Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 5709274" data-attributes="member: 23935">The dice rolled in combat are of minimal importance if the underlying mechanics like hit points exist only at the whim of the referee.All other action resolution systems, like detecting secrets, skill use, etc. were adjudicated by whim.But all that is secondary.The players may or may not have any expectations about how the game is played.  The play provided did not match the default play of the game as expressed by the rules.  If they did have any expectations -- say one read a book in advance or had a friend who played for example, those expectations were misled.  The DM did not make it known to the group that the skill selections were meaningless.  He did not make it known to the group that all actions were going to be resolved using a dramatic lens as opposed to the rules ostensibly in use.  In fact, Bullgrit took great pains to "roll a lot of dice for everything", but then ignored their input.  A fraud, pretty much by definition, doesn't have the acceptance of the victims.If I offer you X and provide you with Y, you may like Y and may in fact prefer my substitution over the original offer.  It is fradulent of me to make the offer of X and then give you Y while telling you it's X.  This behaviour hurts newbies more than those experienced as this becomes their point of reference for gaming experience.  And it is based on a lie.  Those dice I just rolled? Ignored.  The hit you just made on the monster?  Killed it because I thought it would be dramatically satisfying.  The ingenious plan you can up with?  Worked regardless of character talent.  That treasure you found? There because I thought you wanted it.All of the above if fine in a game so long as the participants understand that is how the game works.  It is wrong in a game where the default understanding works differently without some agreement to the changes.  New players either have no understanding or have a basic understanding as presented in the rule set.  Further, without that understanding, individuals inside the group may respond with different levels of caution.  Natural risk-takers would have been rewarded and anyone who remained cautious in that party because they had different expectations lost out on the opportunity to cut loose.Certainly, Bullgrit has expressed a level of guilt over his behaviour.  He thinks everyone had a great time, but he feels dirty as if he was entertaining them under false pretenses.Again, it is possible that the group may have not cared, but Bullgrit never gave them a chance to have a say.I'm not saying he should have exhaustively identified every variation he was going to use to a group without the background to understand the implications, either.  Saying something along the lines of "Since you're new to this and this is going to be only a single session, it's going to be a lot more dramatic and action-filled than typical.  OK?"  probably would be enough to alert them that what they are experiencing is somewhat abnormal and give them some say if they want something else from the experience or further clarification.</blockquote>

Verification