Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[buzz]

If a party member says, "I need a candlestick. Are there any houses nearby that might have one? If so, I sneak in and get it." As the DM, I say, "No problem. Make a stealth check. If you fail, you either can't get access to it or you get it but someone spots you -- your call." D&D is not designed to be a straight jacket - hence rule 0. With a little common sense, "task" resolution systems like D&D give you the best of both worlds. This is not fudging the rules or cheating, it's applying a rational mind to the task of keeping good pacing in the story.

Actually, it's you implementing intent-relevant conflict resolution into D&D's intent-irrelevant task system. The other RPGs being talked about here simply do this out of the gate.

 

[DSRilk]

Actually, it's you implementing intent-relevant conflict resolution into D&D's intent-irrelevant task system. The other RPGs being talked about here simply do this out of the gate.

Personally, I don't find a paragraph stating "use checks for things that make sense in order not to RP a game to death" necessary. I think having the skills listed and described is enough to make it inherent. I do have a question though. Do these other systems have tactical resolution as well? To me, it's easier to generalize from specifics than it is to create on-the-fly specifics from a generalization.

 

[buzz]

Personally, I don't find a paragraph stating "use checks for things that make sense in order not to RP a game to death" necessary. I think having the skills listed and described is enough to make it inherent.

Well, first off, intent-relevance isn't just about using checks to avoid RP'ing thing to death. It's about, well, making sure the player's intent is addressed by the check. As to how to make use of checks, the RPG Dogs in the Vineyard coined an important phrase: "Say, yes or roll the dice." I.e., if there's no conflict over an issue ("Is there a candlestick nearby?"), then you can often just say, "Sure, there's a candlestick on the table." The dice come out when there's uncertainty or conflict, e.g., "Can I steal the candlestick without waking up the baker's dog?"

As for being explicit about this in the rulebook, I think it's a good idea. Better to explain how to run the game than assume the reader will just "figure it out." You can read a metric ton of accounts of bad game sessions on gaming fora that revolve around people who don't just figure this stuff out.

I do have a question though. Do these other systems have tactical resolution as well? To me, it's easier to generalize from specifics than it is to create on-the-fly specifics from a generalization.

It'll depend on the game. Burning Wheel has a very detailed combat system (though you don't always need to use it if the combat isn't a big plot point) that involves a lot of strategy and blow-by-blow action. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard and The Shadow of Yesterday don't have separate systems for physical combat; a conflict is a conflict. However, they do let you break down any conflict into multiple steps (in Dogs, it's always that way). I.e., you're not always just making one roll to see if Sir Kevin defeats the dragon. If that event is important, you break it down step-by-step.

For an example, you can look to the The Shadow of Yesterday rules wiki section on resolution. The whole text of the game is available there.

 

[DonTadow]

I think I know why these discussions seem to taper off. Its because they violate an enworld rule, politics.

I started thinking about this because I was going to write how at my table, I take the Samual L. Jackson approach to DM'n.

I am a monarch and I like that. I am a nice monarch. I ask my players before I do things. i reject things that they really hate. But my job as a DM is to provide the best game to my players.

There are some players and dMs that are more of the democratic table. Everything is fair and the DM gets his power from the players. Everyone's on a fair shake. Nothing gets put into the game unless it is preagreed upon form all parties. The DM is not allowed to make any decision that effects the game without discussing it with the players.

There are also people who believe in military rule, in which if it is my house and my Cheeto's then the game rules will go as i say, no matter who the dm and players are.

 

[buzz]

I think I know why these discussions seem to taper off. Its because they violate an enworld rule, politics.

One thing I notice is that there's a common mistake made. Notably, an assumption that the GM-player power relationship is zero-sum. I.e., you start talking about giving players authorial power, and people start complaining about "taking power away from the GM." Add in the unfortunate occurrence of people sometimes tying up too much of their self-worth in their role as a GM, and you get arguments.

Thing is, it's not zero-sum. You're not taking power away from anyone; you're simply giving more to some of the people at the table. IMO, the end result is almost always really fun.

I only wish more people would actually try some of the games that do this rather then dismiss them at first glance.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Yes, gaming philosophies that postulate an adversarial, zero-sum or otherwise antagonistic relationship between GM and player confuse me. Without trust, shared expectation and cooperation toward a common goal of "fun!" what's the point of the gaming group at all?

 

[marune]

Yes, gaming philosophies that postulate an adversarial, zero-sum or otherwise antagonistic relationship between GM and player confuse me. Without trust, shared expectation and cooperation toward a common goal of "fun!" what's the point of the gaming group at all?

Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.

The competition is not fun any longer when the DM cheats by setting the player agaisn't unreasonable challenges, or being too soft, etc...

 

[Hella_Tellah]

For an example, you can look to the The Shadow of Yesterday rules wiki section on resolution. The whole text of the game is available there.

Wow, thanks for that link! You have single-handedly convinced me to branch out into RPGs other than D&D.

 

[RigaMortus2]

You don't come off as preachy, but you'll forgive me if I can't beleive a word of it. You've never corrected a challenge mistake by adjusting a few choice rolls to give the players a shot? Or, would you just let the last four months of the campaigne grind to a screeching halt because of a mistake? And don't say that you don't make mistakes. We're all human, except for maybe a few oddballs around here.

So you are equating "making a mistake" with "cheating"? I hope you know they are not the same thing. Cheating is intentional, making a mistake is not. And I can only speak for myself personally, but when I find that I made a mistake, I try to correct it, whether it is to my benefit or detriment. Sometimes it is too late (too much time went by that correcting the mistake will really make that much of a difference), other times we correct it.

Mistake <> Cheating.

Edit: Just wanted to mention I am speaking from the player's perspective. The rules on DM "cheating" are a little different than when a PC tries to cheat. So the above is just from the player's perspective.

 

[buzz]

Wow, thanks for that link! You have single-handedly convinced me to branch out into RPGs other than D&D.

Heck, you're welcome.

Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.

Absolutely. Burning Empires is a great example of an intent-relevant, new school RPG that is also incredibly adversarial; the game works best when the GM is pushing hard against the players.

But I think Prof. Phobos' meaning was pretty clear; trust, cooperation, and willingness to share, even in an adversarial game (rpg, boardgame, etc), is a key part of maximizing fun.