DMs not playing by the rules (Forked Thread: What are the no-goes for you?)

[coyote6]

It doesn't sound like it was much of a psychology experiment, though, unless you were purposefully altering results to see how players reacted. They took you at your word (as to what game was being played), and believed the results you reported; at most, it was a test of their ability to figure out what you were up to.

We used to play games like that -- no rules, you'd roll, and if you rolled well (in this case, we used d%, so the goal was rolling low), the GM said you did good. There were no hard-and-fast rules, no real character sheets (just name, facts, and "my guy's a good shot" & the like), and lots of GM decisions. It was a blast, too. Thing is, though, is that we all knew that's what we were playing.

I suspect I would be annoyed if I found out a GM was lying about what game we were playing.

Edit: apologies if the above sounds snarky or obnoxious, I wrote it in a hurry. But it doesn't sound like a psychological experiment to me; just kind of, I dunno, a bit rude, by way of not trusting the players to go along.

 

[ggroy]

it was a test of their ability to figure out what you were up to.

This was essentially what I was looking for.

I was hoping the "rules lawyer" type guy would have been the first to figure out exactly what I was doing, but it turns out he didn't. This "rules lawyer" guy was also very tough too when it came to rules type arguments.

I suspect I would be annoyed if I found out a GM was lying about what game we were playing.

I certainly would be too. The smarter GM's who pull off such stunts on a regular basis without being caught, probably won't even say a word about it. They'll just take their "secret" with them to their graves.

I suppose if I had told the players about my "experiment" immediately after the game campaign was over, most likely they would have been flabbergasted or even really pissed about it. After a year or so later, my game wasn't in the forefront of their minds any longer. The players thought it was kind of amusing in hindsight.

The "rules lawyer" guy asked me more about what I was doing during the "experiment", where I mentioned things which I thought he could have noticed. Apparently he didn't notice any of these things at first as being obvious. The only thing he mentioned which looked really off, were the wildly different attack rolls which hit and didn't hit. He attributed that to my use of a "defense roll" every time a monster/badguy was attacked by a player. Sometimes his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 10, while other times his fighter completely missed on a total attack roll of an 17 or 18. On the next round, his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 17. (The total attack roll is the d20 with all the modifiers added in).

 

[coyote6]

The "rules lawyer" guy asked me more about what I was doing during the "experiment", where I mentioned things which I thought he could have noticed. Apparently he didn't notice any of these things at first as being obvious. The only thing he mentioned which looked really off, were the wildly different attack rolls which hit and didn't hit. He attributed that to my use of a "defense roll" every time a monster/badguy was attacked by a player. Sometimes his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 10, while other times his fighter completely missed on a total attack roll of an 17 or 18. On the next round, his fighter was able to hit on a total attack roll of 17. (The total attack roll is the d20 with all the modifiers added in).

Yeah, if one is (theoretically ) using defense rolls, it would be difficult to figure out what the opponent's AC is, which in turn makes it extremely hard to figure out that your attack total isn't actually relevant to whether you hit or not.

Essentially, what you were doing was replacing the d20+attack bonus >= AC test with a "roll a d20, and I compare (on my own grounds) your offensive might with their defensive might, then decide if your number is pleasingly large enough to hit them." If your comparisons are consistent enough, it'd be almost indistinguishable, with the "defense roll" as camouflage. You'd have to screw up for them to notice.

Probably be easier to notice discrepancies in damage.

(Hmm, I'm thinking you had a smaller playing surface than we use, or way better eyesight than me -- I can't see the numbers rolled by the players at the other end of the table, or read the numbers on some of the muddled dice people use. Beware the old-school dice with non-colored-in numbers!)

So, what if one or several players noticed what you were up to, and decided to change the game they were playing without telling you?

 

[ggroy]

Yeah, if one is (theoretically ) using defense rolls, it would be difficult to figure out what the opponent's AC is, which in turn makes it extremely hard to figure out that your attack total isn't actually relevant to whether you hit or not.

Essentially, what you were doing was replacing the d20+attack bonus >= AC test with a "roll a d20, and I compare (on my own grounds) your offensive might with their defensive might, then decide if your number is pleasingly large enough to hit them." If your comparisons are consistent enough, it'd be almost indistinguishable, with the "defense roll" as camouflage. You'd have to screw up for them to notice.

In my other previous games played legitimately according to the 3.5E rules, I used the "defense roll" mechanic on the monsters largely as a way of speeding up the combat. I gave the players the option of making their own "defense rolls" every time they got hit, but many largely declined for the most part.

