Is D&D an illusion?

[Janx]

This thread is a tangent from topics on Is D&D art, Is D&D a game, and something ExploderWizard said in Kzach's thread about optimizing.

In the Is it a game, thread, i learned I was wrong, and that the definition of Game is so broad, that the dictionary basically says it covers any entertaining pasttime. You could tack on a clause of " and has rules" and still cover just D&D no matter how you play it.

EW made a comment that if the D&D used illusionism (in this case, regarding your ability to fail) then it wasn't a game (to him?). Technically, the dictionary says it's a game, but that's not what this thread is about.

this thread is about whether what the GM decides to do in the game is all illusion or not. barring the fact that this is a game of pretend and its all in our head.

I posit, that a game of nethack is a decent example of true unbiased GMing, everything is ultimately decided by randomizers and logic statements. The computer shows no mercy. if you die, your PC is dead (and your next PC may even find his body). The computer has no vested interest in plot protection, fudging, or the outcome. Everything is codified, so if the same die rolls came up in the generation and playing of the game, the exact same outcome would occur.

Humans are less biased than this, despite their best attempts. I've seen a number of threads (especially about sandbox play), as humans defend their honor.

Now none of this thread should impune the way you play your game. The ultimate point I'm making is that once you truly consider the impact of the vast level of decisions big and small that you make as a GM, you are exerting your will in the game space.

Now, as a baseline, I suspect we all mostly agree that declaring "Rocks fall, everybody dies" is a case of the GM exerting his will over the game space in an extreme way. Or making the next harmless looking room the PCs enter be a trap that seals and the dragon that far outclasses the party lies in wait to kill them.

But technically a GM can do that. I assume a non-biased GM (as best as they can be) has a sense of fair play.

Thus, in the situation of sandboxes which can have wildly varying challenge levels, the GM tries to ensure the PCs have fair warning where the really hard stuff is, thus it is the PCs choice to tackle it.

As compared to GMs who try to have level appropriate challenges. Where basically, the difficulties may vary, but according to the math, the party has a chance of victory.

As EW was responding, what happens if the PCs fail a given encounter?
Do you kill them?
Do you reveal an escape route?
Do you make another path available?
Do you choose the worst possible outcome?
Do you choose an outcome that mimizes the impact of that failure?

This is where the same situation in the hands of 100 different GMs could net you 100 different outcomes.

In the other thread, there was a group of people who felt that failure has to be possible. I'm not sure, but it seems like they interpret failure to be game ending. whereas in real life, many failures set you back, and you can recover and try anew or abort and do something else.

If I run the encounter and decide the failure is a setback, have I negated your failure?

Am I obligated to choose the worst possible outcome when you mess up a social encounter?

Since I decide where all the monsters and NPCs are, and their disposition any any given time, and their reaction to the PCs, I have a lot of control.

as such, what happens next, unless I follow some strict tables (like nethack effectively does), I'm winging it. if I'm winging it, i'm relying on my opinion on what should happen next.

Thus, while a good GM is certainly trying to make fair decisions, the total unbiased nature of the game is still an illusion.

Here's a test:
tell a situation to a fellow GM. He can be inclined to ask "why did you let them get away with that?" or "Why did you come down so hard on them?" you have evidence that your opinion made the decision, not an arbitrary unbiased mechanism.

 

[ggroy]

Before a game even starts where I'm the DM, I directly ask the players what type of DMing style they want, and ask them to come to a unanimous decision as to what overall DMing style they want for the game. Basically I ask them to make a detailed itemized list of what they specifically want and don't want in the game.

If they can't come to a unanimous decision, I just tell the players they're going to have to decide whether they want to continue or not. I've had games in the past, where some dissenting player(s) just left the game before ever making a character.

 

[Pilgrim]

D&D is a game, a game of illusions. And when you play the Game of Illusions, you either win or you die....there is no middle ground...

....oh, wait no....whoops....sorry, my bad.....that's an entirely different game all together.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Janx, if you're responding to EW's quote directly, I'm not really sure you're responding to it in context. I think it has more to do with protecting the players from consequences at any level, rather than specifically on life or death matters. If a PC's life is on the line (such as in combat), you don't fudge to save them (or fudge to kill them). If a PC's pride is on the line, you don't fudge to help it (or to hurt it). If a PC is attempting to do something (no matter what it is), you don't fudge to help them, or to hurt them. You don't really try to fudge results. You don't offer them protection from the big bad things in the world, but you don't arbitrarily throw them at the party.

That's my take on EW's post. If I got it wrong, maybe he can correct me. If nothing else, the above is how I run my sandbox campaign. In 7 years of gaming with this group (a three new players, the rest are part of it still), we've had one total party wipe. It happened last Wednesday, as a matter of fact. Just because you don't shield the party, it doesn't mean that the party always experiences "the worst possible outcome when [they] mess up a social encounter." It means you don't shield them from whatever consequences feel natural when they fail (or succeed).

I don't know if the comment that seemed to have spawned this (EW's comment) is actually a comment on this style of game being a "total unbiased nature of the game" or anything similar. You still have to make judgment calls as a GM, and you have to determine how people react, yes. Other GMs will rule differently, yes. I don't know if your response was really commenting on the nature of EW's comment. Maybe he can clear it up for me. I might really be misrepresenting him right now. If that's the case, just take the above as my personal view.

