Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Ridley's Cohort]

Here is some information regarding a hypothetical encounter to look at:

According to Raven Crowking, I have provided all the information necessary for us to come to a consensus that the encounter is fair.

While I certainly agree that it is good gaming practice to always give the DM the benefit of the doubt, I think Raven Crowking in taking this sentiment to the absolute most over the top extreme.

I, for one, when presented with such a description would go out on a limb and say "I do not know". I am just crazy that way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

By those two definitions, anything is fair so long as it doesn't deviate from RAW because it is proper under the rules and the DM isn't being dishonest with the group.

But, surely you don't believe that, because you admit that there can be unfair traps, even though you can follow the two definitions and still fail on the 3 point definition given above.

Ah, how funny. You truncated the definitions in order to remove where it is possible for a trap to be funny. Woo hoo for you!

"Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." Not exactly the same thing as free from dishonesty alone.

Here's the most important thing you're going to need to explain to me:

You keep saying that there it is possible to build an objectively fair trap. However, you admit that some would find this objectively fair trap to be unfair. How can you resolve these two seemingly contradictory statements?

That something has an objective quality A, and that others would claim that it instead has the objectively converse quality B, should come as no surprise to anyone. It is certainly not contradictory.

There are three possibilities:

(1) The person finding the objectively fair trap unfair is actually reacting to an internal bias, such as being upset that his monk died. Or a false sense of entitlement.

(2) The objectively fair trap is part of a larger complex which is objectively unfair.

(3) A combination of the above two.

Certainly you must have had experiences wherein one person claimed something was unfair when it was patently obvious that it was the person making the claim who was being unfair and/or unreasonable. This is not something that happens only on rare occasions; it would be the work of a lifetime to catalogue all of the frivilous lawsuits going on right now, let alone those which are over and those that are yet to be.

In addition, there are many ways the OP could be modified to make it unfair:

You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.

Not unfair. In fact, no evidence that the rogue even Took 20.

You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The rogue searches the door and lever for traps, and finds none. The DM tells you that there is no trap. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.

Unfair because of dishonesty and bias. The DM told you that there was no trap, while knowing that there was a trap. Had the DM said, "You search and find no trap" this would be different. It would also be a lot closer to the uncertainty that the rogue would be feeling.

(Note: There is a difference between "dishonesty of belief" and actual dishonesty. If you are calling the troglodytes "lizard men" and the DM picks up on that and begins using the same terminology, he is not being dishonest...even though you may be unpleasantly surprised. The DM is not required to tell you that a room with an invisible occupant is not empty. However, and especially in matters of life and death, the DM has an obligation to be clear and reasonably precise. This is not a problem in the OP.)

You have talked things over with your group. Everyone hates traps, so you've decided as a group to never use traps. The DM is part of, and knows about, that decision. Later, you’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. The monk pulls the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.

Unfair. Violates social contract of group (DM does not have legitimate authority).

You’ve in a dungeon seeking the McGuffin. You have cleared out all of the dungeon up to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. The rogue searches for traps. However, the act of searching for traps triggers a trap. The rogue has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.

Unfair. The encounter is unjust. There is, simply put, no way to win.

You’ve cleared out the dungeon and found the McGuffin you were seeking. Then you come to a room located in the back corner of the dungeon. The rogue searches the entrance for traps, Taking 20, and finding nothing. In the room is only a large lever sticking up out of the floor. You search the room and find a secret door in one wall. You can’t find a way to open the door. You talk it over, and decide that the lever is probably trapped. As you go to leave the room, the DM tells you that a stone door slides from the ceiling, blocking this room off. The mage decides to use several spells to transform the stone, or bypass the wall, or teleport out of the room without using the lever. The DM tells you that the spells don't work. After a while, he tells you that each time the mage casts a spell he'll age 10 years. You decide to rest before dealing with the lever, to regain your divination, protection, and healing spells. Every ten minutes a monster teleports into the room to prevent your rest. Eventually, the monk agrees to pull the lever. He has to make a saving throw – he rolls a 19 on the die, adds in his mods, and fails the save. He turns into a pile of fine dust on the floor.

