D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Chaosmancer]

Doesn't really matter what the reasoning was. It's not like the government gets it right all the time. They screw up a lot and the studies have shown over and over that laws do not prevent crimes. They simply punish them. And tickets are one of the big ways that cities get money. THAT's the reason for speed limits. Money.

And studies have also shown that they increase safety. Yes, cities get money from speeding tickets. That doesn't invalidate the safety concerns, and after 120 years, I think it would be more controversial to have them if they were utterly pointless. People still get drunk and drive. Yes, laws punish those people for engaging in that behavior. But also, because the laws exist, some people don't get drunk and then drive, because they know they shouldn't and they could get in trouble for doing so.

I will never say that laws prevent all crime from ever happening, but they do reduce it. Because some people won't break the law, but would do the activity if it wasn't breaking the law.

You keep saying that the DM should not have ultimate power. Well, the only way to get what you want is to change the rules, so those rules are what you want to implement.

So, because I want to change the perception of DM authority, my proposed rules won't work. And you can't tell me what those rules are (because I never proposed any) just that I must be planning on proposing rules, because that is the only way to change things, is to implement rules.

Well, this will obviously be a useful discussion as you knock down a fake facsimile of my point to prove that rules I never proposed will never work. Good job beating up a fake argument to strengthen your own. If only we had a word for that...

That's so convoluted that I don't even know what you are trying to say there, but it's probably not my opinion.

It's pretty simple. You keep arguing that any changes we make to how the game is perceived and talked about will be ignored by DMs who are abusing their authority, because they will just keep doing the things they are doing. But that ignores the fact that societal pressures and expectations can change, and can cause changes in people who are on the border. Sure, the worst DM offenders will never stop, but nothing will ever stop them, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on preventing more people from sliding down that slope.

It's RAW, not a premise.

And it is still arguing to keep the status quo because it is the status quo. Can you stop nitpicking terminology long enough to actually engage with the point I'm making? I've spent half this post just re-explaining the last post and just asking the same questions, because you refuse to actually discuss anything. If you don't want to do more than declare "RAW!!!!" as loudly as you can, congrats, you've done that. Disengage. If you are actually interested in a discussion, then stop ignoring what I'm saying and causing me to continuously repeat myself.

And yes, I know. "You can't tell me what to do or what to write". As you always respond, but seriously, you are just wasting both of our times if you aren't going to actually discuss anything. You've planted your flag. Congrats. Either engage in a discussion, or move on and leave that flag waving proudly.

Yes I can, but asking the player to make accounts so that they can tell you something you aren't going to believe anyway is too much hassle. I'm not going to do that.

Accounts of what? Are you going to somehow create a seperate DnD microcosm of different beliefs, teach new people to play in that microcosm, and then show that they exhibit identical behaviors to people who grew up in the main DnD culture? I'd be impressed if you could actually pull that off.

It just means that they are a small minority. They happen, but not often enough to be a real issue.

Seems like they have been a real enough issue to drive people from the game, force large numbers of DMs to take up the title and work to be better, and spawn entire websites full of examples. I mean, you've had bad DMs, I've had bad DMs, Matt Mercer had at least one Bad DM, my friend Kyle had multiple bad DMs, I'm sure many people on these forums have had bad DMs. For a "small minority" it seems pretty widespread.

Your example was wildly different.

My example was proving a trend. I never even claimed they were identical scenarios. This is like you saying I can't use steam coming off soup to say the soup is hot based on what I know about water, because comparing soup and water is a false equivalence. I never claimed they were identical, just pointing to evidence for comparison.

So truth is bad, because it's the basis of social change? Got it.

You wanted to say that "going forward with the truth" is healty. Well, back in 1776, the land that became the United States of America was in truth a British Colony. If they had just "gone with the truth" and let the status quo remain, they would have stayed a British Colony.

Does this mean that truth is bad? No. But it can mean that just being "true" doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be changed. Climate Change is True, doesn't mean we shouldn't be acting to change it, because it is kind of bad for us. Going forward as we are with fossil fuels isn't healthy. Just saying "but it is true that our power relies on fossil fuels, so you can't change it." is dangerous.

Just wow. You challenge me for saying you want to change the rules in one breath, and then argue(again) to change them in the next.

