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

[Micah Sweet]

3e has

Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can’t cheat. You’re the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it’s certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly. It’s no fun losing a long term character who gets run over by a cart. A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn’t die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time.​

​

4e has

Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you might want to change the second critical hit to a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t do it too often, though, and don’t let on that you’re doing it, or the other players feel as though they don’t face any real risk—or worse, that you’re playing favorites.​

​

AD&D has

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!​

Expert (Mentzer) has

The DM may choose a number within the given die range rather than roll for the amount of damage, number appearing, etc. This may be necessary to allow for a more enjoyable game; heavy damage early in the game may spoil some of the fun.​

Fair enough. At least the AD&D one (which is what I cut my teeth on) doesn't suggest changing die rolls, or even having an attack not put the PC on the ground if it should.

 

[Gimby]

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.

"Balancing encounters a touch" by adding additional foes is exactly "spawning in" enemies. If it's being done to "balance" the encounter, it's almost definitionally to keep the game interesting (a trivial encounter would be found by most groups I expect as not interesting - a somewhat challenging one would be).

 

[Faolyn]

I like having rules rather than being told to just make it up on the spot. Plus, rules allow for other rules to interact with them, allowing for more options and less abstract sim.

But strangely, you don't like having rules telling you how to GM. There you want guidelines--meaning you have to make up the GM role on the spot.

 

[AlViking]

"Balancing encounters a touch" by adding additional foes is exactly "spawning in" enemies. If it's being done to "balance" the encounter, it's almost definitionally to keep the game interesting (a trivial encounter would be found by most groups I expect as not interesting - a somewhat challenging one would be).

Before the characters ever perceive of the potential encounter on rare occasions I change the number of enemies. The new enemies don't appear out of thin air, teleporting in like the do in some video games.

Of course as DM I'm always balancing encounters before the encounter starts, its just usually before the session starts. When I write down "Pirate Captain + 4 thugs" in my encounter notes a week before the session am I "spawning those in" as well?

Ya'll keep stretching things this much you're gonna hurt yourselves.

 

[The Firebird]

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.

Hmm. I get what you're saying. But I also would value (some idea of) fairness quite highly as a player and GM. I have to be selective to find GMs that realize it, though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Yet you'll still get people who deny it exists at all in the wild, just because they've never seen it personally.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hmm. I get what you're saying. But I also would value (some idea of) fairness quite highly as a player and GM. I have to be selective to find GMs that realize it, though.

Like I said, there's fairness and there's fairness. Some versions of that are harder to achieve than others.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

That's because they will objectively survive longer than most NPCs they face.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But strangely, you don't like having rules telling you how to GM. There you want guidelines--meaning you have to make up the GM role on the spot.

Guidelines and advice literally prevent you from having to make up the role on the spot. Besides, traditional games give the GM control over everything in the campaign aside from the PCs, and guidelines and advice on how to use it. That's a rule, and it's good enough for me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Heck. They've experienced at least one TPK over the years.

Only 1, and you call yourself a veteran. (smh)