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

[Yora]

Ok 300 posts in, has anyone changed their point of view yet?

When people cut quotes into individual sentences to reply to each one separately, it's no longer about sharing ideas, but all about winning.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize my own uncertainty about your entire 42+ years of playing DnD, and acknowleding I don't know your entire life now counts as lying. Next time I'll just make sweeping claims about your life with no acknowledgement that I could possibly be wrong about that.

No, this is not what you did. You took a specific statement of mine and just straight up said that I was wrong about my own experience. Very different.

The thing is that I am very open about my experiences because it avoids bad faith arguments and prevents people making generalisations and using ridiculous examples that never happen in real life (like a DM using weighted dice). Why don't you try it, basing your examples and demonstrations on actual examples ?

1) I have never said people are stupid, not sure why this is coming up. Miscommunication and mismatched expectations are not signs of stupidity.

And for you, if it's only "miscommunication and mismatched expectations", where do the horror stories come from ?

2) I'm glad you've discussed with people, but since you quit at least one game, it seems my gut that you might have had a "Bad DM" once in multiple decades of play wasn't too far off.

And again, you are mistaken. My reason for quitting that game was because what they expected in terms of playstyle did not match what I expect in terms of fun. They wanted an extremely technical game that was only about fighting, I did not. Nothing wrong about their style, it's just not what I like to play.

I'm glad that you ended up feeling like the DM wasn't abusing their power over the game and you two just had different aesthetic tastes, but it also shows it was a good thing I didn't make a sweeping statement about your expeirences... oh wait, "that I called you a liar". Which I didn't.

Which you did, here is the sentence: "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."

Please explain to me how this is not calling me a liar.

Wow. So, again, I didn't call you a liar. All I did was not make a claim about your experiences based off a half-remembered post from weeks ago and your general responses over the last few weeks of our interactions. Lay off the hair-trigger next time.

See above.

I also don't think it is "entitlement" to complain about DMs railroading and some of the other things that have been reported or that I have personally experienced. You might personally have thicker skin about that, but labeling players as whiners doesn't really come across as fair.

Yes, of course, railroading is a capital offense, right. Anyone doing it in their game is a really bad DM, who should be banned from DMing and should be put on a list to be monitored so that players can avoid playing with him ever again.

Factually, a lot of published adventures contain a fair bit of railroading, some more than others, but I've also head players complain about areas which feel too much like a sandbox. It's again just a question of playstyle (and, by the way, when designing our LARPs, we ask each player what he expects to find, a more guided adventure or a more sandboxy one). It's just a question of preference so yes, complaining about railroading and calling a DM "a truly bad DM" because of that is very probably truly bad in itself.

Also, your personal perspective is a bit abominable if you really mean that literally. Because it is very much a type of victim blaming, where if you have a player or DM who is abusive towards you, you generally deserved that.

Nothing forces you to stay and support abuse in TTRPGs. This is not a life choice, It's at worst one evening of entertainment that you choose to participate in. If you don't like it, just walk out.

You get the players or the DMs who are available. Sometimes that means you meet really awesome people who you become lifelong friends with. Other times it means you have a horrible experience that ruins weeks of your life trying to deal with naughty word people. You make do with what you get, and try and sort through the bad to find the good.

Honestly, I'm glad your experiences have been so positive. You are lucky. Others aren't.

See above. Believe me, for a number of reasons which will, in that case, remain private, I am truly horrified by abuse, whether it's (usual examples) familial or work-related. But equating that to abuse that you could get at a TTRPG table that is only entertainment and that you can get out of at any time with no more consequence than losing one evening of potential fun is for me totally unjustified. Moreover, if some of the people there are really friends, and the abuse is real, these friends should support you.

It's impossible for most people to go through life without family and a job, but D&D is only light entertainment and the guiding principle should be "No D&D is better than bad D&D" because D&D is not a necessity of life.

That being said, I'm also really sorry if you received real abuse, because that is bad. But where I stop following you is calling railroading abuse.

So, I tried to be very careful in my phrasing there. "the player is no incorrect" was a specifically chosen phrase. Because I'm not saying that they were right. As you aggressively point out while deriding me about players citing rules and demanding justice (again, never said that, that never came up, so why are you using such inflammatory language), the DM could determine differently.

However, it is a reasonable assumption on the part of the player that Passive Perception combined with the Xanathar's rules that state "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component." that they are supposed to know when a spell is cast.

You can wave the flag and call upon DM Fiat that the DM determined that wasn't so because reasons, but my point was simply that unless the DM stated otherwise, the players would not be automatically incorrect in their assumption. And yes, the players have to make assumptions. You couldn't play the game otherwise with people declaring that the DM can change anything and everything whenever they wish.

