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

[Thomas Shey]

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

He made his, I made mine. He opened the door to a gamist note when mentioning the players enjoyed getting crits.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

And yet that's exactly what people expect, and have done for ages. Does this mean all of those people were fools to have such an expectation? It's not like this is a new idea. Far from it. It's been repeatedly discussed in this very thread!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are too many problematic implications around what may properly count as a rule or a game, for me to engage with the "by its very nature" line of argument.

But as to bias, yes, I think DM in D&D is intended to be biased toward the players. At the same time, that bias is not intended to make the game unfair. In fact, fudging seems most strongly motivated by reestablishing fairness.

Not at all. It is most strongly motivated by:

• Preserving the appearance that the GM does not make mistakes
• Preserving the "experience" the GM wishes the player to have (hence why the second most commonly discussed type of fudging, after protecting PCs from random mega damage, is keeping a "boss" alive after the players dealt mega damage)
• Realizing only after the fact that something the GM thought should be left to chance, was actually something that should have been certain

The vast majority of fudging examples are covered by these three. "Restoring fairness" doesn't even get mentioned.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet that's exactly what people expect, and have done for ages. Does this mean all of those people were fools to have such an expectation? It's not like this is a new idea. Far from it. It's been repeatedly discussed in this very thread!

Depending on their definition of "fair", it was at least an unreasonable expectation, because using some of those definitions its questionable if its even possible.

There are other definitions one could use where its possible: if someone's definition is "once a situation is set up, its allowed to play out as the mechanics say rather than intervening to make it play out differently" that's at least possible, but that doesn't make it necessarily easy even when intended (there are, after all, ways to put your thumb on the scale as a GM that do not involve disregarding rolls or rules, and some of them can be done subconsciously), and that may be an overly narrow definition for some people's purposes.

 

[AlViking]

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.

I run a sandbox, the players determine direction. While I create the setting (i work player on their backgrounds), the players set the direction and drive the action of the game. Players pick the route, they're in the driver's seat, I'm just providing the road once the session starts. If they decide to turn left when I had anticipated right I have to construct new road.

I find narrative tools like fai forward to be the DM like grabbing the wheel and directing the game. I'm not a director, I'm a set designer and referee.

I never "spawn in" enemies just to keep the game interesting. I may balance encounters a touch before it starts but I won't throw in a random encounter just to spice things up. I may have a random encounter because an area is dangerous and full of hostile creatures, but even then that's because the characters chose the route and didn't take enough precautions.

So I see a huge difference, as do my players. I know I would see a pattern emerge. Truth is, I used to use similar techniques and players would call me out on it so I changed my style.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But an encounter can be unfair to the players, due to bad design. Me changing it on the fly could make it fair to the players.

How is that possible?

Seriously. If the encounter is too strong to be beaten, that isn't "unfair to the players". It is fair that some things br genuinely beyond their ability. Fairness does not mean guaranteeing success! Fairness means applying the rules without fear or favor. The thing you are talking about is specifically ignoring the rules in order to show preference for one above another. It is definitionally unfair.

Instead, what you're driving at here is that it is undesirable for players to face and unavoidable loss that the GM did not intend. That if the GM has screwed up and made the players believe something is winnable when it is not, then they would have a legitimate grievance and want it addressed. That doesn't make running that unwinnable battle unfair. It simply makes it not the thing the GM wanted to do, and thus the GM's signalling to the players was unintentionally harmful.

Which, as stated above, is exactly the "make it seem like the GM doesn't make mistakes" thing. Instead of fairly presenting the combat, or admitting to fault and fixing it, fudging is the GM smoothing away their errors without anyone ever knowing an error occurred. Some players will absolutely want this, because any attention, any at all, called to the process of play will be harmful to their experience, so they would rather the GM play in an unfair but smooth manner, rather than having the certainty that the GM does not interfere with results even when the results are undesirable. The former is just as much a perfectly rational desire as the latter, even if the former is not a desire I share or even entirely understand.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Can you expand on why you think not? What do you count as fair?

 

[clearstream]

Not at all. It is most strongly motivated by:

• Preserving the appearance that the GM does not make mistakes
• Preserving the "experience" the GM wishes the player to have (hence why the second most commonly discussed type of fudging, after protecting PCs from random mega damage, is keeping a "boss" alive after the players dealt mega damage)
• Realizing only after the fact that something the GM thought should be left to chance, was actually something that should have been certain

The vast majority of fudging examples are covered by these three. "Restoring fairness" doesn't even get mentioned.

Can you cite the testimonials that back this up?

Reading at least the first several testimonials in this survey thread on Reddit make it more about what I said: serving the players. Example "DM dice fudging has its place, but it should be used very sparingly and only in favor of the players".

Possibly we are applying different notions of what counts as "fairness".

 

[Maggan]

How is that possible?

Well, one way I can think of is if the DM has miscaclulated the threat level of a monster, and only realizes as the encounter unfolds that they have made a mistake.

And I can readily imagine there being encounters that work fine with a lot of parties, but as there are thousands and thousands and thousande of permutations in party makeup, a DM might not know exactly how an encounter will hit, and subsequently make it too difficult for the party of adventurers attempting the encounter, while not giving the correct information for the players to make an informed decision on whether to engage or not.

So the DM chooses to adapt on the fly. Or bring the game to a stop, of course, it that's what the group thinks is best. Or just TPK the entire party, if that is how they roll, hoping that the players don't mind losing their PCs due to the DM making a mistake that mustn't ever be fixed on the fly.

My group choses to let the DM adapt on the fly.

Well, except for my other group where we play D&D4, where the encounter is what the encounter is.

 

[Gimby]

Yeah, even if something is uncommon, its a mistake to assume it doesn't exist at all in the gaming populace as whole. I've seen people say they've never seen players bring up rules mistakes the GM is making or they disagree with that worked to their advantage (i.e. rules arguments that work against their own interests) where I've not only done so in the past, I was at a game table where essentially the whole player group did.

Assuming something is an outlier can be a fair assessment with the data one has. Assuming its nonexistent is reaching beyond not only your available data, its probably reaching beyond any possible data one can have in these situations.

Right - the "Lawful Good Rules Lawyer" is something I think a lot of us have heard of as a concept.