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

[AlViking]

Oh, I don't know. Could be the endless complaints about adding in a cook to a kitchen.

Or maybe the endless complaints about players trying to add things to the setting.

I mean, if improvisation is a critical skill for a sandbox and for simulation, then, suddenly, all those meta-game style mechanics are back on the table. What's the difference between "improvising" a cook in the kitchen and adding a cook to the kitchen because of a failed skill roll?

It's not about a "gotcha" moment. It's about the fact that the goalposts have been on roller skates all the way along.

I don't add things to the fiction based on what I consider unrelated actions taken by the characters unless there's a logical chain of events. I don't add things simply to add drama or excitement during the session. That doesn't mean I don't regularly have to improvise when things go an unexpected direction like they frequently do.

The cook is a mechanism, fail forward, done in order to change the ongoing narrative in a way the GM thinks will suit their needs. I don't do that, once the session starts I'm the referee.

That's different from having to consider things like balance, but it's a question of whether or not there are 3 or 4 thugs accompanying the pirate captain, not whether or not the pirate captain and his thugs are at the Tilted Tavern where a fight is likely to breakout.

I may make tiny tweaks here and there, I don't modify scenarios in order to "move the game forward" or because "failure is boring". If the goalposts are shifting for you, I suggest you see an eye doctor.

 

[Umbran]

Fudging is, by its very nature, not running a fair game. It is, by intent, a bias.

With all respect, when the opposition and the referee are the same person, "fairness" should not have been on the list of qualities you expect from the game.

 

[Rystefn]

YOU don't like it. That's fine. To you it's an abuse of DM authority. That doesn't make it cheating. The DM quite literally cannot possibly cheat. Every last rule is subject to his discretion, including any rule against fudging. There isn't one, though. 5e and 5.5e actually validate it as a method to use.

There's also not a rule against any other player "fudging" the dice rolls. Or altering their own hit points in the middle of a fight. Or any of the other things being suggested for DMs to do to cheat in the middle of a fight. But you would 100% call it cheating if anyone who isn't the DM did it. Hey, there's no rule in D&D against someone who isn't the DM keeping an open copy of the module in front of them and reading the solutions to every trick, trap, and puzzle, too. Is that also not cheating?

No. The DMG having an explicit "The DM is allowed to cheat" rule doesn't magically make it not cheating. Nor does any amount of implicit "the DM can do whatever they want" clauses you might want to throw around. The entire concept that the DM has ultimate authority and everything they do is good and right is absolute nonsense, and I can't believe that people say it with a straight face.

 

[clearstream]

There's also not a rule against any other player "fudging" the dice rolls. Or altering their own hit points in the middle of a fight. Or any of the other things being suggested for DMs to do to cheat in the middle of a fight. But you would 100% call it cheating if anyone who isn't the DM did it. Hey, there's no rule in D&D against someone who isn't the DM keeping an open copy of the module in front of them and reading the solutions to every trick, trap, and puzzle, too. Is that also not cheating?

If I draw the implications correctly, then I think you are right in saying we should be critical of treating everything not ruled out by a game text as ruled in. When similar debates arose around Advanced Squad Leader text, a principle was developed labelled "COWTRA" (concentrate on what the rules allow).

On page 17 of the latest DMG there is text for DM to do it. There is no comparable text in Core for players to do it. Thus the two aren't on equal footing insomuch as the rules allow. That's setting aside that DM gains no benefit for themselves by doing it, whereas players could.

No. The DMG having an explicit "The DM is allowed to cheat" rule doesn't magically make it not cheating. Nor does any amount of implicit "the DM can do whatever they want" clauses you might want to throw around. The entire concept that the DM has ultimate authority and everything they do is good and right is absolute nonsense, and I can't believe that people say it with a straight face.

Following the rules is near-universally accepted as making it not cheating. Are you thinking instead of the DM exploiting that text to illicit ends?

 

[Eric V]

That's the point though. The disappearance of the elves is an established fact of the setting. Fair enough. It's not in flux. It's a fact of the setting, same as... Waterdeep exists in the Sword Coast. Once it's established, it's no longer in flux.

But, that's not the issue is it? No one is saying DM's should be changing established information. But, it has been repeatedly stated that in any sim or sandbox game, nothing is in flux once the game starts. The DM is forbidden in these games from changing stuff - if that town exists in Hex 2023, then that town must always be there. And it must be a town. It cannot be a village or a city. It must be exactly as the DM has outlined it to be. Nothing can be in flux.

But, now, apparently, everything that hasn't been previously established is actually in flux and may be changed at any time.... so, basically the last five hundred pages or so of this thread has just gotten ejected out the window.

Because we weren't specifically using the term "in flux." Obviously.

 

[Maxperson]

There's also not a rule against any other player "fudging" the dice rolls. Or altering their own hit points in the middle of a fight. Or any of the other things being suggested for DMs to do to cheat in the middle of a fight. But you would 100% call it cheating if anyone who isn't the DM did it. Hey, there's no rule in D&D against someone who isn't the DM keeping an open copy of the module in front of them and reading the solutions to every trick, trap, and puzzle, too. Is that also not cheating?