Bu they can, it's the principle of the game. The players know only the world through the DM's description of it anyway, so whether the DM makes changes or not could be totally transparent to them, they will never know. This is why the most important thing at a table is trusting your DM. It's totally pointless to do otherwise. He is, literally, the master of the world.

And if, as in the OP's example, the DM has described what your character saw, then it's fine to make assumptions, but that is what the character saw, nothing more and nothing less. The player has zero entitlement to drill the DM for ten times as long because he wants to gain a purely technical advantage.

Which is my point. I bring a massively extreme example, something no one would actually do because it is so flagrant, and the community response is that if the DM rules they can use weighted dice, then those are the rules of the game. No matter how extreme I go, you'll justify it.

I'm not justifying the DM (there is no need here, because the example is absurd), just pointing out that it would still not be cheating, by the definitions of the word.

All the while calling players whiners and that even asking the DM questions at the wrong time is hounding them to death over any technical advantage.

No-one said that asking questions now and then is forbidden but coming back to a real example, re-read the OP's post. It's not even his character...

How did they fill out a character sheet with abilities if they never read the rules? Have you ever had a rogue use Cunning Action? How about a Druid use Wildshape? The only way they can do these things is by reading the rules to know they can, unless instead you just verbally relayed to them all of the rules for their character, which is practically the same thing.

Ah but it's not. Not at all. I just tell them "you can turn in any animal no larger than a bear", and that is a sufficient explanation. As a DM, I handle all the technical details and limitations, and if some limitations are thrown out of the window now and then (local rulings), who cares as long as everyone is having fun ?

And please don't start on the "if you're not using (all) the rules, it's not D&D", these same rules actually point out extremely precisely that it IS playing D&D, and that is is exactly what the spirit of at least this edition is about (I agree that it was not the same with 3e and in particular 4e, although house ruling was covered in both cases).

And if a fighter came to you and said they use wildshape, because they have a deep connection to the forest, and you didn't let them because they don't have that ability... then you have enforced the rules of the classes. Despite the fact that there are character's in fiction whose story was exactly that.

And they still have not read any single word of the rules.

You are obviously going to keep judging me though, because it seems that you've already figured out everything there is to know about how I run games and how I abide by "the spirit of DnD". And it isn't like I haven't proven you wrong about me and my intentions multiple times, even in this very post.

I have seen nothing of the kind.

A thing I never did. And my examples were purposefully extreme

Absurdly so, and confrontational.

, because the position I was against was an absolute. For an absolute to be true, absolutely, then it is true even in the face of something extreme. And showing that even in the face of the most extreme and ridiculous examples

You mean, like a DM using weighted dice ?

people will defend the DMs absolute right to do anything, I hope that I've shown at least some people that we may have a problem. Because once you tell someone that they can use weighted dice as long as they say they can use weighted dice, and declare that players should never assume anything is true, but also not ask the wrong questions, you have empowered people to be abusive. Not everyone will. Most people won't. But some people will. Some people do. And since I don't need to use weighted dice, and have no desire to fudge hp or Ac... I don't need that much power bestowed upon me.

As I see it, the problem is that you are confounding the objective and the means. My objective is for my players to have fun. If, to reach that goal, I use means that you don't like (e.g. railroading, fudging), etc. you have ZERO right to call that cheating or abuse, which is exactly what you are doing in this thread. So stop it, it's badwrongfun all over the place.

Play your game the way you like it with your own enforced limitations, but don't call other DMs cheaters or abusers because they use different tools now and then.

By the way, for me, what potentially makes a DM bad is not the means he employs, it's when his intent on running the game is not directly linked to his players having fun (like being on a power trip), but once more "no D&D is better than bad D&D" and if simple mature out of the game discussion to clarify it does not give you what you expect, just walk away, there is zero reason to suffer abuse.

Maybe it should. Or maybe he has poor social skills. Or maybe is trying to be better, and changing yourself is hard. But "hounding the DM to death" is hyperbolic and certainly extreme. Maybe the OP would agree with you, but for me, I have dealt with far worse. It can sometimes be annoying, but I can understand that the intent behind it may not be malicious. And kicking a player from your table should be reserved for malicious behavior, not annoying behavior.

And kicking a player from the table (which I've never done on my own, just done I think twice because all the players agreed that playing with a specific person was just not feasible) is not malicious either. It's just a parting of ways because people have different expectations of what makes a simple game fun.

So if a player annoys the table and does nothing to change his behaviour, is just a realisation that maybe, they are not meant to game together, not a personal insult. Just as with different playstyles.

And if a DM annoys you with too much railroading, but it's his style and you prefer a more open style, which do you think is better ? A simple parting of way because you don't have the same expectations of calling him a really bad DM and saying that he abused your entitled player's agency ? This is why, in these cases, I really like to hear all sides of the story...

