Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

This is acceptable even though this would fall under the broad definition of "dishonest" because of its relationship to responsiblities (2) and (3) above.

I largely agree, and note that this means the DM being dishonest is not inherently a bad thing. Its use in this thread has clearly been as a bad thing - in fact I can't think of a use of the word that does not have predominantly negative connotations.

So the judicious use of fudging may be 'dishonest', but it's not the only dishonest thing a DM does, or should do if called for.

 

[Fifth Element]

Dishonesty comes about when a DM advertises game #1 and delivers game # 2.

Sure, I'll buy that. Of course, it seems to me that most of the proponents of fudging in this thread aren't suggesting that they do that. For instance, I've made it quite clear that I fudge and the players know about it. So there's no dishonesty there. In fact, my suggestion that it depends on the group should imply that you do it only if the group finds it to be a good thing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sure, I'll buy that. Of course, it seems to me that most of the proponents of fudging in this thread aren't suggesting that they do that. For instance, I've made it quite clear that I fudge and the players know about it. So there's no dishonesty there. In fact, my suggestion that it depends on the group should imply that you do it only if the group finds it to be a good thing.

In that case there is no badwrongfun going on.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I largely agree, and note that this means the DM being dishonest is not inherently a bad thing.

You miss the distinction, I think:

The DM being dishonest is inherently a bad thing.

The DM being dishonest is not inherently the worst thing.

If being dishonest is necessary to prevent a worse thing, it is generally better to be dishonest.

If being dishonest is necessary to prevent a worse thing, it is still generally better to be as honest as possible.

If there is a way to prevent a worse thing that is not dishonest, and which does not cause another worse thing, it is inherently better than being dishonest.

(General Ethics 101 )


RC


EDIT: Moreover, if there is a way to prevent a worse thing that is not dishonest, and which does not cause another worse thing, it is inherently not necessary to be dishonest.

(General Logic 101 )

Admin: Whether you realise it or not, this is being condescending, and it never ends well. Please don't do it.

 

[Fifth Element]

You miss the distinction, I think:

The DM being dishonest is inherently a bad thing.

This is disagree with. But you're again advocating that a perfect DM will not need to "resort" to this sort of thing. Whether or not that's true, I am discussing actual DMs, not theoretical DMs.

Given that no DM, no person, is perfect, there will be a tradeoff. Since all DMs need to make tradeoffs, making a tradeoff is not the mark of a subpar DM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My only goal here is to ensure that what I have said is properly understood by other readers, since you brought it up, and since I deemed it a mischaracterization of my intent.

I have no interest in arguing with you about it; you may still have the last word.

 

[Umbran]

The task at hand isn't about precise number crunching. All one has to do is look at the proposed possible outcomes and decide: are there any of these that are completely unacceptable?

Looking at all the proposed outcomes is not necessarily easy. In D&D, it sometimes is. But, in Deadlands, for example, figuring out the results of an attack includes a to-hit roll, a possible dodge, a hit location roll, rolling damage, applying armor or cover (which can vary by location), and long division. The "possible outcomes" start branching really quickly.

If the answer is yes and you roll anyway then YOU are creating the problem that needs fixing.

OMG!!! YOU (in all caps!) are creating the problem!!!

My response is... you seem to be making it sound like some huge deal, when it isn't.

A couple hours ago, I made my lunch. In the process, a small dollop of mayo fell on my counter top. Problem: the counter is messy. Did I create this problem, by not carefully considering my every motion with a butterknife and bread, and not deciding to lay out a tarpaulin to cover all surfaces before I opened the fridge to get my ingredients? Perhaps. Did I cause the problem by buying mayo in the first place? Maybe.

But who cares? I had a paper towel handy. I cleaned it up. No biggie.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have no interest in arguing with you about it; you may still have the last word.

Speak......





Oh glorious Ceasar!........



Speak...

 

[ExploderWizard]

My response is... you seem to be making it sound like some huge deal, when it isn't.

If the players signed up for game #2 (see above post) then it isn't a deal at all.

If the players believe they are playing game #1 then there is an issue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A couple hours ago, I made my lunch. In the process, a small dollop of mayo fell on my counter top. Problem: the counter is messy. Did I create this problem, by not carefully considering my every motion with a butterknife and bread, and not deciding to lay out a tarpaulin to cover all surfaces before I opened the fridge to get my ingredients? Perhaps. Did I cause the problem by buying mayo in the first place? Maybe.

But who cares? I had a paper towel handy. I cleaned it up. No biggie.

If you concluded from this that (1) you were not responsible for spilling the mayo, (2) not being careful with the mayo is a good idea, or (3) it is better to clean up the mayo than not to spill it in the first place, then you have indeed proven Exploder Wizard wrong.

Or, at least, you have done so to any who concludes the same.


RC