You said my proposed rules won't work. I've never proposed any rules. I have acknowledged that if there are rules that need to be changed, we should change them. That is not the same as proposing new rules.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But its also something that 5e has consciously moved away from.... love it or hate it.... NPC rules are no longer the same as PC rules. Personally I think its much improved but I admit its a personal preference. That said it does help my argument, the DM can easily insert NPC only rules to create specific effects that they want to use.

Yes to this. And the NPCs presented in the 5e MM and other books are essentially simplified PCs. It's a great convenience for the DM to have it this way and, if it enhances the encoutner, to be able to add one or two special abilities to an NPC or any monster for that matter. I mean, if the DM had to run an encounter with multiple NPCs like they were fully fledged PCs... yeah, that would be so onerous as to make it something to be avoided at all costs.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't think anyone completely disagrees with you, but there is also the other side of this. Where the DM fudges against the players consistently, because the players succeeded just barely, but the DM wants to see this cool effect happen anyways. Or they built the scenario around the PCs failing, so they just nudge it in that direction.

Like you said, it isn't black and white, and there are also bad reasons to fudge. And getting too used to fudging in your own favor can potentially lead to increasingly blatant acts and eventually start harming the game instead of increasing fun.

The bolded bits have less to do with fudging and more to do with a DM engaging in railroading to make their own story happen. The fudging is just the chosen tool in this case. I mean, really? Building a scenario around the PCs failing and fudging die rolls to ensure it? DMs should be focused on building interesting challenges - presenting the players with in-world problems and letting the players attempt to solve them. In the case where something comes up that truly is impossible, then that should be clearly telegraphed to the players - in which case there are no rolls and the players' solution can be to avoid that particular encounter for the present time. Fudging need not play a role (or roll) here.

 

[Maxperson]

And studies have also shown that they increase safety. Yes, cities get money from speeding tickets. That doesn't invalidate the safety concerns, and after 120 years, I think it would be more controversial to have them if they were utterly pointless. People still get drunk and drive. Yes, laws punish those people for engaging in that behavior. But also, because the laws exist, some people don't get drunk and then drive, because they know they shouldn't and they could get in trouble for doing so.

I will never say that laws prevent all crime from ever happening, but they do reduce it. Because some people won't break the law, but would do the activity if it wasn't breaking the law.

You don't design a game around a small minority of people. The vast majority of bad DMs will still be bad and abuse their authority, regardless of what you want written in the game. Meanwhile you would ruin a great tool for a great many DMs.

So, because I want to change the perception of DM authority, my proposed rules won't work. And you can't tell me what those rules are (because I never proposed any) just that I must be planning on proposing rules, because that is the only way to change things, is to implement rules.

Your proposed rules are rules to limit DM authority. Those won't work. Virtually the bad DMs will still abuse their authority.

Well, this will obviously be a useful discussion as you knock down a fake facsimile of my point to prove that rules I never proposed will never work. Good job beating up a fake argument to strengthen your own. If only we had a word for that...

There is no fake argument. Your rules(those rules which limit DM power, regardless of specific wording) won't work. I don't need you to have come up with specific wording to argue against your stated argument. Just in case you've forgotten already.

" It seems to me that if you think the rules justify bad behavior, then we might want to look at those rules and consider if they need adjusting."

Those rules "adjustments"(new rules) won't work.

It's pretty simple. You keep arguing that any changes we make to how the game is perceived and talked about will be ignored by DMs who are abusing their authority, because they will just keep doing the things they are doing. But that ignores the fact that societal pressures and expectations can change, and can cause changes in people who are on the border. Sure, the worst DM offenders will never stop, but nothing will ever stop them, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on preventing more people from sliding down that slope.

Societal pressures, otherwise known as the social contract have already failed if the DM is abusing his power. Making new rules won't change someone like that.

Accounts of what? Are you going to somehow create a seperate DnD microcosm of different beliefs, teach new people to play in that microcosm, and then show that they exhibit identical behaviors to people who grew up in the main DnD culture? I'd be impressed if you could actually pull that off.

I've claimed that many people I know and game with have enjoyed playing in games where the DM had ultimate authority. They would just need to say, "yes I did." and I have proven it. It's a waste of bloody time, though and I'm not going to ask that of them.

