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

[Lyxen]

Nothing says that I have to do fantasy lava in a grand way like that, but that's also the Star Wars universe, so there's no D&D "magic" lava there. If they can have non-"magic" lava like that, so can I.

Again, you can do whatever you like in your campaigns, just pointing out that there are no lava gnomes in SW either.

 

[Oofta]

There are a lot of myths about lava, including that all lava is the same, that you would sink into lava, that lava only ever erupts from the peak of a mountain and so on.

On the bright side, it didn't seem like that long ago where literal rivers of blood were things in several mods that I played. It was probably the influence of DOOM! games and similar.

P.S. Obviously lava gnomes are complete silliness. Lava elementals are, of course, the way to go.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, you can do whatever you like in your campaigns, just pointing out that there are no lava gnomes in SW either.

That is true.

 

[Oofta]

Again, you can do whatever you like in your campaigns, just pointing out that there are no lava gnomes in SW either.

Just because they're sneaky little buggers doesn't mean they don't exist!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just like you can kill someone with an ordinary hammer. Abuses don't mean the tool is bad like you want it to mean. It's a good tool regardless of these obscure abuses you keep drumming up.

Okay, but answer the question. What is this tool? Unlimited authority to do anything? "Anything" includes abuses, so why do we want a tool that definitionally has to involve abuses? Can we not try and imagine a better way?

Okay. So the rules giving DMs absolute power are bad, but you don't want them changed. Got it.

There are multiple ways to change the current status quo, but all you seem interested in is declaring that it won't work so it is a waste of time to make the attempt. Whether it is rules, culture, ect. Personally, I think you overstate what the rules allow the DM to do, so it is less of a need to change the rules, because I don't think they provide the level of authority you seem to think they do.

Nope. Bad DMs are bad because of the kind of person that they are. That doesn't change. They'd be jerks playing Monopoly or D&D(regardless of edition and rules).

And I think you are wrong. I know a guy who was a Bad DM. He was also a brand new DM and he wasn't a bad person. He simply mismanaged the game, and misunderstood how to best handle the game.

Bad DM =/= Bad Person who is incapable of change. That is a dangerous fallacy.

And the fact that the game is thriving. If bad DMs were as common as you want them to be in order to win this argument, the game wouldn't be doing anywhere near as well.

How common do I want them to be? Common enough that most people have interacted or know someone who has interacted with one? And since that seems to be relatively true, after all, I, a friend of mine, and you all share that experience, I think your point is disproven.

In fact, I think @Lyxen is about the only person I've seen on these forums who has seemed to not have had expeirenced a truly bad DM. And that is probably wrong, they probably have. So it is clearly common enough that people are aware of the issue.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yikes. Sharing your experiences make it clear why you are uncomfortable with the concept of DMs not being able to cheat. Seems like that particular DM might even have a persistent array of spells going on in the background in order to force their story hooks - some amalgamation of Compulsion, Dominate Person, Fast Friends, and/or who knows what. IMO, it is much simpler and has much better results when a DM lays down story hooks that the players choose rather than have foisted upon them. It's all about good faith play.

Did you continue with that story? If so, was it at all fun?

We tried to muddle through. He was a guest DM for just a little side adventure.

Either that session of me trying to just tell the other players they shouldn't rescue me in character (he didn't want me to tell them out of character) or the next one we went to an underground layer. A PC flew up to the ceiling to attack a creature that had came up from a pit, bobbing up and down for a spell reason from the ceiling (I can't remember why) and then a turn or two later he had a monster attack that player from the ceiling. I remember being confused, and asking why none of us had seen anything, I'd thought the ceiling was smooth stone, and I might have even wondered if it is a roper hiding as stalagmites that he hadn't described.

