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

[Thomas Shey]

This exactly our 13th Age group, including Maptool, though we use Discord, not Skype.

Some participants in this particular game have had more consistent results with Skype. We've used Discord in the past on occasion.

Really no need to hide that kind of stuff.

Yeah. There's things that serve a purpose to hide. Die rolls, generally, aren't it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See my comment above. Its not like what I described doesn't exist in fairly large amounts in a number of places such as the Western and Central U.S.

Being aware of the terrain and having an exit strategy are good ideas too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except that it does not do that at all. You can argue deceptive, but to argue that it takes away their ability to play the game is wrong.

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."

That depends on how important "cool" is to your group.

...actually, it doesn't. "AI" DMs are going to happen eventually, so "cannot be used" seems pretty unrealistic to me.

If the AI has the sensitivity and compassion to actually use the Rule of Cool correctly, it's good enough to be an actual literal person, at which point using it is slavery. Not gonna happen.

I noticed you skipped answering @Maxperson 's claim that all rules in D&D are rendered meaningless if your stance is true.

Because it was not worth responding to. But yes, I genuinely do believe that a policy of fudging, even for the best reasons, even only extremely sparingly, even only under various other conditions, genuinely does render the rules irrelevant. The rules don't lead to consequences. DM choices do. Because every single time, every single result has appended to it, "Unless the DM secretly changed things and won't ever let you find out."

I would say that depends mostly on the degree a given DM finds it warranted to disregard the dice. If it’s 1 out of a million times that doesn’t make the other 999,999 times set dressing.

Even if it is 1 out of a million times, how can you possibly know? Your "knowledge" of the game is necessarily conditioned, forever, on the assumption the DM didn't interfere. That the rules were cashing out as you know them. But you don't know that--and you never can. The whole point of actual fudging, amongst other things, is that it is concealed from the players, and great pains are taken to preserve that concealment no matter what. Players must never learn that the fudging occurred, no matter what.

Except this won't always work.

Sure there are a handful of players that pay attention to 'check' the DM......and the rest could not do so if they tried. So the players knowing all the rules does not really help them.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The person I replied to spoke of hidden information. That's irrelevant to "checking" the DM.

You can simply not follow the rules and fool, trick or mislead the players.

You have a highly unwarranted confidence that the players are so easily fooled.

However, if the DM is bound both by the rules and the dice, I fail to see a need. I don't need a DM to apologize to me while he's TPKing the party.

Why not? Just because the rules are present does not mean the DM cannot still make mistakes. I would vastly prefer a human being who admits their stumbles and respects me enough to treat me like an adult, rather than maintaining a facade of perfection and infallibility and lying to my face about the times something went wrong. (Which, yes, some DMs outright do that. Matt Colville has explicitly said that he will even go so far as pre-rolling dice so he can lift the DM screen and show the result if someone questions his fudging.

If you used the dice, and then decided against it, say that. Or let us know that that's what happened. Easy as pie. Then I, or any player, can know that we're going off into the wilds, rather than being deceived into thinking that the game is exactly as it's presented.

I need a DM who can read a room and decide it's probably not in the best interests of the game to use the random encounter result he just rolled.

What you described is ambiguous. It may or may not be fudging, because you haven't specified (a) whether the DM keeps this hidden from players, and if so, (b) whether it is meaningfully possible for the players to discover that this occurred. If at least one of those two factors isn't true--even if the players do not actually find out--then it isn't fudging, and is perfectly acceptable. Laudable, even. Fudging is neither.

Where we might disagree is that I feel no obligation to reveal that in-game explanation to the PCs/players until and unless events within the game tell me to.

As long as they are given a reasonable shot at knowing, I'm content. Often I personally will just say it because that's just how I feel about things, but I don't require that of others. Now, "reasonable shot" (as noted above) needs to not be someone playing sillybuggers: no "well they had a 1 in 2000 chance of finding out, guess it just sucks to be them!", that's quite clearly not a reasonable shot. But, for example, if the party has a net (say) 85% chance and it just so happens they fall into that 15%...sometimes that stuff happens! Likewise, if they just never think to ask the question, despite the question being quite reasonable and not involving any pixelb#$%&ing, then that's on them. It behooves to err on the side of giving info rather than not, of course, but if you're already meeting them halfway and they just...don't follow through, that's not your fault. (Of course, this is best addressed by looking into why the players aren't meeting you halfway, but that's a different subject.)

A DM who won’t TPK a party based on their random encounter roll is a DM who lacks the courage of their convictions.

I think you'll find I have a decided excess of courage in my convictions, but I wouldn't do that

 

[pemerton]

If the DM is bound by the results of the dice at all points, why not have a computer DM?

This is pretty facile. In Burning Wheel, the GM is bound by the results of the dice at all points (Gold Revised ed, p 30: "Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither the GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful."

In Marvel Heroic RP, the GM is bound by the result of the dice at all points (Operations Manual p 8 sidebar: "In some games, the person who runs the game rolls the dice in secret - but there are no secrets in the Bullpen. Roll those bones in full view, Watchers!")

