D&D 5E Do you want your DM to fudge?

[wedgeski]

Does that mean you can give a "cast iron guarantee" that the things you think are beneficial for the group are also the things your players think are beneficial for the group?

If you, as a player, do not trust me, as your DM, to want everyone to have the best time possible, then you really should just find another DM.

And no, I don't hold myself to the same standards of governance and accountability as the CIA. As we say in the UK: you must be having a laugh.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you, as a player, do not trust me, as your DM, to want everyone to have the best time possible, then you really should just find another DM.

And no, I don't hold myself to the same standards of governance and accountability as the CIA. As we say in the UK: you must be having a laugh.

Well, if I ask you a point-blank question and you prevaricate, on what grounds should trust be given or maintained?

I'm not saying you don't THINK you're doing what's best. Many, many people do unwise, or even terrible things while absolutely, sincerely believing that what they're doing is for the betterment of some other party. Parents, in particular, are expected to do that with their children--which is why I used the word "parentalism." But if a DM expects me to accept a DMlayer relationship that is fundamentally like that between a parent and a young child, well, that DM and I will probably have words. Vehement ones, I'd wager. I'm not at all a fan of being treated like I don't have a clue what I really need or want, and should just accept a pat on the head and an admonition that everything will turn out for the best even if I can't see it right now.

 

[Nytmare]

Does that mean you can give a "cast iron guarantee" that the things you think are beneficial for the group are also the things your players think are beneficial for the group?

You are equally incapable of guaranteeing that an impartial die roll is beneficial to the story. In my opinion, all that you can do is refer to the overwhelming number of books, movies, and other various pieces of art and literature that were made by human beings making choices vs those that were made by random chance.

Well, if I ask you a point-blank question and you prevaricate, on what grounds should trust be given or maintained?

I'm not saying you don't THINK you're doing what's best. Many, many people do unwise, or even terrible things while absolutely, sincerely believing that what they're doing is for the betterment of some other party. Parents, in particular, are expected to do that with their children--which is why I used the word "parentalism." But if a DM expects me to accept a DMlayer relationship that is fundamentally like that between a parent and a young child, well, that DM and I will probably have words. Vehement ones, I'd wager. I'm not at all a fan of being treated like I don't have a clue what I really need or want, and should just accept a pat on the head and an admonition that everything will turn out for the best even if I can't see it right now.

These are not situations where DMs are coddling their players and/or treating them like children, and there's no need to assume that any of us are actively, or even unconsciously treating you in that way.

I think it's a much safer assumption to take someone saying "My game is good and my players enjoy it" at face value and take it as true rather than wrongfully placing an impossible burden of proof on them and assuming that they must therefore be a bad person with bad intentions doing bad things.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, if I ask you a point-blank question and you prevaricate, on what grounds should trust be given or maintained?

I'm not saying you don't THINK you're doing what's best. Many, many people do unwise, or even terrible things while absolutely, sincerely believing that what they're doing is for the betterment of some other party. Parents, in particular, are expected to do that with their children--which is why I used the word "parentalism." But if a DM expects me to accept a DMlayer relationship that is fundamentally like that between a parent and a young child, well, that DM and I will probably have words. Vehement ones, I'd wager. I'm not at all a fan of being treated like I don't have a clue what I really need or want, and should just accept a pat on the head and an admonition that everything will turn out for the best even if I can't see it right now.

That's a False Equivalence. The DM having the authority to fudge rolls and do what he thinks is best for the enjoyment of the group is not the same as what parents do. He is not trying to teach the players how to go through life. He is not out to punish the players. He is not holding himself out as able to tell the players what to do in the same way a parent does.

 

[Lanliss]

Freedom of speech applies to everyone. In the US it's protected by the First Amendment, in Canada it is considered a fundamental freedom and is listed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 2. This applies online, in person, in writing and so on. You may wish to believe that this public forum is somehow it's own country but that's not the case at all. It is fully subject to these laws and fundamental rights. For example, I can say publicly here that I strongly dislike apple sauce. Not only is it my right to state that I don't like apple sauce, I am legally protected by the laws of either the US or Canada and most countries of the world in fact to say as much. So when I earlier explained my opinion, based on personal experience, about fudging I was ALSO doing it under the same protections.

Now, as for the response a MOD posted to my opinion which didn't specifically target anyone, call out names or even make personal attacks I would think that he would be able to follow his own advice which he posts all over these boards. What he posted was FULL of personal attacks, passive aggressive remarks and the like. Commenting about my psychology? Inferring that I should have been taught something in kindergarten? I mean this person essentially white knighted into the thread for no reason and decided to specifically harass and publicly shame someone for participating in a public discussion, who expressed an opinion he obviously disagreed with. This is basically the very nature of why the freedom of speech laws were created. So that the people in authority or even others around you, can't try and censor you just because they don't agree with what you're saying. And really, a MOD doing this? He stomped all over the "Keep it civil" portion of the forum rules.