Unfair. The encounter is both biased and unjust.

Here is some information regarding a hypothetical encounter to look at:

Interesting. You are basically putting the sum total of the reasons that the OP's encounter should be considered unfair into one encounter? Or is it just another straw man?

RC

 

[Lanefan]

Allow me, please, to lob another pebble in the pond here...

Would this be fair:

Same scenario as OP except that while the party sees the lever-puller crumble to dust, the lever-puller has in fact been teleported to a whole other part of the adventure that nobody previously knew was there. (I've used "traps" like this on occasioon) Now, lever-puller is in trouble, alone in a dangerous place unless someone else pulls the lever - not likely! - and joins her, and will have to be either very good or very lucky to survive...but if she does survive, the chance exists to return to somewhere that the party can find her.

Lever-puller's player is best left in the dark until after the session (if possible, failing that, pass a note if the player can be trusted not to give anything away); you'd run an off-cycle session with that player to see how lever-puller fares...

Thing is, from the party's perspective the result is exactly the same as the OP.

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

This reminds me all too much of "Railroading is whatever any player says it is".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then you're guilty of arguing your oppinion as fact.

Logical fallacy has no place in a debate on oppinion, which is what this is.

Logical fallacy has no place in any debate.

It is certainly possible that I am arguing my opinion as fact. It wouldn't be the first time; I can't imagine that it'd be the last time. It is probably my worst trait as a debator, and one that I am often unconscious of until it is pointed out. (You would think that I would learn, but I am apparently Mr. Thick Thick Thickity Thick from Thicktown, Thicksylvania...and so's my dad.) So, as I said, it is certainly possible.

Which opinion(s) do you mean, specifically?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Ah, how funny. You truncated the definitions in order to remove where it is possible for a trap to be funny. Woo hoo for you!

"Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice." Not exactly the same thing as free from dishonesty alone.

Fine, add those both in, I was going for brevity.

Suffice to say that it could include all those things and still be unfair.

That something has an objective quality A, and that others would claim that it instead has the objectively converse quality B, should come as no surprise to anyone. It is certainly not contradictory.

So basically, your oppinion on what is or is not fair is correct and they are wrong? Why can it not be that you are wrong and they are correct, and your definition has failed to take into consideration something?

You keep seeing DMs as the good guys and the Players as the bad guys in these scenarios. You need to provide some kind of reason for convincing me that there exists an objective fair, but I warn you it might be about as easy as convincing me that there is an objective fun.

This is important for you to realize:

For me to accept that there is an objective "fair" you will have to convince me that it is fair for a DM to use an encounter that he knows will have a 100% chance of killing one of the PCs. Because, in the example provided in the OP, one of the PCs in my game would die. I can almost gurantee you that I would die in that trap.

Interesting. You are basically putting the sum total of the reasons that the OP's encounter should be considered unfair into one encounter? Or is it just another straw man?

Not a strawman at all. You said:

Hence, presumption of fairness would seem to me to be rather like presumption of innocence in law.

If you're saying fairness/unfairness is like innocence/guilt, and we are operating with an understanding of fairness until proven unfair, then in fact, you would consider that fair. Now, you're free to retract your previous statements, since as far as I can see they make no sense, but you might find it difficult to condemn others for wanting information to determine fairness or unfairness.

Thus, no default actually exists, because if it did, you would find the blank statement fair.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Which opinion(s) do you mean, specifically?

The fairness of a situation is purely dependant on the context of the situation. Fairness is an oppinion, not a fact. Debating whether you think something is fair or unfair is fine. Debating whether it is objectively so instead of subjectively so is like debating whether something is objectively fun. In other words, it is impossible and trying to so can't end well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven, its like you're trying to prove what is objectively fun. I'm sorry, there is no formula to follow. But, if you want to know what is fun, you can poll a large number of people. If a lot of people find it fun, then you can be safe claiming it to be fun.