In Apocalypse World, the GM is bound by the results of the dice at all points (I can't even find a quote from the rulebook - it's treated as obvious that when the player makes a move and rolls the dice, everyone does what the result says).

But how would a computer adjudicate any of these games? I mean, how does a computer follow the rules for narrating failed outcomes in Burning Wheel (Gold Revised ed, pp 31-2: "When . . . the character fails . . . [then] the [player's] state intent does not come to pass. . . . When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . . The GM must present the players with varies, twisted, occult and bizarre ramifications of their decisions.")

How would a computer adjudicate AW? From p 117:

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.

When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll [ie gets net 6 or less], that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate.​

How is a computer meant to make sense of notions like intent not coming to pass, complications and bizarre ramifications, irrevocable consequences, etc?

As much as any of the three games I've mentioned, 4e D&D can be played with the dice rolls binding on the GM: I know, I've done it. It's resolution rules can be applied broadly the same as Burning Wheel's. And I'm pretty confident no computer would have come up with the complications and twists that I did, over the course of 30 levels of play.

Assuming you can program it enough to avoid illogical results, then the computer DM is 100% fair and unbiased, never forgets a rule, and has no concept of "cool" for a rule to be made from. With sophisticated enough scripts and perhaps AI, you could eliminate the need for a meat DM and use a software system where you can set the parameters (high fantasy, horror, dungeon crawl lethal) and never need a DM again.

Good luck with that. I mean, by your logic we don't need novelists, playwrights or painters either.

 

[pemerton]

IMO, Befriending an NPC doesn’t mean spilling their guts to the very people they are being coerced into betraying.

I think you have very unrealistic expectations around what befriending a person means.

Well, in classic D&D terms "Friendly" is either a result on an encounter table, or the result of a Charm spell. I don't think either outcome is consistent with betrayal. Gygax, in his DMG, also has a rather intricate loyalty system which builds on the reaction system, and likewise means that a NPC who is loyal will not betray the PC to whom they are loyal.

In 3E D&D, "Friendly" means "Wishes you well" and thus willing to "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate". That is not consistent with betrayal.

I don't know exactly how the 5e DMG defines the various sorts of NPC reaction, but I assume it also draws a contrast between someone being friendly or well-disposed, and someone being willing to secretly betray a PC.

The idea that the players can have their PCs succeed in an attempt to befriend a NPC - whatever exactly that looks like in the system - and yet the GM be at liberty to have that NPC secretly betray them, is an example of the GM's vision of the fiction being determinate.

but what check was disregarded in that example?

Whatever check (or other resolved action) was used to befriend the NPC. In B/X or AD&D this is a reaction/encounter check, or else the successful casting of a Charm spell. In 3E D&D, it would be a Diplomacy check as best I understand that game. In 4e D&D it would be a Diplomacy check. I believe in 5e D&D an attempt to befriend a NPC would normally be resolved (if uncertain) by a CHA (Persuasion) check.

 

[pemerton]

However, if the DM is bound both by the rules and the dice, I fail to see a need.

You seem to have a very narrow class of resolution rules in mind.

Classic D&D uses the following process for resolving wilderness travel: When the PCs travel through the wilderness, calculate <how many hexes they cross> and make N encounter checks <where N is the result of a formula that combines time and terrain>. If the encounter check is positive, then roll the encounter on <the appropriate chart>.

Now, if the GM is in fact not committed to following those rules - eg to re-rolling the TPK-ish encounters when the checks and charts yield them up - then why are they using that resolution system in the first place? It's not as if no one has come up with a different, and at least arguably better, way of resolving wilderness travel in the 50 years since those rules were first published!

In my GMing of 4e D&D, and Burning Wheel, and Torchbearer 2e, I have used rules that begin *when the PCs travel through the wilderness . . . * that (i) don't require me to ignore them (I mean, seriously, what is the point of "rules" that one is just ignoring?), and (ii) cannot be adjudicated by a computer.

As one example: when the PCs traversed the Bright Desert heading for the Abor-Alz, I called on everyone to make a tax roll against Forte (in 4e D&D, this would be a test to avoid losing healing surges; in 5e D&D, it would be a check to avoid accruing exhaustion levels) and called on the navigator to make an Orienteering check against an appropriate difficulty. The check failed, and so I narrated that when the PCs reached what they expected to be the first water-hole in the foothills they found that someone had got there before them, and had fouled the water. Everyone had to make another tax roll, as they had to continue without fresh water until they arrived at their destination. And there was also activity around identifying who had fouled the water (as it turned out, a filthy Dark Elven Wastrel).

 

[pemerton]

I had a DM who disliked paladins* for the longest time. He never outright banned them, but be damn sure you were going to lose your paladinhood in a Kobayashi Maru sooner rather than later. Of course, if he could have banned the class altogether, but I suspect he enjoyed making them fall enough to leave them on the table. It didn't take long for us to learn to avoid playing them.

I remember a DM we had that for some reason hated us having horses. We'd get into town, have to travel to some remote area, so we bought horses. First random encounter? Ancient red dragon looking for a snack. So we abandon the horses, the dragon eats them we move on.

