D&D 5E (2014) Mike Mearls on 5e design he regrets. Bonus Actuons.

[CreamCloud0]

You are not understanding my point: why is changing the difficulty "fudging" only if it's at the last minute --- and even, what is the "last" minute --- compared to before the session starts, or the day before the game when you invited a new player, or a week ago when you originally prepped the encounter? What's the "secret" to keep from the players and how has the game been made to "never be the same" by making the same decision just at a different point in time? If the "secret" is that you made the encounter to be a certain challenge for the players at the table, that's not much of a secret.

I believe there is no right answer to the question of what's the wrong time to tune an encounter, hence the challenge can all be an illusion or it can all be the truth (I prefer the latter, personally --- the encounter is only exactly what it is when it's experienced).

i would personally deem the 'threshold' of fudging to be 'any changes you make to the situation/encounter that are caused as a reaction to knowledge of the character's condition that they will be dealing with it in'

changing things because you know that the wizard is low on spell slots, that the barbarian's player couldn't turn up this week, adding a second wave of enemies because they wiped through the first one, that the bard is about to take two crits in a turn and can't survive that, these are all fudging IMO.

changing things because you think no, actually, the orcs would want the firepower of having a troll in their raiding party, that the bandits decided the party is a big enough threat to call reinforcements from elsewhere in the dungeon, changing skellies to wolves because that just makes sense in this area of the world, these aren't fudging.

 

[bsss]

My players appreciate my fairness and they really appreciate knowing they achieved their rewards and accolades honestly. See there is a strong element of gamism in my group. We are gamist/simulationists.

I was with you until this part. What's a dishonest reward or accolade? The combat was too easy? The players trivialized it with an exploit? If there's a lot of gamism in your group, would they not want to be ensured appropriate challenges to feel the thrill of victory and success --- to have "won" --- and would you not want to meet them at their level? And thus, your campaign world is still for them and their desires, not coming solely from you as an auteur?

Again I see it as this is where this idea of a "real" vs. "illusory" challenge breaks down.

 

[bsss]

changing things because you know that the wizard is low on spell slots, that the barbarian's player couldn't turn up this week, adding a second wave of enemies because they wiped through the first one, that the bard is about to take two crits in a turn and can't survive that, these are all fudging IMO.

I mostly agree with you on all of these except the barbarian player one --- or at least I think that one gets some kind of pass because of the practicality of that absence potentially ruining the whole table experience for the group, if they'd otherwise get wiped or whatever. Probably that depends on how ongoing plot vs. West Marches your game is, though, abstractly.

I would add, though, that with a bit of "gamist" streak in me and my players, we would rather prefer a fun encounter than an encounter that had no regard for the table's fun, so we'd probably look the other way at how I/we decided on the "second wave" tweak if the first wave was disappointing.

 

[Maxperson]

You are not understanding my point: why is changing the difficulty "fudging" only if it's at the last minute --- and even, what is the "last" minute --- compared to before the session starts, or the day before the game when you invited a new player, or a week ago when you originally prepped the encounter? What's the "secret" to keep from the players and how has the game been made to "never be the same" by making the same decision just at a different point in time? If the "secret" is that you made the encounter to be a certain challenge for the players at the table, that's not much of a secret.

For the same reason that I can pick my lottery numbers(create an encounter) before the numbers are drawn, pick as many new numbers(modify that encounter) as often as I like prior to the draw(PCs having the encounter), but it's not okay to pick new numbers(modify the encounter) as the numbers are being drawn(PCs being in the middle of the encounter). It's viewed as cheating.

Now clearly some DMs and players are okay with encounters being changed on the fly as they are happening. My analogy was just to show why DMs might hold that view.

Until the encounter happens or is set via knowledge given to the PCs/Players, the players don't have any solid expectation, or often any expectation at all, of the challenge difficulty. That means that changing it prior to the PCs having the encounter doesn't turn the encounter into an illusion of difficulty in the same way that altering it in the moment will.

 

[SkidAce]

I think bonus actions are fine.

A smaller thing that is beneficial to your character that is limited by action economy so you can't spam it and also have to sometimes choose between what bonus action you would like.

 

[Emerikol]

I was with you until this part. What's a dishonest reward or accolade? The combat was too easy? The players trivialized it with an exploit? If there's a lot of gamism in your group, would they not want to be ensured appropriate challenges to feel the thrill of victory and success --- to have "won" --- and would you not want to meet them at their level? And thus, your campaign world is still for them and their desires, not coming solely from you as an auteur?

Again I see it as this is where this idea of a "real" vs. "illusory" challenge breaks down.

I play sandboxes with a lot of adventuring opportunities. Yes players seek challenges they can handle which is quite realistic.

A dishonest reward would be getting the treasure and acclaim after the DM removed two goblins from a total of eight because the party is weakened and likely can't handle eight.

Players using intelligent strategies and exploits is encourages just like real life. Winning is victory. The DM's job is to keep it real. Don't bend reality to suit the group or the group really isn't doing anything but playing dress up. And I suspect many games are doing just that. The fix is in for them. That is just anathema to a gamist.

 

[Emerikol]

changing things because you think no, actually, the orcs would want the firepower of having a troll in their raiding party, that the bandits decided the party is a big enough threat to call reinforcements from elsewhere in the dungeon, changing skellies to wolves because that just makes sense in this area of the world, these aren't fudging.

I agree. Yes of course. The enemies are acting like real people or being played as such to be precise. It's why the 1 hour day never worked in my campaigns. If you stop the enemy will reinforce and counterattack. You have to hit them hard and essentially cripple them militarily or you are in trouble.

 

[bsss]

For the same reason that I can pick my lottery numbers(create an encounter) before the numbers are drawn, pick as many new numbers(modify that encounter) as often as I like prior to the draw(PCs having the encounter), but it's not okay to pick new numbers(modify the encounter) as the numbers are being drawn(PCs being in the middle of the encounter). It's viewed as cheating.

Hmm, I don't disagree, but I think "cheating" is strong for D&D when in the lottery example the expectation is that the 99.99[999999]% of the numbers are losers, yet in the D&D case, your number is probably going to win or at least not outright lose, it's just a question of what you get out of the pick.

 

[bsss]

Players using intelligent strategies and exploits is encourages just like real life. Winning is victory. The DM's job is to keep it real. Don't bend reality to suit the group or the group really isn't doing anything but playing dress up. And I suspect many games are doing just that. The fix is in for them. That is just anathema to a gamist.

I'm not a huge fan of the terms, but wouldn't "keeping it real" be simulationist, not gamist? I see the sandbox and the "unearned" reward as being assertions that the players' game experience doesn't matter, what matters is that the world you set up is what's more real than the gameplay.

From this my challenge is: if you are setting up the simulation to be enjoyable to the table, does that not mean the players' game desires bleed into the simulation? And thus, is the simulation still "real", if it's been influenced by someone other than the DM-as-auteur?

 

[Maxperson]

I think bonus actions are fine.

A smaller thing that is beneficial to your character that is limited by action economy so you can't spam it and also have to sometimes choose between what bonus action you would like.

Heathen! How dare you get back on topic!?