GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[Yora]

That's still moving the goal posts.

Or rather, the Texas Sharpshooter. You first look where the players hit, and then paint a target around the hole that makes it look like a really difficult shot.

And again, you run into the same problem. Once the players catch on to it, it undermines the sense of accomplishment and close calls in the future. Because they will expect that anything that looked close wasn't actually close, but the GM pretending it was close.

 

[Celebrim]

It's interesting to me that we are looking at if fudging the dice rolls for the sake of fun and moving the play along, but what if the DM does the opposite because they want to really want to dial in a challenge? Is it morally wrong for the kobolds that have had a AC of 15 all game to suddenly not be hit by the correct number?

I think that it's unhelpful to paint this as an issue of morality. I mean if you stretch it a bit, you could say it's an issue of ethics.

The real issue is whether it is artful or artless GMing. Does fudging lead to a better play experience for everyone, or does it lead to a worse?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The intent is to not endorse any specific viewpoint, though I do have my own which I can illuminate if needed. What I am more speaking to is behavior and conduct towards each other. People mistaking taste judgements for moral judgements.
As I didn't make clear earlier: I would say that conflating "you are playing the game wrong" with "you are wrong as a person" is harmful to the space but it is a very common refrain. In my opinion, game play is only morally wrong when it actually violates moral lines, which for me revolve around concepts like harm.

Yeah, as I said before, and let me clarify a bit: 6 (or however many) people sitting around a table are just people sitting around a table. The basic governing moral standards of behavior will not vary. They could be eating dinner, playing Monopoly, having a philosophical debate, or playing any arbitrary RPG. None of this will matter.

I guess there's a potential of discussion about the specific application of basic standards of decent behavior as they might manifest within the play of an RPG session.

As for distinguishing this from the opinions and preferences people might have within the RPG playing sphere, those are, again, simply personal preferences and opinions which should be approached within the general framework of decent, sociable behavior. Frankly speaking, I think the rise of online 'community' seems to have lead to the rise of a generation with little skill in these areas and a poor idea of what mutual tolerance and respect actually entail. However that is probably straying far outside the remit of this thread, or of EW in general.

Again, there might potentially be some sort of specific application of basic standards to specific games due to the nature of what they cover, or I guess how their process of play works. I doubt its going to be very significant.

 

[Umbran]

I think that it's unhelpful to paint this as an issue of morality. I mean if you stretch it a bit, you could say it's an issue of ethics.

And even that may be a stretch. You take it to a matter of art, which is think is the more useful approach.

The real issue is whether it is artful or artless GMing. Does fudging lead to a better play experience for everyone, or does it lead to a worse?

Beauty (and therefore artful- or artless-ness) being in the eye of the beholder, and all that, the "everyone" is really at most "everyone at a given table". And that's where discussion of techniques gets useful.

 

[pointofyou]

Not that I don't have my own preferences (which, perhaps unsurprisingly, overlap with my own capabilities): but given what these are, I tend to avoid RPGs that don't suit them (eg I'm not very good at running classic dungeon crawls, and so don't set out to do that).

Why would anyone want to run a game they didn't or wouldn't much enjoy playing? Among other things I don't think I'd have a sense of how to do so.

EDIT: That is not a rhetorical question. I understand there are people who do run games they don't or wouldn't much like as players and I am genuinely curious about the how and the why of that.

 

[Composer99]

Why would anyone want to run a game they didn't or wouldn't much enjoy playing? Among other things I don't think I'd have a sense of how to do so.

EDIT: That is not a rhetorical question. I understand there are people who do run games they don't or wouldn't much like as players and I am genuinely curious about the how and the why of that.

I'd be inclined to say that it would have to do with two things:
(1) What gameplay preference/aesthetic they're able to enjoy by playing in the capacity of GM that they're not enjoying when playing in the capacity as a player (or that they're not enjoying when they run some other game that they happen to enjoy playing as a player);
(2) How much they value enabling the enjoyable gameplay experiences of some set of players who do enjoy such a game.

For instance, I'm not particularly keen on the idea of playing an older-school version of D&D or some sort of retroclone/OSR game as a player, but I'm inclined to think I would enjoy running such a game as DM/referee if it was clear the players at my table were coming away from each session having had an enjoyable and satisfactory gameplay experience. (And indeed, when one of my 5e campaigns draws to a close, as it likely will some time this summer, if my brother doesn't opt to run a 5e Spelljammer game, I'm going to propose running something like OSE or Shadowdark.)

 

[pointofyou]

I'd be inclined to say that it would have to do with two things:
(1) What gameplay preference/aesthetic they're able to enjoy by playing in the capacity of GM that they're not enjoying when playing in the capacity as a player (or that they're not enjoying when they run some other game that they happen to enjoy playing as a player);
(2) How much they value enabling the enjoyable gameplay experiences of some set of players who do enjoy such a game.