BTW, I find that this bothers me somewhat, and seems to resound with the problems that we are having in this discussion. Because, deep down, I tend to believe that you are a reasonable sort of person.

When we are talking about "fun" we are talking about an emotive response to some stimulus or stimuli. "Fun" can act as a motive, causing us to take an action that might seem to have a rational motive, such as an action that results in the propogation of the species. However, emotions are by their very nature irrational. Our motives in playing games, propogation, etc., are driven by our emotive needs, which are themselves irrational. If anything, our rationality serves to grant us the ability to determine which (if any) of our emotive needs is paramount at any given time, at to figure out how best to fulfill them.

Because we know that our motives and emotions are irrational, and because we know that we can best fulfill those needs through some form of cooperation, we create normative standards that allow us to make rational determinations about our behavior. The concept of "fairness" is one such normative standard, with the desired end result being that we can see where our emotions (irrational drives) impinge upon our reactions toward each other. Thus, we are able to sublimate portions of our needs in order to allow the needs of others to be fulfilled and, ultimately, the greater portions of our own needs.

At least in theory.

However, if we drop the normative (rational) standard, as you seem to declare necessary, we are left with an irrational standard; to wit, "Fairness is what best suits my needs now." The problem that I have with this is exactly the same as the problem I have with "Railroading is whatever the player says it is" and similar statments specifically intended to remove the normative standards from our interactions. Hence the idea of a "false sense of entitlement"; i.e., a sense of entitlement which is not tied into any normative standard.

In my opinion, this is just a really bad road to be walking down.


RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

How can your objectively fair trap have a 100% chance to kill my PC and still be objectively fair?

EDIT: Further, how can the OP's trap kill 55.74% of the participants in this poll and still be fair at all?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So basically, your oppinion on what is or is not fair is correct and they are wrong? Why can it not be that you are wrong and they are correct, and your definition has failed to take into consideration something?

An opinion of fairness which meets the normative standard is correct; one which does not is incorrect, regardless of who makes it.

For me to accept that there is an objective "fair" you will have to convince me that it is fair for a DM to use an encounter that he knows will have a 100% chance of killing one of the PCs. Because, in the example provided in the OP, one of the PCs in my game would die. I can almost gurantee you that I would die in that trap.

Yeah, I'd probably die in that trap, too.

OTOH, I would die in that trap because, knowing that I'd probably die in that trap, I would still probably pull the lever. Or else the monk would die, because I convinced him to pull the lever instead. And I have to be honest in saying that the players I have run games for probably wouldn't die in that trap. They are, perhaps, wiser than I am.

If you know that there is a 100% chance that at least 1 PC will die from an encounter, that is probably sufficient to say that the encounter is unfair, if the encounter is unavoidable and the encounter is not so deadly merely due to mismanagement on the part of the PCs. So, on one hand, it is fair for you to say that the trap would be unfair for your group, but this is an "A (trap) + B (your group) = unfair" thing, where neither A nor B is necessarily unfair in and of itself.

If there was a series of encounters that was perfectly fair, by the book, easy even when you wrote it, and then by bungling and bad luck I was in far worse condition than you expected, and you saw that the final encounter would surely end my PC's life, I would still find it unfair for you to change that encounter or fudge your rolls. That violates the social contract of any game that I would find enjoyable. That doesn't mean that changing the encounter or fudging rolls is objectively unfair, but it is another "A + B = unfair" situation.

If you're saying fairness/unfairness is like innocence/guilt, and we are operating with an understanding of fairness until proven unfair, then in fact, you would consider that fair.

Here's a situation:


Is the man guilty?

If the man is not guilty, then Ridley's Cohort's statement is not a strawman, and the encounter he "describes" is fair. If the correct response is WTF? then Ridley's Cohort's statement is a strawman.

Fair enough?


RC