DM exploded at us that we metagame far too much, and after a 15 minute break he quit. We basically had to decide the entire thing was a dream and reset it all, except for a cool magic item that one character had gotten that we all liked, and tried to continue the main game from where we had left off. Left a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

Edit: Oh, and no. Really nothing about that entire game was fun. Things were changed without us having any idea why, we had to constantly try and ask leading questions to get any hint of what was going on, and use spells in ways that the game would have told us was impossible (like casting bless on the land to clear it so we could heal via hit dice and spells, which we had to interrogate a mysterious questgiver for, because that isn't even a viable target in 5e) my character was nearly completely ruined in every way, and we just felt like he was trying to force us into this story that we had no interest in and whose outcome was basically "okay heroes, which of these two great evils will you empower, because those are your only options"

 

[Lyxen]

In fact, I think @Lyxen is about the only person I've seen on these forums who has seemed to not have had expeirenced a truly bad DM. And that is probably wrong, they probably have. So it is clearly common enough that people are aware of the issue.

Why don't you say straight away that I'm a liar ? No, I've NEVER experienced a truly bad DM in 42+ years of roleplaying. People are not stupid, when they do something, it's for a reason, and you can discuss with them. Even if some DMs did things that I thought were not particularly fun, I either discussed it with them, and we found solutions, or I stopped playing with them, that's all (and even then, I think it only happened with one DM in my entire roleplaying "career" - and note that I've also had DM's have talks with me because they did not find what I did as a player really fun for them and other players, which also got me thinking, believe me or not).

But then, I'm probably more tolerant than most. I don't think a DM is truly bad for a bit of railroading. I don't feel that I'm entitled to any specific level of "player agency", if a DM decides to turn me into a wererat for stealing, I discuss that with him and we find solutions. And I also don't try to hide my favourite playstyle of the moment either, because the things I've seen on forums are a lot about a player's playstyle conflicting with the DM's and usually whining that they don't get what they feel entitled to.

So I won't do what you did and call you a straight liar about what happened to you with this "bad DM", but I would really like to hear the other side before I make my opinion about what actually happened.

My personal perspective is that, in general, as a DM, you get the players that you deserve and, as a DM, you get the players that you deserve.

 

[Lyxen]

Apologies for the length. I try to make my points as complete as possible to avoid misunderstandings.

You know what, I was about to apologise in turn, but after you just called me a liar in another post, I don't think I will.

You find my language combative and confrontational, I just suggest you reading yours with an open mind, and seeing if you don't find that in your own speech> some examples below.

After that, when you say "By the rules, the player is not incorrect in assuming that they will know when a spell is cast", it's just another of skewed reading of the rules. Just to point something, when you say "the casting of a spell is noticeable" (and I put you to the test here, PROVE to me that it is), does it meant that it is noticed ? No, it just means that it COULD be noticed, and the game leaves it completely to the DM as to things are noticed or not. Almost everything in the rules are left to a DM's interpretation anyway, but you insist, despite everything in the rules also telling you that it's up to the DM, to have a player feel entitled to cite the rules to the DM to demand "justice". I just don't. Your perspective here is a 3e one, and even per the RAW, it's wrong, so please don't come and try to insist that anything in the rules that you really seem to stick to is on your side. It's really interesting how some parts of the rules are holy to you and others completely ignored. Don't you think that you are missing a few things there ?

I think almost everyone here has told you why they think that a DM can't cheat, so I won't continue here, in particular because I find it funny that you accuse me of being extreme in my examples and in turn bring "what if a DM uses weighted dice" as an example. Not only is it ridiculous but even if a DM ended up doing this, all it takes is for the DM to decide that the rule is that he is allowed to for it stop being cheating.

As for the designer's "blurb", yes I will continue quoting it as a proof that you are just sticking to the letter of some rules rather than understanding the spirit of the game. No, to play, there is no obligation to read the rules for your class. Or for spellcasting even if you are a spellcaster (and if you think that there is, please prove it). I have initiated lots of people to the game and they played really well without reading a single sentence of the rules because they understood the spirit of it. And yes, my view on that spirit is supported by many section of the game itself, where as how can you optimise when it's not necessary to read all the rules, you might have missed the section that actually provided the optimisation.

