denominator/please-everything bland.

When something is opinionated, I know whether or not it's for me- and more importantly it's obvious what it's for, so you hopefully avoid forcing a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Remathilis]

What if I want my character to fail or die, even when the GM wants them to live or succeed? What if I want failure to sting? Conversely, what if I try to do something that will throw the game off the rails (e.g. kill the DM's favourite NPC), and they fudge the dice to prevent it?

My concern isn't about 'fun vs. fair', it's about players having agency. That's why fudging is so pernicious. The DMG advising DMs that they can fudge when they want is basically WotC telling DMs to ride roughshod over their players and then pretend nothing happened. Which is in line with the generally railroad-friendly approach outlined in that chapter.

I think games like 2nd ed. probably have a lot to do with people thinking that fudging is good or necessary.

See, I tend to view it as discretion. I might roll a random encounter that would be a TPK to the party in their current state, so I ignore or reroll it. I could decide the magic item I just rolled randomly is too disruptive and roll another. I might decide that a crit that would kill a player in the first round is a normal hit which keeps the PC alive but very wounded (and changes his tactics and expends resources to live) or I might decide that every player going first against a powerful bad guy isn't going to be a challenge and up his initiative so that he gets some hits in early. In all those situations, the dice provided me with an option that would lead to a less fun situation for the players (myself included). There is equally little fun in being one-shotted before you can act as there is in curb stomping the BBEG. So discretion is used to keep tension and drama.

You might prefer a game where routes happen, green dragons decimate PCs or characters get the deck of many things, but not everyone does and I think it's fine to say to new DMs "the dice are a tool, not your master".

 

[Remathilis]

"It is on the front page of D&DB, or it isn't worth doing," is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Not everyone is as connected to the RPG community as you or I. They don't know how to look on Drive-Thru or Kickstarter to find new 3pp products nor do they even know that they can look. So without someone telling me where to look, I wouldn't know that stuff like A5E exists.

 

[Scribe]

So, is A5E "not worth doing"? Because it doesn't show up on the front of D&DB.

Oh, is any game not D&D "not worth doing"?

Blades in the Dark? Pointless! PbtA? Same - can't be bothered! Monte Cook's $2 million kickstarter for Old Gods of Appalachia didn't appear on D&D Beyond. Let's go tell him that $2 million... didn't happen I guess?

If you have an audience, the reach, the marketing path?

Many things are worth it.

For the vast majority of the RPG players out there? Come on. Its D&D or "wait I thought it was all D&D".

 

[billd91]

What if I want my character to fail or die, even when the GM wants them to live or succeed? What if I want failure to sting? Conversely, what if I try to do something that will throw the game off the rails (e.g. kill the DM's favourite NPC), and they fudge the dice to prevent it?

My concern isn't about 'fun vs. fair', it's about players having agency. That's why fudging is so pernicious. The DMG advising DMs that they can fudge when they want is basically WotC telling DMs to ride roughshod over their players and then pretend nothing happened. Which is in line with the generally railroad-friendly approach outlined in that chapter.

I’ve never understood how the dice are sacred religion maps to player agency. It’s player submission - just to a mechanical process rather than a human, deliberative one.

 

[FrogReaver]

Considering a number of us (its me!) said for years "Hey Wizards pick a lane!" it would be...unfair of me to now go "No, not like that!"

Wizards picked a style, tone, and approach, and now it is what it is.

Fairness is overrated

 

[Scribe]

Fairness is overrated

In all honesty, I know the battle is lost for now. The wheel may yet turn back, but its going to take a long time and I doubt I'll care by the time it gets there.

 

[Clint_L]

I’ve never understood how the dice are sacred religion maps to player agency. It’s player submission - just to a mechanical process rather than a human, deliberative one.

I dunno about "sacred religion maps." Using dice rolls to resolve tasks is a pretty core concept of D&D, though I guess, sure, it's submission to the rules, just like only moving bishops diagonally is a submission to the rules of chess. You don't have to do it, but if you don't, you're playing some other game.

And using dice without secret fudging is player agency - players makes choices based on their estimation of their chances. The DM secretly deciding which rolls should count is the exact opposite of player agency. Or are you advocating for a game in which players can fudge when it suits them, as well?

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO, true modularity exponentially increases the difficulty of good design. For every modular option you add you are expanding the number of game variations you should be playtesting for exponentially. It also leads to singular options that don’t work very well by themselves. It also makes digital tools a pain in the butt to code for. Etc.

I’m a fan of modularity in theory. In practice it’s almost never worth the effort and ultimately just makes an inferior tool for everyone.

Homebrew and 3pp is where true modularity lies.