As always, play what you like

 

[Umbran]

Since I decide where all the monsters and NPCs are, and their disposition any any given time, and their reaction to the PCs, I have a lot of control.

as such, what happens next, unless I follow some strict tables (like nethack effectively does), I'm winging it. if I'm winging it, i'm relying on my opinion on what should happen next.

Thus, while a good GM is certainly trying to make fair decisions, the total unbiased nature of the game is still an illusion.

This thread is apt to turn into one big knot of semantics.

For example, here's a thought - as the GM, you either design the adventure and encounters, or you review and edit a published adventure (and the choice to not edit is still an editorial choice). As you say, the GM has a lot of power.

Since the GM is doing this by choice, you can say that the bias introduced by the GM stems back to that point - if the PCs die (or succeed), it is in part due to the GM's design choices, even if the GM slavishly follows the rules as written during play. You only lose that impact if you generate the encounters randomly, too. But then, the choice to do that is still a choice!

But, I think, ultimately, the root may sit at another point. Consider the definition of "fair". One such definition is "free from bias". But another is "free from injustice", and justice is subjective, and thus *includes* bias sometimes. Another definition is, "neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good".

So, if we seek to be "fair", are we seeking to be completely unbiased (knowing we can't do it, but striving because that'll get us closest), or are we seeking to be good and just?

I think of it this way - I'm a GM. I have taken it as my responsibility to make sure that my players have a good time. What that means will change from group to group, and is by no means a universal constant.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes, D&D is an illusion. Also, ENWorld is nothing but an aggregate of the voices in your head. You're finally on to us.

Fortunately, you'll have forgotten in a week or so.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I disbelieve!

 

[Janx]

[MENTION=7358]JC[/MENTION], I would say inspired by EW's comment. As we're out of the context of that conversation.

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], Semantics always get us, I just never pick the right words....

back to JC and fudging. Fudging die rolls is one way a GM can influence events. Some people consider that cheating (not fair?).

However, fudging is kind of like Rocks Fall. It's pretty blatant manipulation that a GM has to be fully aware of what he's doing.

If all die rolls are made in the open, the GM still holds the reins on the consequences.

Let's that the one of the recent bad GM tales. Players get arrested for not having a Pass and ultimately executed.

The GM chose to make this town require a Pass for all people in it
the GM chose whether to make that commonly known or not to the PCs
the GM chose whether to make chances for the PCs to find out
the GM chose whether to instigate an encounter that required the Pass that the PCs did not have
the GM chose whether to bring in guards to arrest the PCs
the GM chose the guards severity of the offense for the PCs not having a Pass
the GM chose how effective those guards would be at arresting the PCs
the GM chose the punishment level for the offense
the GM chose whether there would be opportunities for escape/leniency
the GM chose whether to actually execute the PCs or bring in an outside intervention

Now as a judgement on the original tale, the way the OP told it, it was probably crap GMing. But a good GM could have presented the game "fairly" and that same chain would make sense and be fair.

As a GM, those several of those choice points can be seen as arbitrary. Was it a consequence of failure that the PCs get executed, or whimsy that the GM decided to make having a Pass be a life or death situation.

Furthermore, given that death was on the line, once the arrest attempt was made, avoiding it would most likely involve making the PCs become wanted criminals. Did the GM have the right to force that lifestyle on the PCs?

If a PC steals something, a concievale outcome is the PC can become an outlaw and that kind of game would be run.

Is death or becoming an outlaw a fair outcome for a PC who does nothing wrong but apparently be ignorant for having a Pass? Is this a case of the GM enforcing his intent (to run an outlaw campaign) on the players?

Where I'm going with this, is the illusion of unbiased reaction and consequence for player action, is just that. The GM is still influencing what the players are likely to do next, by deciding what will next intersect their path, and the kind and level of response to their action.

You can literally let a PC get away with murder, simple by deciding that nobody found any solid evidence. Or you can bring in 4 paladins to hunt down a level 1 anti-paladin who botched his first murder attempt against another nameless bad guy in the slum part of town.

In the examples I've given, I feel they were instances of crap GMing. the GM could have done a better job and chosen better responses for the situation.

But I'd also like people, who think they are impartial judges, to take closer look at the decisions they actually make, and to see how other alternatives could have been equally valid interpretations. I've seen more than a few threads where that doesn't seem to be considered.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The goal of fair GMing is complicated. Letting dice decide everything can spoil a game just as fast as pushing it in a particular direction.

Players deserve the right to make informed decisions and to accept the consequences of making them. Consequences of failure can vary wildly depending on the situation.

If for example, the PC's are thinking about breaking into someone's house to get something important, failure can bring quite a few different results. Is the owner someone who would call for the law, or try and kill an intruder? The PC's might have information on the individual or not. Either way, the outcome might be dangerous if they get caught.

Running a game fairly means that when you have decided to let the outcome of something fall on the dice, you accept the result.

As far as making fair decisions, this is learned over time. The input used to make such decisions comes directly from players so there is only so much useful advice about how to do this to be found in a book.

Illusion?

Well, since this is fantasy gaming and the action is taking place in an imaginary space it is kind of like a shared illusion.

As far as success and failure at the table are concerned there is no illusion about that (for my table anyhow). If the players are victorious then they can be confident that they won through a combination of good planning, execution, and a bit of luck.

 

[Kzach]

I have no idea what any of you are talking about.