Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Faolyn]

When @Thomas Shey uses the phrase "a player action evoking a Hard move", he is referring to the GM making a hard move in response to a player's declaration of an action for their PC.

Ah. My bad. Sorry, @Thomas Shey; misread you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ah, never mind then. No harm, no foul.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I'm not sure; with at least big linear die rolls like D20's and D100's, it can take a while to realize the numbers seem odd (just because the swing is so extreme), and the most subtle versions (only doing it when a particular roll is critical) requires people to think in the right ways that I'm unsold most people will.

More consistent use of this does, of course, provide a better ability to spot the pattern.

@Thomas Shey is right: I know we all think we are great at spotting patterns, but we are not. We are terrible at it. Saying "I can always tell when a GM is changing some math" is a useless statement -- you cannot notice that you do not notice it! It would require an active test. And you would fail it, almost certainly.

I did actually do this as a test once. I ran four D&D 4E sessions where I modified every d20 roll to round down to the nearest multiple of 5 (so I just used results of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20). I also modified all NPC stats to be multiples of 5.

No one noticed. Not even slightly. Not even when I asked about it. It is very hard for people to spot statistical patterns -- we are not designed for it. Our reward system makes us see patterns where there aren't any (penalty for thinking that pattern in the bush is a tiger when it isn't -- you look silly as you scream and run. Penalty for thinking a tiger isn't actually a tiger -- you do not have offspring) so trying to evaluate fairness is exceptionally hard for us.

Practical application: If you want to be a professional gambler, bet on events where you betting against other people whoa re evaluating odds. They are going to be terrible at it, so you will have an edge. I had a friend who did this for at least a decade, betting on unusual events occurring more often than people expect them to.

 

[Emerikol]

Who is this addressed to?

The OP.

 

[Emerikol]

Wheras I think some things need to be fixed when they happen, not unspooled and retroed three hours later when there's potentially been knock-on effects for the rest of the session.

Well in my games my changing the ruling is about as frequent as Haley's comet coming by so it's not worth it. I suppose if your DMs are constantly reversing themselves your milage might vary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

EDIT: Somehow posted to the wrong thread. I've reposted in the correct one. Nothing to see here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well in my games my changing the ruling is about as frequent as Haley's comet coming by so it's not worth it. I suppose if your DMs are constantly reversing themselves your milage might vary.

That just likely tells me that either A) Your judgment is so amazing that reversing yourself is unnecessary, or B) you're sticking to your guns whether its a good idea or not. I don't know you personally, but in my observation of GMs as a group, I know which one I'd bet on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because they think it will be fun. Or they think it will be challenging.

Many posters are advocating for this level of GM fiat in the process of play, specifically in this case, for the alarm spell. An alternative take on the Alarm spell was offered... one from Torchbearer 2e, in which the processes of play don't rely so heavily on GM fiat.

Do you think it's unreasonable to expect those who are advocating for the GM fiat heavy version to exercise that power?



I love when games take some kind of measures to mitigate this.

For example, in the Alien RPG, the xenomorphs have some actions that are incredibly lethal... they can easily kill a PC in one hit. So the game requires that the GM roll a die on a xeno's turn to see what action it takes. It's an effective way to disclaim decision making on the part of the GM.



I would say that you are aware of A threat, but not necessarily THE threat.

I think it's unreasonable to assume the DM will be a jerk on purpose.

 

[Emerikol]

That just likely tells me that either A) Your judgment is so amazing that reversing yourself is unnecessary, or B) you're sticking to your guns whether its a good idea or not. I don't know you personally, but in my observation of GMs as a group, I know which one I'd bet on.

Well I am experience but I also do not think minor disputes are worth changing. I don't want to reward rules lawyer behavior. If you like that then by all means encourage it. I do not. If it is egregious as I said then I would revisit it. So yes, my making an egregiously bad ruling is incredibly rare. Rules lawyers are bad and shouldn't be encouraged.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well I am experience but I also do not think minor disputes are worth changing.

"Minor" is doing some structural support in that sentence. Your idea of "minor" may not be everyones.

I don't want to reward rules lawyer behavior. If you like that then by all means encourage it. I do not. If it is egregious as I said then I would revisit it. So yes, my making an egregiously bad ruling is incredibly rare. Rules lawyers are bad and shouldn't be encouraged.

I don't consider "we actually expect to play by the rules" "rules lawyer" in any negative sense. If you do, then yes, I think that's a problem.