As for the "lead storyteller" vs. "referee", I actually agree that they should not be opposed, and it was actually the apology that I was going to make at the start, because although our games are really different, I think that they still share some common element because you (at least I hope) and I are not extremists. But seeing the types of examples that you pull out to try and prove that DM could be cheating, or about the fact that a spell being cast has to be noticed really shows me that I don't think that we have much to discuss, especially when you are calling me a liar straight to my face.

And yes, coming back to this thread, I do believe that the player was hounding the DM to death, we have a real life example and not a completely hypothetical one. This attitude is not normal in that game, and the player's playstyle is clearly not the one that the DM is running at the table. Seeing that he is the only doing that should lead him to question the way he plays and whether it is the right table for him.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not only a question of duration of life, but of actual use. The PCs are, by the nature of their adventures, going to be thrown into extremely varied situations where they will need to work as a team (D&D is a class-based TTRPG by design). NPCs will probably have situations which are far less varied, but will probably not rely on teams.

It's not mandatory, I've used the "enemy adventuring party" a number of times and to great effect, and in that case, why not use the PC rules indeed, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

Keep in mind also that many (most?) of the NPCs encountered are going to be either non-classed commoners or 0th-level grunts; and those really need no "building" at all. Opposing NPCs e.g. bandits etc. will usually be statted out by the module.

More significant NPCs - major opponents, patrons, nobility, etc. - are likely to be either around for much longer or (in the case of opponents) will be very relevant for the short time they remain around, and thus need to be either fully statted out or put together enough such that I-as-DM know what they've got going for them.

First, "good faith" (I'm putting quotation marks here because I hope you are not saying what I think you are saying) is not a requirement of a DM.

I couldn't disagree more.

DMs playing in bad faith give rise to about 99% of the bad-DM horror stories we hear here and elsewhere; and I'll happily - and unapologetically - call out bad-faith DMing as badwrongfun all day long.

Once more, this is 5e, rulings, not rules, asking a DM to set them up before the game is not within the spirit of 5e. Nothing wrong there if you are not following that spirit, but on the other hand saying that it has to be done is wrong.

Second, once more, there is no rule whatsoever in particular in 5e that says that any person in the multiverse that has developed some power has had to use the paths that the PC use. "good faith" notwithstanding and assuming that I use your principle above (which I don't but let's just assume it), I don't want to set up such a rule in my multiverse, that's all. There are myriads of path to powers, some that the PC follows, others that they don't, there is no reason in universe to set path like it.

You're defending what are to me some of the very worst aspects of 5e; things that make it a system I don't want to use.

Monsters, sure. Githi casters are going to work totally differently from normal Elf and Human casters; and Githi are not a PC-playable species. Elves are PC-playable, however, which means either a) all Elvish casters have to follow the rules for PC casters or b) I have to change the rules for PC casters to accommodate what the NPC Elves can do.

Because the players will be able to second guess what the NPCs are doing and infer the limits and ways of working of the NPC power, and therefore technically game to gain an advantage that the players possess by knowing all the classes from the PH.

Only to a point, and only if they're used to thinking that way, and only if the NPC is an opponent. If the NPC's an ally it might even outright tell the PCs what it can do, and it will for sure if it's an adventuring NPC in the party.

Now, don't get me wrong, if a PC wizard battles a NPC wizard from the same academy, it will not be metagaming, there is a good chance that the PC wizard will have studied the exact same spells that the NPC is using. But again, that should be the exception rather than the rule.

New spells are rare things; acadamies (willingly or not) share the spells that exist; and thus Magic Missile here is going to work the same as Magic Missile a continent away. Not a biggie for me.

 

[Lanefan]

Nothing says that I have to do fantasy lava in a grand way like that, but that's also the Star Wars universe, so there's no D&D "magic" lava there. If they can have non-"magic" lava like that, so can I.

And that's one scene I've always found jarring, in that while watching it I can't help thinking that after the first minute or so those two should be nothing more than little bits of ash.