Seems like they have been a real enough issue to drive people from the game, force large numbers of DMs to take up the title and work to be better, and spawn entire websites full of examples. I mean, you've had bad DMs, I've had bad DMs, Matt Mercer had at least one Bad DM, my friend Kyle had multiple bad DMs, I'm sure many people on these forums have had bad DMs. For a "small minority" it seems pretty widespread.

Yes. The very rare bad DMs are a small issue that have driven a relatively small number of players from the game. Out of the dozens of DMs I've played with, I've come across a couple as well. I left those games and found a better DM.

You wanted to say that "going forward with the truth" is healty. Well, back in 1776, the land that became the United States of America was in truth a British Colony. If they had just "gone with the truth" and let the status quo remain, they would have stayed a British Colony.

Truth and status quo are two different things that you are conflating there. The truth is that England was oppressive and many colonists wanted to be free of Britain.

You said my proposed rules won't work. I've never proposed any rules. I have acknowledged that if there are rules that need to be changed, we should change them. That is not the same as proposing new rules.

Sure it is. You just didn't propose specific new rules. You did propose new rules, though. The rules you proposed be added to reduce DM power must be new, because there are no old ones to do it. Therefore you proposed new rules. Let me give you an example.

Friend: "There aren't any cars out there that I want to buy, but I want to replace my car. What do you think the solution is?"

Me: "I propose new cars."

Now, did I propose a specific new car? No. I did propose new cars, though. Just like you proposed new rules, even though you didn't get specific with just what those rules would be.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think anyone completely disagrees with you, but there is also the other side of this. Where the DM fudges against the players consistently, because the players succeeded just barely, but the DM wants to see this cool effect happen anyways. Or they built the scenario around the PCs failing, so they just nudge it in that direction.

The other side you mention there is an extremely small number of bad DMs, none of which are even on the forum as far as I'm aware.

 

[Oofta]

I am happy that my players don't try to figure out the mechanics behind monsters. I'd think it's a slippery slope. If all monsters should be built with the same rules as PCs, what about vehicles, traps, weather phenomena, buildings? Next thing the rules lawyer is gonna tell me you can't really have a lava river running through a dungeon because realistically the atmosphere would be toxic and lethally hot my monsters shouldn't survive.

TL;DR: I want a lava river in a dungeon, so zero transparency on mechanics when I am the DM.

Well, to be fair, lava rivers really should give off toxic gases in an enclosed space. And how does that lava continue to flow endlessly? Shouldn't it cool down at least a little and then build up? What keeps it molten hot? What about temperature control? So many questions!

 

[Maxperson]

Well, to be fair, lava rivers really should give off toxic gases in an enclosed space. And how does that lava continue to flow endlessly? Shouldn't it cool down at least a little and then build up? What keeps it molten hot? What about temperature control? So many questions!

Lava gnomes. The little buggers work hard.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, to be fair, lava rivers really should give off toxic gases in an enclosed space. And how does that lava continue to flow endlessly? Shouldn't it cool down at least a little and then build up? What keeps it molten hot? What about temperature control? So many questions!

1. No, because of Magic
2. Magic
3. No, because of Magic
4. Magic.
5. Magical

Real world flowing lava would cook anything coming within a few meters anyway, you wouldn't even have time to suffocate.

But once more, D&D's aim is not to be realistic. The aim it so simulate the genre books and movies, in which the only dangers about lava is falling in, otherwise it's mostly scenic and provides good lighting.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Next thing the rules lawyer is gonna tell me you can't really have a lava river running through a dungeon because realistically the atmosphere would be toxic and lethally hot my monsters shouldn't survive.

TL;DR: I want a lava river in a dungeon, so zero transparency on mechanics when I am the DM.

This has nothing to do with mechanics whatsoever.

 

[Oofta]

1. No, because of Magic
2. Magic
3. No, because of Magic
4. Magic.
5. Magical

Real world flowing lava would cook anything coming within a few meters anyway, you wouldn't even have time to suffocate.

But once more, D&D's aim is not to be realistic. The aim it so simulate the genre books and movies, in which the only dangers about lava is falling in, otherwise it's mostly scenic and provides good lighting.

So, in other words, a wizard did it.