Kind of weird, but okay. Then it happens a second time, and a third. Every single time we bought horses for travel the first random encounter was an ancient red dragon.

So perhaps I'm unusual as both a player and a GM in that, if I like or don't like something, I just say so?

My assumption that it is possible to play a RPG in a way that allows more than just the GM's vision to determine things does rest on an assumption that everyone at the table is capable of playing a game sensibly and maturely.

Eh. There are times the PCs have been through a long adventure, are low on resources, or had particularly bad dice rolls, and are seeking to return to the rest point to regroup next session and that random encounter is going to be the hair that breaks the campaign's back. A wise DM might look at the group who is tired (in game and out) and opt to ignore the encounter rather than grind their PCs down they are at their lowest.

This can possibly make sense for classic D&D dungeon wandering monsters (and Gygax makes remarks along these lines in the introduction to his DMG). Even in that context it is a bit fraught, though, for how do we really tell the difference between an unlucky group of players, and a group who were just too careless to keep some fuel in the tank for the trip home?

But once we get to wilderness wandering monsters, the tables are so arbitrary that just about anything is possible, and the notion of adjusting or holding off because on this one-off occasion the party has been unlucky doesn't really have purchase.

Unless you are a slave to the dice.

I took @TwoSix's point to be this: if you don't want Ancient Red Dragons to show up as wilderness encounters, then what are they doing on the table that you use to resolve wilderness travel? That is where the GM shows they lack the courage (ie to follow through) of their convictions (as expressed by their encounter tables).

I mean, as soon as we set it out the source of the problem is obvious: the wilderness encounter tables are intended to serve two functions. (1) They are a (rough) demographic/ecological model of the terrain. (2) They are a component of resolution of the action declaration We set off through the wilderness . . .

One solution to the problem is for players to only declare We set off through the wilderness . . . when they are really equipped to deal with the ecology, whatever it throws up: mounts, wagons, hirelings etc (like the bands of dozens or hundreds of NPCs found in the "Men" entry in Gygax's Monster Manual).

Another is to divorce (2) from (1). This is what every game I've GMed in the past 25 years has done. There is no pretence that "random encounters on the wilderness encounter table" are part of the resolution of wilderness travel.

A third is to pretend that (2) and (1) are integrated, and then ignore the dice rolls when you don't like them. To me, this seems like a needlessly complicated, confusing and potentially misleading option.

 

[pemerton]

And? So what? Does that particular game not fall into a type of games? It's a PbtA game.

Saying a game is a PbtA game doesn't tell us much more about it than telling us that a game uses percentile resolution.

I made a particular claim, about a particular RPG: Apocalypse World. So when you restate my claim as something else, that I didn't say, I am going to politely correct that.

I conjectured more than asserted that D&D 5e does not have a way to resolve all declared actions, based on the fact that (i) many 5e players seem to say this, and (ii) many 5e players seem to take different views about what the way is to resolve a wide category of "non core" action declarations, and (iii) the only mooted way for resolving any declared actions - GM decides - is often rejected by 5e players as a mid-description of the game. (Although in this thread, multiple 5e players seem to endorse it.)

If people are rejecting the core concept of the game then perhaps D&D isn't the game for them.

If you want to tell all those 5e players who insist that the ultimate rule of 5e is not "GM decides" that they are playing the wrong game, or are rejecting a "core concept" of 5e D&D, that can be your crusade! I am simply pointing out that, on previous occasions, I have seen may 5e players get quite irritated by the suggestion that 5e D&D is a game of "GM decides".

It's simply false to say that D&D doesn't have a resolution system

I haven't said that D&D doesn't have a resolution system. I have said that there are possible action declarations for which 5e D&D has no clear resolution system, and I've even given an example: I jump the crevasse in circumstances where it is established that the crevasse is wider, in feet, than the jumping PC's STR score, and where the jumping PC is not under a Jump spell or similar magic.

I don't want my character to have complete control over the world.

Who does?

If I ask or allow a roll when I know the answer it's because I'm maintaining an illusion, keeping the player just as uninformed as the player.

I don't pretend I'm using one resolution system when I'm really using another. If I've made a decision, and the rules of the GM I'm GMing invite me or instruct me to reveal my decision, than I reveal my decision.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If I ask or allow a roll when I know the answer it's because I'm maintaining an illusion, keeping the player just as uninformed as the player.

Maintaining an illusion of what, exactly?

 

[Oofta]

Maintaining an illusion of what, exactly?

If a player indicates that they believe an NPC may be not telling the truth, generally an insight check is called for. If I know the NPC is being honest, I still call for a roll. If the player suspects they are being followed but they are not, I'll still call for a perception check.

In either case, I don't want the player to be given information the PC cannot have. They will be fairly certain of the facts with a high result, uncertain with a low. If I just said no to the insight check the player knows, guaranteed, that the NPC is truthful. In the latter case, telling them not to bother with a perception check guarantees they aren't being followed.

There is technically no uncertainty as far as the state of the world, I'm maintaining uncertainty in the knowledge of the world from the PC's perspective.

I don't consider that fudging a roll. I always roll in the open except on contested checks. Those I may, in these cases, roll secretly and ignore the result.