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

[Maxperson]

Nah, it depends on the group. In my group, and others that don’t grant supreme executive power to the DM, the DM has to follow the rules as a default, has to respect player agency, changing the rules to restrict PCs has to be agreed on my the group, etc. Breaking those rules is cheating. As is playing in bad faith /

Sure. As I said, the DM can opt to put on shackles, but that's a house rule. By RAW, though, the DM cannot cheat.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you believe that RAW allows a DM to roll a 1, look at the players, and declare he rolled a 15 and they cannot accuse him of cheating, because he is the DM. You haven't claimed, but others have, that questioning a DM on anything shows a lack of trust, and therefore they get booted. And nothing about their statements seems to take into account whether or not the DM is flagrantly lying to their players.

1. They can accuse the DM of cheating, milking a male cat or whatever else. Accusations are just accusations.
2. They would be wrong. That would not be cheating, but it would be an equally bad situation where the DM is abusing his authority.
3. Abuse of authority breeds a lack of trust in the DM. Sometimes lack of trust is the player's fault. I've seen many arguments here where it's based on nothing more than some sort of personal player fear. That's not on the DM. Sometimes it's the DM's fault and is based on power abuses. That's on him and the players should find a new DM.

And this is why I say that this is unhealthy for the game. The DM is being viewed with unquestioned, unlimited power to do anything no matter how flagrant. Meanwhile the players must abide by the rules, even if those rules change every day. That is how DnD is played in your view, unless the DM "shackles themselves" like a chained god holding back out of benevolence. This leads to more abuse by DMs on the border of "abusing their unlimited power" because while they might read it in the rules, other people and long term DMs are cheering them on, telling them that they are the unquestioned rulers of their Domains, who can do anything they want as long as their players behave and don't act out.

You're drastically overgeneralizing based on the words of a very few people on a forum with a very small percent of the player base, though. Extremes are bad. Trying to change a game based on a few examples of extremes is itself an extreme reaction and is also bad.

I'm not talking individually at the table. Why do you think DMs abuse their "authority"?

It rarely happens, but when it does it's almost always a character flaw of the DM, which none of your "fixes" actually fix. The solution as I point out above is to get a new DM.

So, trying to cheat, but being technically unable to, doesn't mean you didn't cheat. The intent was there, you just have someone defining your actions in such a way that you can't break any rules.

If it's impossible to cheat(the DM), it's also impossible to make an attempt to cheat. It's just the DM changing a rule per RAW. In D&D only the players can make an attempt to cheat. They can make an attempt and then either succeed or fail.

 

[jgsugden]

To answer the original question: I tell both stories.

I tell the story as the PCs experience it, without mechanics, but with anything they can perceive.

Then I tell it again with game mechanics, and highlight mechanics that the player is hearing about that the PC does not know. I don't describe a mechanic, unless the players needs to know about it, or unless it adds to the drama. If a PC makes a saving throw against a spell that has no perceptible effects if they save, I tell the player to roll a d20 - and they want it to be high. If it is high enough, I don't tell them what happened, but I will use physical clues to let the player know they had a 'close one'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What it is is the DM rolling for stakes in which the failure condition is unacceptable (to the DM at the least) and then correcting for that by ignoring the result of the die when it results in failure.

But whether someone ought to engage in that practice or instead change the stakes to make winning or losing acceptable or not roll for stakes they can't accept is up to them. I don't fudge the dice. My players don't want me to fudge the dice. It would be bad faith for me to do it. At someone else's table, it may be standard practice.

Yeah, I never understood the idea of 'fudging dice'. It only seems necessary if you have a mushroom relationship with the players, keep them in the dark and... Otherwise they know the stakes! This is the real argument for everything to be up front in play, that everyone knows what they're dicing for, what will happen if the dice come up 'bad' and what will happen if they come up 'good', and what to risk.

This was one of those places where 4e really WORKS. You pretty much know the parameters of what you will be getting into. The GM can definitely surprise you with different powers and effects, terrain, story elements, etc. but when you toss that die with 2 failures in the SC fail track, you're pretty sure where it will go if you don't make the DC! The FICTION isn't necessarily transparent, but the terms of the challenges are.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure. As I said, the DM can opt to put on shackles, but that's a house rule. By RAW, though, the DM cannot cheat.

No, group can opt to not give the DM authority that isn’t needed to run the game.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

It rarely happens, but when it does it's almost always a character flaw of the DM, which none of your "fixes" actually fix. The solution as I point out above is to get a new DM.

This is correct. Good rules can't fix a bad GM, but good rules provide clarity and provide tools to better GMs.

A GM who "abuses his authority"--a vague phrase, but I think @Chaosmancer is coming at it from the angle of "disempowering the players," or perhaps more bluntly, "screwing the players"--is distinct from poor GMing in my mind. A poor GM has problems with pacing, rules knowledge, engaging with the table, punctuality, or otherwise has habits that result in a lesser gaming experience. A GM who "abuses his authority" cannot be resolved with rules because he's not going to play by the rules anyway. He's going to run roughshod over the players whether or not the rules tell him he can or cannot do something.

 

[Oofta]

This is correct. Good rules can't fix a bad GM, but good rules provide clarity and provide tools to better GMs.

A GM who "abuses his authority"--a vague phrase, but I think @Chaosmancer is coming at it from the angle of "disempowering the players," or perhaps more bluntly, "screwing the players"--is distinct from poor GMing in my mind. A poor GM has problems with pacing, rules knowledge, engaging with the table, punctuality, or otherwise has habits that result in a lesser gaming experience. A GM who "abuses his authority" cannot be resolved with rules because he's not going to play by the rules anyway. He's going to run roughshod over the players whether or not the rules tell him he can or cannot do something.

Let's not limit people's creativity here. I've had some truly awful DMs who knew the rules inside and out and adhered to them. I've had some DMs that weren't that great at the rules that were quite good.

There are many, many ways to be a bad DM.

 

[Maxperson]

No, group can opt to not give the DM authority that isn’t needed to run the game.

What, other than find another DM, are they going to do if he says no? It's not like they have any ability to limit a DM's authority in a game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What, other than find another DM, are they going to do if he says no? It's not like they have any ability to limit a DM's authority in a game.

Sure they do. It's a group activity. The book can say whatever it wants, if the players say, "we are not doing permanent injuries", the DM's only recourse is to either not DM or go along with it, and compromise like an adult.

This is basic social dynamics.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's a clear difference 'tween the two, and the original post is clearly a case of distrusting the GM to adjudicate fairly.

I disagree. Maybe the last bit, but the rest reads to me as a player analyzing and thinking out loud, no distrust at all.

If a player is "system curious," I'm happy to to discuss mechanics (nothing I like more than "talking shop" about RPGs)...outside of the game session. Teaching mechanics as we play is one matter, halting the game to explain that Monster XYZ's special powers drains suspense and momentum.

Perhaps, but no more than the player explaining their special powers as they use them. Or stopping to confirm if they have bless or bardic inspiration, or if they are within 30 ft of the cleric for use of an aura spell or any number of other extremely common things that happen all the time.