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

[Enrahim]

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".

I read this into the second point, given the parenthesis. The DM wanting to please the players seem to fit into the formulation. You could argue that way of putting it makes it not sound so charitable, but that is rhetoric I guess..

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Even in cases where that's not true, the NPC is going to spend far less time interacting with dice in general; even if events are happening off screen, few GMs are going to play them out to see how they come out).

 

[clearstream]

I read this into the second point, given the parenthesis. The DM wanting to please the players seem to fit into the formulation. You could argue that way of putting it makes it not sound so charitable, but that is rhetoric I guess..

I noticed the same ambiguity. I just assumed the least charitable meaning was intended, as seemed implied by putting experience in quotes. Some sort of railroad, possibly. Certainly nothing that respected the players as provided for in the game text.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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".

I laid out what "fairness" means--at least to me.

A rule that is applied consistently is fair. A rule that is applied inconsistently is not fair. "GM decided not to apply the rules this time Because They Felt Like It" is a rule not applied consistently.

Fair rules are, generally speaking, not especially pleasant for the people to whom they are applied; doesn't make them actively unpleasant either, but nobody is jumping for joy just because they got fair treatment. Fairness does not generally bring comfort, except in an abstract or cerebral sense, of "I got what anyone else would've gotten". Consider, for example, how the Dark Souls games (and their spiritual successors) are consistently described as "hard, but fair", and similarly, many well-liked teachers who challenge their students are often described as "tough, but fair" or similar terms. The idea being, they will put up a steep challenge, and it is entirely possible that some people will struggle badly against that challenge--but the entity in question (game, teacher, judge, whatever) will always be consistent, always display even-handedness, never resort to "gotcha" tricks or false signs, etc. If they ever did do so, they would admit fault and correct the problem--but even that will be rare because it just won't be needed. Any person subject to these things--the game's player, the teacher's students, the judge's plaintiffs and defendants--will get exactly what is due to them, no less, no more.

In many cases, I expect GMs to be aiming for, if not precisely "hard", then at least "firm but fair", when it comes to the evaluation of game elements. Part of the reason I expect this is that those rules themselves are naturally--and wisely!--biased in favor of the PCs on a small time horizon. This is because, as I've argued many many times over the years, the gameplay function that "a combat" serves for PCs is radically different from the gameplay function that "a combat" serves for enemies. A PC needs to survive not just that single combat, but many combats, back to back to back to back to back, to even have a chance at net victory. Hence, to design monsters that perfectly 1:1 match up with player features and design is inherently contradictory to the game design goal of combat, which is to produce an interesting and exciting experience both at the level of the individual encounter, and at the level of many encounters assembling together to form an adventure. One would expect that a competently-played enemy force of equal strength to the party would win about 50% of the time, for a properly-designed game--which would mean that the vast majority of parties don't make it to the end of their 8th combat before TPK, and certainly don't make it that far without multiple character deaths. (If you lose every combat 50% of the time, then after 8 combats, you'd only have a (.5)^8 = 1/256 = 0.00390625 or about .4% chance of surviving.)

The GM putting their thumb on the scale to provide a better experience is not fairness. It is, instead, intentional and knowing unfairness--just unfairness that is beneficial to the player(s), rather than detrimental. Just like how, for example, a person with powerful political friends, or friends-of-friends, e.g. "my dad's golfing partner is a respected retired judge", usually gets positive unfair treatment when said friends(-of-friends) "put in a good word" for the person in question, thus getting that person a lighter fine or sentence. That is unfair--but it is beneficially unfair for the recipient.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I read this into the second point, given the parenthesis. The DM wanting to please the players seem to fit into the formulation. You could argue that way of putting it makes it not sound so charitable, but that is rhetoric I guess..

That was my intent, yes.

 

[Enrahim]

I laid out what "fairness" means--at least to me.

A rule that is applied consistently is fair. A rule that is applied inconsistently is not fair. "GM decided not to apply the rules this time Because They Felt Like It" is a rule not applied consistently.

Fair rules are, generally speaking, not especially pleasant for the people to whom they are applied; doesn't make them actively unpleasant either, but nobody is jumping for joy just because they got fair treatment. Fairness does not generally bring comfort, except in an abstract or cerebral sense, of "I got what anyone else would've gotten". Consider, for example, how the Dark Souls games (and their spiritual successors) are consistently described as "hard, but fair", and similarly, many well-liked teachers who challenge their students are often described as "tough, but fair" or similar terms. The idea being, they will put up a steep challenge, and it is entirely possible that some people will struggle badly against that challenge--but the entity in question (game, teacher, judge, whatever) will always be consistent, always display even-handedness, never resort to "gotcha" tricks or false signs, etc. If they ever did do so, they would admit fault and correct the problem--but even that will be rare because it just won't be needed. Any person subject to these things--the game's player, the teacher's students, the judge's plaintiffs and defendants--will get exactly what is due to them, no less, no more.

