D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

I mean I think it's nearly irrefutable that many, many GMs out there fudge, deploy quantum ogres, and/or "allow" things while then taking pains to ensure that the thing in question is functionally impossible despite being "allowed". If a person considers those things cheating, and I absolutely do, then GMs are literally advised to cheat, sometimes by a variety of professional and otherwise well-respected sources. That, alone, indicates there's way, way more opportunities, and more incentives, for GMs to "cheat", if one agrees these things count as cheating. I know a number of people also think it literally isn't possible for GMs to cheat, and thus they engage in such behaviors without restraint, which is rather different from players. Even a dirty rotten constant cheater recognizes that what they're doing is cheating most of the time. They just don't think it's a big deal or whatever. GMs, again from my perspective, frequently deny that their actions even are cheating in the first place.

What proof do you have that this behavior from "many, many GMs" is "irrefutable"? Personal anecdote?

 

[clearstream]

Indeed. Even if these numbers were inflated to double the rate of regular GMs, that would still mean ~19% of them fudge in at least one way (monster HP). Having one in five GMs fudging is a pretty high rate, I should think.

I'd be cautious in interpreting it. The topic is a spicy one. Accounts, and therefore votes, might not represent unique persons. It's not ideal that each voter can cast between one and three votes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Illusion envelops every ludonarrative! Perhaps it is the ends to which it is put, and not the illusion itself that is at fault?

"Illusion" is not the same as "illusionism".

The former is the (IMO poorly-chosen) word for us choosing to imagine something that is not the case, but which we can

The latter is deceiving the players themselves. It is pretending that imagined-situation A is what the players are operating on, when really imagined situation B is what the players are operating on.

The two are quite different, and it's very clear to me which of these two is actually an illusion--as in, a thing made to appear like something it isn't--and which of the two is an imagining, which isn't physically real but is shared and communicated fairly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What proof do you have that this behavior from "many, many GMs" is "irrefutable"? Personal anecdote?

Seriously?

You're really going to ask me "how do you know that half the guides on the internet tell people to fudge"? You're really going to question this?

No. I'm not going to dance this dance with you. You and I both know that this is an extremely, extraordinarily common thing. It's self-evident. Look at how people talk about it. Look at the piles and piles and piles of advice, even from respected professionals. Look at the hand-wringing YouTube essays.

You don't need statistical data collection to see that this advice is everywhere. That is a self-evident, irrefutable fact.

Tons of GMs fudge. That is simply a fact.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Seriously?

You're really going to ask me "how do you know that half the guides on the internet tell people to fudge"? You're really going to question this?

No. I'm not going to dance this dance with you. You and I both know that this is an extremely, extraordinarily common thing. It's self-evident. Look at how people talk about it. Look at the piles and piles and piles of advice, even from respected professionals. Look at the hand-wringing YouTube essays.

You don't need statistical data collection to see that this advice is everywhere. That is a self-evident, irrefutable fact.

Tons of GMs fudge. That is simply a fact.

You're welcome to have that opinion. But you claiming something is irrefutable doesn't prevent me from refuting it (or at least questioning it), because I don't recognize you as an authority on the behavior of "many, many GMs". Sorry. You make a claim that strongly, expect a request for proof.

 

[clearstream]

I know a number of people also think it literally isn't possible for GMs to cheat, and thus they engage in such behaviors without restraint, which is rather different from players. Even a dirty rotten constant cheater recognizes that what they're doing is cheating most of the time. They just don't think it's a big deal or whatever. GMs, again from my perspective, frequently deny that their actions even are cheating in the first place.

Cheating applies to those who have put the rules in force for themselves and adopted any lusory goals they contain.

In some modes of play GM is a kind of player, therefore bound by the rules and could be counted as cheating when they break them. In other modes, GM is part of lusory-means, set over the rules, and as such they cannot cheat.

This is a technical point more than anything else, as cheating isn't the only way a GM can distort the game and act as a spoilsport. And they could still fail to satisfy the jobs connected with their role, or conduct themselves in other ways harmful to play.

 

[clearstream]

"Illusion" is not the same as "illusionism".

The former is the (IMO poorly-chosen) word for us choosing to imagine something that is not the case, but which we can

The latter is deceiving the players themselves. It is pretending that imagined-situation A is what the players are operating on, when really imagined situation B is what the players are operating on.

The two are quite different, and it's very clear to me which of these two is actually an illusion--as in, a thing made to appear like something it isn't--and which of the two is an imagining, which isn't physically real but is shared and communicated fairly.

Likewise it is illusion, and not illusionism, that is the wall at the edge of every sandbox.

 

[AlViking]

For precise figures, no, but unless the sample is completely unrepresentative it suggests fudging is not uncommon

Skimming the first few pages, adjustments are made in favor of the characters. Ending a combat when the outcome is certain, dropping crits to regular hits and so on.

Like I said, in my experience some DMs will hold back in order to not kill off characters. I think that likely depends on group preferences.

Edit - in other words I still don't see much evidence of widespread killer DMs out to punish players as some seem to imply.

 

[Lanefan]

Metagaming isn't good or bad, to me it's just stating a preference on how the game works.

I'm not even sure what other word we would use. If the player is using knowledge their character doesn't have, that's perfectly normal at some tables and not others. To a certain degree if you've played long enough it's pretty much inevitable at least to a certain degree. Yo can't unlearn that it takes fire to kill a troll in D&D, even if you can try to react as if your character doesn't know.

Indeed, this to a large extent isn't preventable.

Then there's the non-diegetic systems that some games use. Where you can gain karma or doom points to alter or declare some change to the world's fiction. I'd even argue that many forms of fail forward that I've read fall under this category.

This, one the other hand, very much is preventable. Mechanics like that are IMO an abomination, along with any mechanics that can or do alter a die roll and-or the resulting fiction after the roll's result is already known (5e examples would be the Shield spell and Halfling luck). If you're not willing to accept the result, don't roll. Or put another way: no risk, no reward.

It's preference whether you want to use these categories I consider metagaming, but I don't know what other label we'd apply.

I can think of lots of labels but none of them would pass muster with the mods.

 

[Eric V]

You're welcome to have that opinion. But you claiming something is irrefutable doesn't prevent me from refuting it (or at least questioning it), because I don't recognize you as an authority on the behavior of "many, many GMs". Sorry. You make a claim that strongly, expect a request for proof.

A simple perusal on your part of what he mentions in his post would demonstrate its truthfulness, I'm certain.