And as explained I've tried multiple times to PM this particular MOD about some issues and he/she simply doesn't respond. So if you're going to completely ignore me after inviting me to PM you, I'm going to post in public when you act like this. All this being said, I think it's best if we just collectively move on from this ugliness. It's derailing the thread. I won't be posting about this any further especially since you were kind enough to link to the forum rules

On a complete side note, which has nothing to do with the ugliness, the rules were actually a bit difficult to find. I had to go to the meta forum for them, when I was expecting them to be somewhere at the top of the site, so you could access them from any page. That was why I bothered to post them here. If they had been easy to get to, I would have just assumed you refreshed yourself as soon as a mod used mod colors. Or maybe it is just me that immediately assumes I should re-read the rules if there was the slightest chance I went against them. All that aside, I would like to contest you on the statement of applesauce, as I prefer banana pudding.

 

[wedgeski]

Well, if I ask you a point-blank question and you prevaricate, on what grounds should trust be given or maintained?

Okay, for the avoidance of all doubt: since I can't read my players' minds, I'm forced to assume that the way I run a game is beneficial to the group. They have many ways to make their discontent clear, if not. Vehement words, for example.

I'm not saying you don't THINK you're doing what's best. Many, many people do unwise, or even terrible things while absolutely, sincerely believing that what they're doing is for the betterment of some other party. Parents, in particular, are expected to do that with their children--which is why I used the word "parentalism." But if a DM expects me to accept a DMlayer relationship that is fundamentally like that between a parent and a young child, well, that DM and I will probably have words. Vehement ones, I'd wager.

Well, it's a great relief to me that I'm neither running black ops for the US government, nor bringing up impressionable children. I'm running a roleplaying game, where the players have submitted four hours of their precious leisure time to my care, presumably because they think I can do a good job with it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You are equally incapable of guaranteeing that an impartial die roll is beneficial to the story. In my opinion, all that you can do is refer to the overwhelming number of books, movies, and other various pieces of art and literature that were made by human beings making choices vs those that were made by random chance.

I have not, at any point, claimed that impartial die rolls are better for the story, so...yeah, I completely agree with you. Doesn't have any effect on my arguments, that it is a better and healthier DM/Player relationship to pursue "above-board" methods, and that sticking to "above-board" methods helps both the DM and the player improve their respective skills while "fudging" stymies avenues of improvement to those skills (perhaps not all of them, but important ones).

That's a False Equivalence. The DM having the authority to fudge rolls and do what he thinks is best for the enjoyment of the group is not the same as what parents do. He is not trying to teach the players how to go through life. He is not out to punish the players. He is not holding himself out as able to tell the players what to do in the same way a parent does.

Are you not saying that you know better than me what is "good" or "interesting" or "fun" for me? That is what you've been saying this entire time. And that is a parent-like attitude. It may not have absolutely every feature of being a parent; I'm not saying it does. I'm just saying that they are of fundamentally similar character: making decisions that affect the experiences of others, behind a veil of secrecy and even outright lies, because you "know better" than they do in some meaningful way. I'd allege that, in this case, that would be "because I know how to craft a good story better than you do," perhaps in different words.

And I don't really see how you can't be "telling the players what to do," in that you fiat declare the results of their actions, sometimes against them (preventing an attack that would have succeeded, so someone else can attack instead), despite having employed a resolution system that indicates otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you not saying that you know better than me what is "good" or "interesting" or "fun" for me?

I'm saying that the game requires the DM to do just that, day in and day out. Every time he plans an encounter, he's doing it because he thinks it will make the game more fun and interesting for you. The same for every item he hands out. And every NPC he creates. And every puzzle he places. And every storyline he comes up with. And. And. And. Fudging is no different.

Will the DM occasionally be wrong with his choices? Sure. Is he acting as a parent to a child? No way.

And I don't really see how you can't be "telling the players what to do," in that you fiat declare the results of their actions, sometimes against them (preventing an attack that would have succeeded, so someone else can attack instead), despite having employed a resolution system that indicates otherwise.

Nice misquote there. I said very clearly, "He is not holding himself out as able to tell the players what to do in the same way a parent does."

 

[Noctem]

Okay, for the avoidance of all doubt: since I can't read my players' minds, I'm forced to assume that the way I run a game is beneficial to the group. They have many ways to make their discontent clear, if not. Vehement words, for example.


Well, it's a great relief to me that I'm neither running black ops for the US government, nor bringing up impressionable children. I'm running a roleplaying game, where the players have submitted four hours of their precious leisure time to my care, presumably because they think I can do a good job with it.

They have many ways to make their discontent clear, ok. But you fudge in secret and don't tell them when you do?

So basically they will never make their discontent clear because they have no way of knowing you fudge results lol... Well done..

 

[wedgeski]

They have many ways to make their discontent clear, ok. But you fudge in secret and don't tell them when you do?

So basically they will never make their discontent clear because they have no way of knowing you fudge results lol... Well done..

My long-term group knows full-well that I do it. No-one in, say, my most recent group has raised it as an issue, or asked me to roll in the open, despite a clear invitation to do so in session zero. Given how strongly you feel about it, I'm certain that any like-minded players in the group would have spoken up.