Back in the days of 1E AD&D, I did play for awhile with a "defense roll" type of mechanic for both the players and the monsters/badguys. (The defense roll was 10-AC added to the d20 roll). At the time I didn't have the 1E AD&D DMG, but I did had the Moldvay B/X box sets which had some combat tables. I didn't know how much different the combat tables were in the 1E DMG at the time. Nevertheless, the "defense roll" mechanic made it easy to play without having any of the combat tables.

Probably be easier to notice discrepancies in damage.

For the damage the badguys made on the players, I actually rolled the proper dice and actually quoted the correct damage. This was done largely to keep up the facade.

Hmm, I'm thinking you had a smaller playing surface than we use, or way better eyesight than me -- I can't see the numbers rolled by the players at the other end of the table, or read the numbers on some of the muddled dice people use.

I made a rule that everybody had to roll dice in the middle of the table, and that I had to explicitly see all dice rolls the players made. I even had an old large flat tray placed in the middle of the table, which I used for this purpose. If the players had dice I considered "unacceptable", I just asked them to choose another one or I just loaned them one of mine for the game.

Beware the old-school dice with non-colored-in numbers!

I had several of those from my old basic set D&D box set.

So, what if one or several players noticed what you were up to, and decided to change the game they were playing without telling you?

The con being "conned".

This may very well could have been happening. I didn't detect anything obvious which would have given them away to such a conspiracy.

I asked the "rules lawyer" guy what he would have done if he had detected my "experiment". His answer was that he definitely would have called me out on it, and stormed out from the game in anger over being deceived.

 

[coyote6]

In my other previous games played legitimately according to the 3.5E rules, I used the "defense roll" mechanic on the monsters largely as a way of speeding up the combat.

How did an extra roll speed things up? My experience is that having to roll for defense slows things down, since it's adding a roll (usually a tiny amount, but it definitely doesn't speed it up).

For the damage the badguys made on the players, I actually rolled the proper dice and actually quoted the correct damage. This was done largely to keep up the facade.

Right, but even the monster damage system would seem easier to figure out -- if Joe is fighting with a dagger for some reason, hits orc #1 and drops him with a crit (a natural 20) that does 9 pts of damage (bad damage roll, but irrelevant under the secret game system), but two rounds later, Kate hits orc #2 (who was just as injured or not as orc #1) with a max damage full-Power Attack for 18 pts, and doesn't drop him, that's a clue that something weird is going on, damage-wise.

I made a rule that everybody had to roll dice in the middle of the table, and that I had to explicitly see all dice rolls the players made. I even had an old large flat tray placed in the middle of the table, which I used for this purpose. If the players had dice I considered "unacceptable", I just asked them to choose another one or I just loaned them one of mine for the game.

I think that would've made me suspicious right away.

We game mostly at my buddy's house, and he made our gaming table -- 4 ft x 8 ft., covered in some kind of lightly padded plastic that's marked with a 1 inch grid (I have no idea where they got it from). So with players at either end, it's too big to have everyone roll in one area, at least comfortably.

I had several of those from my old basic set D&D box set.

I think I still have my original basic set D&D dice somewhere, but they're pretty thrashed -- I don't think there's a proper edge or point left on any of 'em.

This may very well could have been happening. I didn't detect anything obvious which would have given them away to such a conspiracy.

I dunno, if I was one of the players, I'd be tempted to do it in a game you ran now, y'know? "Revenge is a dish best served cold", and what-not.

 

[Fifth Element]

Dig down into the 3.5 mechanics, and that's basically how it works anyway. The biggest tip-off would have been a character who should be better than another at doing something having no advantage with that system. Of course, in many D&D games, characters generally stick to doing what they do best, so that might not have come up.

You weren't using a radically different ruleset, so while the rules-lawyery types probably should have caught on, it's not surprising the more casual players didn't.

 

[ggroy]

How did an extra roll speed things up? My experience is that having to roll for defense slows things down, since it's adding a roll (usually a tiny amount, but it definitely doesn't speed it up).

In my legitimate 3.5E games, I only did defense rolls for the monsters when they were attacked. The players were largely not interested in rolling any defense rolls every time they got hit. I was fine with this arrangement.

With just the monsters doing defense rolls, it didn't slow things down anymore than usual. Without sounding silly, I did roll a lot of low numbers for the badguy's defense rolls, which made my players very happy. So some players were able to hit a badguy with a total attack roll of 6 or 7 sometimes.

I suppose one way to really weaken the monsters and to make the encounters really speed up, is to do a defense roll and only use the defense roll if it is lower than the monster's static AC. Occasionally I did resort to this in my legitimate 3.5E games, if I felt the players were being slaughtered too quickly than I anticipated.

In my 1E AD&D games which used the "defense roll" mechanic for both the badguys and players, it didn't slow things down anymore than usual. Doing defense rolls for both sides took a lot less time than having to look up the combat tables, AC adjustments to weapons, etc ...