I played tennis with my cousin once, and we were having fun just playing exchanges. Then he insisted on playing a match, which I easily won 6-0 because I (used to) have a killer service. We never played tennis together again, because for him it's all about competitive play and winning. He is still my cousin, I see him regularly and we have fun together, we just don't play tennis together.

 

[Helldritch]

WOW, 300+ posts and lots of walls of text...
Roll on the open, or hide your roll is just a matter of preference and transparency As long as the DM and players are having fun, it is just a matter of play style.

What is also very important is that people at the the respect each others.

A DM should not force his preferences onto his players. And neither should the players. We are building stories. These stories might not see the heroes winning all the time, but it is the journey that is interesting. The heroes winning is just icing on the cake.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A DM should not force his preferences onto his players. And neither should the players.

Preferences in D&D are like toppings on pizza.

1. It's best when everyone agrees on the toppings.

2. But New Zealand's toppings are the Bard; all right-minded people look and say, "Yeah, you don't put canned spaghetti on your pizza."

 

[Helldritch]

Preferences in D&D are like toppings on pizza.

1. It's best when everyone agrees on the toppings.

This is why me and my players (12 of them, 2 groups of 6 players) are voting on the optional rules we will use for a campaign. This gives us a common ground by which we all abide.

 

[Oofta]

When people cut quotes into individual sentences to reply to each one separately, it's no longer about sharing ideas, but all about winning.

Isn't it almost always about winning after the first few pages?

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't it almost always about winning after the first few pages?

Would it help if I invoke Charlie Sheen?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Isn't it almost always about winning after the first few pages?

I have it on good authority that no matter what is ever intended, when you make a post, it's only because you want to win!

So I guess that from the OP on, it's just pure Charlie Sheen #winning. Right?



EDIT: kinda'd by @Maxperson

 

[zach weaver1]

I'm curious where the rest of you DM's tend to draw the line between in-game observations and OOC info? For example, I have a player in my group who is laser-focused on combat mechanics, and generally assumes that every die rolled in combat should be unambiguously identified to players along with its associated game mechanic. Here's a fictitious-but-typical exchange from our table:

• Me: "The bandit archer stands up from behind the barrel. He points his finger directly at <PC-1> and mutters something before drawing back his bow and firing."
• Roll 1d20 => 17 "He hits!"
• Roll 1d8+1 (arrow damage + DEX bonus) => 2+1
• Roll 1d6 (Hunter's Mark) => 3
• Me: "<PC-1> takes 6 points of piercing damage."
• Player5: "Wait, how is that 6 points? Why did you roll another die? Is he a rogue? <PC-1> isn't flanked, so there shouldn't be sneak attack damage."
• Me: "Right, <PC-1> isn't flanked. It looked like that shot was extremely well-placed, though. <PC-1> takes 6 points of piercing damage."
• Player5: "It's all piercing damage? So it's not an elemental buff. Is he a Ranger? Oh, <PC-1> was already wounded, is it extra damage from Colossus Slayer? Isn't that a d8? Wait, did you roll a d6 or a d8?"
• Me: "You did notice him doing something right before he fired. Does anyone want to make an Arcana check?"
• Player5: "Why should I have to roll Arcana? Clearly he took more damage. We should know where it came from, we all saw what happened."

You get the idea. Obviously we have different ideas about how transparent the game mechanics are to in-game characters. To him, we're playing a wargame with certain rules and there's a bias towards "perfect information" so players can adapt to the strengths/weaknesses of the pieces in play. To me, there's no reason the characters would automatically have that information. As far as the characters are concerned, that bad guy did something, maybe you recognize what happened, maybe you don't.

We've had OOC discussions about this a couple of times outside of session, and it's not like those have been hugely adversarial . But every time I think I've explained how I want to run the game, it crops up in some very slightly different context. Like, we put the issue of bonus damage dice to rest, but then when an NPC has Haste up and takes an extra action, there's a five-minute holdup at the table ("That's two actions!! He can't take disengage as a bonus action unless he has cunning action or something, so he wouldn't be able to attack.") and we're back to square one.

I know there's no silver bullet that will put this all to rest, but this constant back-and-forth has got me curious about what is the "most common" way of handling this stuff? Just wondering if I'm out on the fringes here, or more near the median. ;-)

Your player is associating player class abilities to NPCs. He needs to understand that NPCs aren't player characters, and don't follow the same rules as classes. They have different abilities. I'd tell him that if they had class abilities, they'd be doing a hell of a lot more damage.

 

[Oofta]

Would it help if I invoke Charlie Sheen?

But how do you get those potions of Tiger Blood? Aren't they Rare?