On taking power away from the DM

[Clavis]

Oh yea, about this too. Who the hell drew this line?

If there were two DM's and only one group of players and one DM never fudged die rolls, ever and the other fudged die rolls regularly to guarantee really fun D&D sessions I can promise the guy fudging is gonna have that group of players all the time.

It's like reading a novel. Which kind of ending would you prefer? Quick and dull or wild adventure? It's weird concept I'm going to relate here, but if a writer wrote his book using dice to determine the outcome of the "Big Battle" at the end of the book your taking a chance that people reading your novel really won't like it at all. So, he is ALWAYS going to fudge the rolls to ensure a good experience. Really enjoyable adventure should always come first. DM's should treat their games like it's a novel.

When it's all said and done the fun adventure is what's going to be remembered not the die rolls the DM might have fudged.

Bravo!

DM's cannot "cheat" - they can either provide a good gaming experience, or fail to provide it. WHATEVER a DM must do to keep the game fun, from fudging die rolls to wearing meat helmets, is acceptable. And of course, what is needed varies from group to group.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

... I have promised my players a really fun time.
...I do let the dice fall as they may but I have prepared for TPK's and the PC's rolling massive crits and lucky rolls. I have things in reserve that are implemented as needed to make sure it was an excellent encounter or adventure.

I never said that you did not promise your players a fun time. I suspect your game is even "Effing Awesome". The example was meant to be canonnical and hypothetical.

For my own game, I also let the dice fall as they may. I also have my own way to deal with inappropriate TPK's. Players generally like their characters to survive. I make defeat sting, but as long as I can find reasonable justification for player survival, I go with it. The most extreme example was when the players found themselves in the afterlife and had to cut a deal with an evil god to be returned to life. I like to run a game that is as tactically challenging as I can make it. This means I have a higher risk of TPK, and I recognize that constantly being dead is not exactly fun for my players. Good Dm's will use what works for them and their players.

My point was that it is possible to have DM cheating, and that chronic dice fudging is a sign of it. I cannot think of anything more frustrating than a DM that keeps a particular villain or pet NPC alive simply because he thinks it heightens drama, or that the NPC is critical to his Epic Story(TM). It does not matter if it is dice fudging, or the DoomBot ploy (I thought we killed Doctor Doom, what do you mean it was a Doom Bot?), or some other contrivance. Sooner or later, the players will stop being entertained by it.

Back to the subject at hand, the Dm has a huge impact on how the game is run. Even without dice fudging, he can determine what types of opponents will attack the players and when. He controlls how much magic gear the players are able to loot. And with Dm Fiat, he decides ultimately which actions are possible. If the Dm puts his own enjoyment ahead of the enjoyment of his players, that will lead to problems. I would say that a good, if broad, definition of Dm Cheating is any action by the Dm with nullifies the attempts of the players to affect the game world despite the player actions being allowed within the rules.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[LostSoul]

DM's cannot "cheat" - they can either provide a good gaming experience, or fail to provide it.

That's another bit of responsibility I like to move all around the table.

 

[Clavis]

That's another bit of responsibility I like to move all around the table.

And it's the DM's responsibility to do the moving!

 

[LostSoul]

And it's the DM's responsibility to do the moving!

Not necessarily.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

And it's the DM's responsibility to do the moving!

Preferably, no. As I would expect a "good player" to amend behavior from time to time to help other players at the table to have an enjoyable game session, I would hope that all players recognize that the "the player behind the DM screen" should have a good time as well and be willing to act accordingly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Preferably, no. As I would expect a "good player" to amend behavior from time to time to help other players at the table to have an enjoyable game session, I would hope that all players recognize that the "the player behind the DM screen" should have a good time as well and be willing to act accordingly.

I agree.

 

[Thunderfoot]

It seems like a huge difference to me. And AFAIAC, for the better.

Some old dungeon crawls and many call of Cthulhu games (for those who played or have played) relied on players doing or saying the right thing. And if you missed out... too bad. (The old text adventure games like Hitchhiker's Guide and the classic Zork were this way, too.)

These sorts of puzzle games were interesting at first, I don't have the patience for it anymore. I don't want to listen to the players finessing their way though a mansion, turning over every vase and checking the flue in every fireplace if it's going to hold up the flow of the adventure. (RPGnet calls this practice in adventure design "pixelbitching" after later graphics adventures that require you to click on ONE PIXEL.)

Not directly related to the topic at hand, I just thought I'd bring it up.

No, its a good point and was one of the reasons the 'newer' model was invented, to keep the 'too far to either' side from happening, but it does tie the hands of the DM on SOME occasions. The challenge has always been not going too far one way or the other, it just seems to me that the scale is tipped entirely in one direction now.

Q, as for the fireplace, a 5'x5' area would be the ENTIRE fireplace (unless you are in a giant's quarters or you have some weird idea about architecture. And you pose some logical points, but, as I said, my example was horrible due to the fact I didn't want to right a novel. But, the SOP method of room reveal was created by 3.XE Search/Spot checks along with their cousins 'take 10' and take 20'. (A good idea that has been grossly overused) Where a party walks into a room and they state that "1 does X, 2 does Y, etc...you know, like normal " which later turns into "We do the SOP room search." (I've seen it happen at far too many tables to say its a quirky occurrence.) Again, my problem with this is far less about 'power' than how it 'cheapens' the game play (for lack of a better term.). My original opinion about 'power' being lost is more about mystery being lost and turning what used to be a game that incorporated more of a storytelling element that included problem solving, puzzles, character interaction and combat into one that is becoming a combat simulation with other stuff tacked on. Its a small gripe to be sure, but that my angle.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Bravo!

DM's cannot "cheat" - they can either provide a good gaming experience, or fail to provide it.

I will concur with the second part of that statement. Any given Dm can either run an entertaining game, or can fail to do so.

The caveat is that what constitutes a good gaming experience varies quite a bit from person to person. How else would you explain the numerous threads on this forum that end up having long and contentious discussions where people advocate one type of gaming experience over another? Most problems ultimately occur when one persons idea of a good gaming experience differs from anothers idea. The problem can become obvious when one of those people is the Dm.

If a Dm happens to like running story / narrative intensive games, then players who want a more tactical / combat intensive game may become unhappy. That player will become extraordinarily frustrated when things he thinks are reasonable within the game are overruled by Dm Fiat.

In that situation, no one is really right. The mark of a very good Dm, I think, is to be able to run the kind of game they like while still providing an enjoyable experience to a player who likes a very different kind of game.

I still say that it is possible for the Dm to Cheat. Any Dm who over rules reasonable player actions or ignores dice results to enhance their own enjoyment of the game at the expense of their players is what I would call cheating. They may still run a game that the players enjoy a great deal, and the players may not even complain, if they notice at all. But I still say its cheating.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[DragonLancer]

So you are completely fine with the DM effectively casting a no-save daze on the caster using save-or-dies, and erasing a spell slot from his sheet. If the player used the spell, he wants it to suceed. If you are going to fudge those rolls, at least *tell* the players that, and, if they cast the spell against an opponent you'd fudge the roll for, let them take back the action and refill the spell slot with a relevant spell.

I certainly wouldn't tell them. They don't need to know. My job is to make the game fun and interesting. I'm not saying that I would do that all the time, far from it, but but in an intial round of comabt a case of anticlimax is more of a no no than a slight case of DM fiat.

For a sorceror that gets a little wierd, admittedly (pity the sorceror specializing in save-or-dies if BBEGs are immune to them).

I never said that the BBEG was immune, just that a first turn death would not be fun for any involved.