Right, but even the monster damage system would seem easier to figure out -- if Joe is fighting with a dagger for some reason, hits orc #1 and drops him with a crit (a natural 20) that does 9 pts of damage (bad damage roll, but irrelevant under the secret game system), but two rounds later, Kate hits orc #2 (who was just as injured or not as orc #1) with a max damage full-Power Attack for 18 pts, and doesn't drop him, that's a clue that something weird is going on, damage-wise.

For the monsters, I dropped the hit points and instead used a condition bar system with health states:

- not-hit
- bruised
- wounded
- bloodied
- dying
- dead

where each state had 1 to 5 ticks, depending on the monster's constitution.

For the combat, a player hitting a monster with:

- a d20 roll of 10-15 would knock down one of the ticks
- a d20 roll of 15-19 would knock down the health state by one
- a critical would knock down the health state by two, and any additional damage


So two critical hits on a monster starting in a not-hit health state, would knock down its health state into "dying". All it would take is another d20 roll of 15-19 to send it into a dead health state.

Even without rolling a crit, if the player did roll a high amount of damage, sometimes I would shift the health state down even further accordingly. For example, if the player had a d20 roll of 10-15 but also rolled a very high damage, I would bring down the health state by one instead of just one tick. If the damage was truly extraordinary, I would bring the health state down even more, or even just straight to dead.

The ticks in each health state were easy to keep track of. For example, a "3 tick" monster starting from a not-hit health state would have to be hit consecutively 4 times with d20 rolls of 10-15, to be knocked down to a wounded health state.

I essentially was keeping track of each monster's health with vertical slash tallies, one tally for the ticks and a second tally for the health state.

Tally marks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ggroy]

Dig down into the 3.5 mechanics, and that's basically how it works anyway. The biggest tip-off would have been a character who should be better than another at doing something having no advantage with that system. Of course, in many D&D games, characters generally stick to doing what they do best, so that might not have come up.

Occasionally the players in my "experiment" did try to do things for which their classes were not proficient at. How I dealt with that issue, is to change that player's action into a "difficult task" (roll of 15 to 19) or even an "almost-impossible task" (natural 20 roll). For example, a non-multiclassed fighter trying to figure out something magical/arcane, I would require a natural 20 roll. A non-multiclassed sorcerer or wizard trying to use a short sword in combat, I would require a roll of 19 or 20 for a hit.

You weren't using a radically different ruleset, so while the rules-lawyery types probably should have caught on, it's not surprising the more casual players didn't.

Wonder if things could have turned out differently, if I was using an even simpler set of rules such as:

- a player rolls a d20
- the DM immediately does a "counter" d20 roll
- if the player's d20 roll is greater than or equal to the DM's roll, it happens
- if the player's d20 roll is less than the DM's roll, it doesn't happen

The difference between the player_d20 and DM_d20 rolls, determines the degree of which something happens whether in favor (for player_d20 - DM_d20 > 0) or disfavor (for player_d20 - DM_d20 < 0), for the player.

 

[coyote6]

For the monsters, I dropped the hit points and instead used a condition bar system with health states: [snip]

Right; I remembered that. My point was that a PC rolling really well to hit, but poorly on damage, could kill a foe faster than a PC rolling okay to hit, but phenomenally on damage, could kill an identical foe. That would tip off any player paying attention that something odd was going on.

(I don't know about your players, but mine get on streaks like that -- the rogue will roll crit, then roll miserable on damage. That's why she took Telling Blow! Meanwhile, the cleric will barely hit, and max out his damage on the ol' holy mace.)

 

[ggroy]

Right; I remembered that. My point was that a PC rolling really well to hit, but poorly on damage, could kill a foe faster than a PC rolling okay to hit, but phenomenally on damage, could kill an identical foe. That would tip off any player paying attention that something odd was going on.

For the case of a player rolling their d20 in the range 10-14 for their hit and subsequently rolling relatively high damage, I accommodated this type of situation where the monster would drop down an entire health level instead
of just dropping down a tick. For example, an orc in a bloodied health state hit in this manner would drop down to a dying state, instead of being dropped down a tick in the bloodied health level.

For the other case of a player rolling their d20 in range 15-19 for their hit and subsequently rolling relatively low damage, I accommodated this type of situation where the monster would drop down a few ticks in its health state. Sometimes it would be enough ticks to just drop the monster down into the next health state. Sometimes not.

(I don't know about your players, but mine get on streaks like that -- the rogue will roll crit, then roll miserable on damage. That's why she took Telling Blow! Meanwhile, the cleric will barely hit, and max out his damage on the ol' holy mace.)

This happened every now and then.