For instance, I'm not particularly keen on the idea of playing an older-school version of D&D or some sort of retroclone/OSR game as a player, but I'm inclined to think I would enjoy running such a game as DM/referee if it was clear the players at my table were coming away from each session having had an enjoyable and satisfactory gameplay experience. (And indeed, when one of my 5e campaigns draws to a close, as it likely will some time this summer, if my brother doesn't opt to run a 5e Spelljammer game, I'm going to propose running something like OSE or Shadowdark.)

I suppose I can see that but if a game or a playstyle is one I don't much enjoy I don't feel qualified to make GM-side decisions regarding it. Possibly I'm having a harder time than most at getting out of my own head about this.

 

[niklinna]

That's still moving the goal posts.

Or rather, the Texas Sharpshooter. You first look where the players hit, and then paint a target around the hole that makes it look like a really difficult shot.

And again, you run into the same problem. Once the players catch on to it, it undermines the sense of accomplishment and close calls in the future. Because they will expect that anything that looked close wasn't actually close, but the GM pretending it was close.

This presumes the players are looking for more of a game experience rather than one of building a shared story together. For the latter, a "fair" but dull win or loss in a combat is less engaging, exciting, satisfying than a nail-biter that results in victory, even if a die roll has to be fudged to garner that victory. The players are in on the fix, in other words.

Now, if the player's aren't in on the fix, and later discover it, that is certainly a potential issue, especially for those among them who do have a more game-oriented interest.

 

[bloodtide]

The real issue is whether it is artful or artless GMing. Does fudging lead to a better play experience for everyone, or does it lead to a worse?

Not very often. When the GM makes something hard or impossible by fudge the players will rarely feel great about it. Having the GM save their favorite NPC from a player trap with fudging does not make the players experience better...even with the GM saying "oh wait guys I got a super awesome combat encounter with this NPC planned later".

BUT. It's also true the other way where the GM runs a 'safety game' so that by fudging, nothing to bad, or troublesome or inconvenient happens to the characters so the GM can lead them right to the "fun parts" of the game. This does not make for a better player experience either.

Maybe worse is the GM that jumps around. In the first hour all the poison darts miss, even when the foes roll 20s or totals of like 30, as the GM is quick with a fudge like "oh they have a -11 to ranged attacks...hehe". But then just an hour later the DM is like "oh two 20s are auto hits so both characters get hit with poison darts.".

This is why I go with the firm: Let the Dice Roll where they May!

I find the best game is where everyone knows and accepts the random dice rolls. Yes, some times it leads to a TPK an hour into the game play where some kobolds obliterate characters with some amazingly high rolls. But you just accept that in move on. Though it's not that often such an extreme.

Just last weekend, a group had the plan of sneaking into the Dark Tower and destroying the Orb of Destruction before the bad guy could use it. They planned and equip up ahead of time, then did the stealth entry. They had to get past tons of traps, guards and protections. All quietly. Each bit of the way, a bad roll could have sounded the alarm. Though these were good players so they avoided having to roll to do things as much as they could(like they had a stolen ward token for the Orb Chamber so they did not have to deal with the protections there). They made it all through the tower...and there was some huge tension where they were almost caught by a low roll of the dice. But what made it so tense, is that it was real. Just a couple numbers lower and they would have been trapped in the tower surrounded by foes. Everyone knows the rolls were real: whatever rolls is what happens. The players were ready for "plan B of fight out way to the Orb room", but sure did not want to do that. And right at the near end there were some very close calls. But the PCs made it, and destroyed the orb and escaped. And every player knows for 100% sure that I made a very hard complicated adventure and I was more then ready and willing to have things go any way possible, but I did nothing the "fudge" any outcome.

 

[Celebrim]

Not very often. When the GM makes something hard or impossible by fudge the players will rarely feel great about it. Having the GM save their favorite NPC from a player trap with fudging does not make the players experience better...even with the GM saying "oh wait guys I got a super awesome combat encounter with this NPC planned later".

BUT. It's also true the other way where the GM runs a 'safety game' so that by fudging, nothing to bad, or troublesome or inconvenient happens to the characters so the GM can lead them right to the "fun parts" of the game. This does not make for a better player experience either.

I'd say you are correct in the overwhelming number of situations based on my experience, but there is always the chance that you have a table that legitimately does not care about either those things. The important thing is to know what you are trying to achieve, know what the players want, make the right decision about how to get there, and consciously understand what you did and what the consequences are.

But generally speaking, I agree that most of the time fudging is not the most artful way to do things. What bothers me particularly is when someone is going, "I'm totally playing according to the GM agenda of 'playing to find out what happens'.", but then also, "If things aren't going the way I think will be good for the game, I'm fudging and using illusionism." That's the opposite of artful because your technique doesn't match your stated agenda and indeed undermines it. So either you need to reevaluate your agenda or else reevaluate your technique.