Have you read the D&D rules? The rules give the DM the authority to alter rules, not the players. The rules give the DM the ability to fudge rolls. Not the players.

The rules tell the players what to roll and how to do things. They have no ability to change that. The DM does. Players can cheat. It's not possible for the DM to cheat. The DM CAN abuse his authority, though, so it's not like he can just do things without consequence.

No. The DMG having an explicit "The DM is allowed to cheat" rule doesn't magically make it not cheating. Nor does any amount of implicit "the DM can do whatever they want" clauses you might want to throw around. The entire concept that the DM has ultimate authority and everything they do is good and right is absolute nonsense, and I can't believe that people say it with a straight face.

There is no DM can cheat rule. Fudging for the DM is not cheating. It can sometimes be abuse of authority, depending on how he uses it. You can repeat the "DM is cheating!" mantra until you are blue in the face, but that won't make it so.

Players can cheat, but not abuse authority. The DM can abuse authority, but cannot cheat. Both can commit wrongs, but not the same wrong. At least not in this context.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the point though. The disappearance of the elves is an established fact of the setting. Fair enough. It's not in flux. It's a fact of the setting, same as... Waterdeep exists in the Sword Coast. Once it's established, it's no longer in flux.

But, that's not the issue is it? No one is saying DM's should be changing established information. But, it has been repeatedly stated that in any sim or sandbox game, nothing is in flux once the game starts. The DM is forbidden in these games from changing stuff - if that town exists in Hex 2023, then that town must always be there. And it must be a town. It cannot be a village or a city. It must be exactly as the DM has outlined it to be. Nothing can be in flux.

That's not accurate. The town, while not as major as the elves, is still an established fact of the setting. It would be easier to change the town than the elves, but still significantly harder than making an encounter 4 elves instead of 6.

Also, the town is in flux and cannot be exactly as the DM outlined it, because the DM is not God. He cannot get every detail, NPC, animal, pet, cobblestone, etc. written down such that there's nothing he needs to create on the fly. See my example with the farrier waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay upthread(this thread is long). The Forgotten Realms, by far the most detailed setting I can think of, still hasn't detailed out even 1% of the setting. That's a lot of flux.

Much of the town is established, but a lot will need to be potentially created on the fly.

But, now, apparently, everything that hasn't been previously established is actually in flux and may be changed at any time.... so, basically the last five hundred pages or so of this thread has just gotten ejected out the window.

I don't think that is what was meant, but I'll let the person you were talking to clarify, because I still don't know for sure what was meant by setting details.

 

[Maxperson]

Fudging is, by its very nature, not running a fair game. It is, by intent, a bias.

Bias is not inherently unfair. It depends on how the bias is used. In the very rare circumstances that I fudge rolls, there is absolutely nothing unfair about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Problem as usual is this has more impact on PCs than NPCs because they're going to have a lot more dice slung in their direction across the course of the game.

(Which doesn't mean I think crits are a bad idea, just that the fact they apply in both directions doesn't mean as much as I think you're suggesting here).

That is a gamist argument, while @Lanefan 's is a sim one. Orthogonal to each other in this case.

 

[Hussar]

I don't add things to the fiction based on what I consider unrelated actions taken by the characters unless there's a logical chain of events. I don't add things simply to add drama or excitement during the session. That doesn't mean I don't regularly have to improvise when things go an unexpected direction like they frequently do.

The cook is a mechanism, fail forward, done in order to change the ongoing narrative in a way the GM thinks will suit their needs. I don't do that, once the session starts I'm the referee.

That's different from having to consider things like balance, but it's a question of whether or not there are 3 or 4 thugs accompanying the pirate captain, not whether or not the pirate captain and his thugs are at the Tilted Tavern where a fight is likely to breakout.

I may make tiny tweaks here and there, I don't modify scenarios in order to "move the game forward" or because "failure is boring". If the goalposts are shifting for you, I suggest you see an eye doctor.

I guess, at the end of the day, I find the distinction between "improvise when things go an unexpected direction" and "modify scenarios in order to move the game forward" to be largely nonexistent. Change is change. Why you do the changes, whatever justifications happen to float your boat, are irrelevant.

Either the setting has an internal logic that must be maintained, or it doesn't. And if scenarios are being improvised, then the setting doesn't actually have any real internal logic. Or, at least, it has no more internal logic than "fail forward" or any other technique a DM will employ.

Whether you "spawn in" enemies because of game balance or because it's more interesting or it's moving the game forward or whatever the justification, the point is, you (and pretty much every DM out there) spawns in the enemies.

From the perspective of the players, there is zero difference. I guess this is why we're just not seeing eye to eye here. You are drawing a distinction that I simply don't think matters. The players don't care why three extra thugs are in the encounter - they just care that there are, in fact, three extra thugs. That you decided to plonk in those thugs because of game balance, a random encounter roll, a failed skill check or any of a thousand other reasons, doesn't matter in the slightest to the players.