In many cases, I expect GMs to be aiming for, if not precisely "hard", then at least "firm but fair", when it comes to the evaluation of game elements. Part of the reason I expect this is that those rules themselves are naturally--and wisely!--biased in favor of the PCs on a small time horizon. This is because, as I've argued many many times over the years, the gameplay function that "a combat" serves for PCs is radically different from the gameplay function that "a combat" serves for enemies. A PC needs to survive not just that single combat, but many combats, back to back to back to back to back, to even have a chance at net victory. Hence, to design monsters that perfectly 1:1 match up with player features and design is inherently contradictory to the game design goal of combat, which is to produce an interesting and exciting experience both at the level of the individual encounter, and at the level of many encounters assembling together to form an adventure. One would expect that a competently-played enemy force of equal strength to the party would win about 50% of the time, for a properly-designed game--which would mean that the vast majority of parties don't make it to the end of their 8th combat before TPK, and certainly don't make it that far without multiple character deaths. (If you lose every combat 50% of the time, then after 8 combats, you'd only have a (.5)^8 = 1/256 = 0.00390625 or about .4% chance of surviving.)

The GM putting their thumb on the scale to provide a better experience is not fairness. It is, instead, intentional and knowing unfairness--just unfairness that is beneficial to the player(s), rather than detrimental. Just like how, for example, a person with powerful political friends, or friends-of-friends, e.g. "my dad's golfing partner is a respected retired judge", usually gets positive unfair treatment when said friends(-of-friends) "put in a good word" for the person in question, thus getting that person a lighter fine or sentence. That is unfair--but it is beneficially unfair for the recipient.

I think a major challenge is when we encounter situations where the rules themselves can be described as "unfair". Then we get into a double bind - be unfair by following the unfair rules, or be unfair by not consistently following the rules?

Traditional play tend to opt for the latter. This seem pragmatic given the number of plain "unfair" situations that arise in them from the ruleset not being well designed for fairness.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

For my own part, I strive to be consistent or--if I am not sure--I strive to hold only my own work/benefits to the highest standard of scrutiny, with a lower standard for others, but not no standard at all.

I have, in the past, revealed problems for others because of this. Both times this was in any way significant, I then dedicated time to specifically trying to find a workaround that wouldn't violate the rules, but would still achieve the desired result. One of those times, the workaround was actually better than the original (specifically, a character getting the "Deathless" template rather than being "Undead", which gave them all the benefits they desired with some of the drawbacks removed or replaced with things that weren't as onerous.) I always feel very guilty whenever I call attention to a rules element that is harmful to the intent or plans of other players; it makes me feel like I'm taking away their fun, which I strive to never do if I can avoid it...it's just not something I will knowingly lie to avoid.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think a major challenge is when we encounter situations where the rules themselves can be described as "unfair". Then we get into a double bind - be unfair by following the unfair rules, or be unfair by not consistently following the rules?

Traditional play tend to opt for the latter. This seem pragmatic given the number of plain "unfair" situations that arise in them from the ruleset not being well designed for fairness.

Whereas, for me, I think we should apply the rules--which everyone can see, so they know what they're getting--fairly.

If the results are then not to our satisfaction, we work that out. We don't try to pretend that unfair rules are actually fair by constantly adding even more unfairness.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

As stated, that does not to me sound like there is unfairness in the combat. The GM made a mistake, doing something stronger than they intended. It sounds like the GM is adding unfairness--beneficially for the players, detrimentally for their opposition--by putting their thumb on the scale.

So, either the secret change is there to conceal that the GM made a mistake, thus preserving their appearance of being mistake-free, or it is there to control the players' experience secretly, rather than allowing the players to experience the game as it actually happens. Which are the first and second points I made previously.

As stated: there is nothing you (as GM) can achieve with fudging that you can't achieve without it, at least, nothing that is not inherently a deception (such as the aforementioned "players believe they deserved a win when they didn't" scenario). I prefer not fudging, because when you do that, it really does mean that every victory is earned, and it means that every failure, even really nasty ones, builds into more story, rather than being either extreme of "an uninteresting dead end" or "smoothed over so nothing actually bad happens".

I've previously described my GMing style as "chiaroscuro". Light and darkness. Allow the darkness to entirely swallow the light, and you're left with a bleak, uninteresting nothing. Allow the light to swallow the darkness, and you're left blinded, without contrast or depth--again, an uninteresting nothing. By having both entirely earned overwhelming triumphs and entirely earned freak defeats, the players' experience retains an authenticity that is always lost when one brings fudging into the picture. Yes, this means sometimes they will have locally unpleasant feelings. Given I don't permit (as I have said before) deaths which are all three of random, permanent, and irrevocable, those local unpleasant feelings are never a dead end unless the player prefers them to be so--at which point, who am I to take that from them?

Others have said that the techniques used to achieve this without fudging are "deus ex machina" and thus in some sense distasteful. My response is simply that fudging is always that, but it adds deception in addition to being such. If you are going to be doing a deus ex machina either way...seems to me the better choice is to do so without adding deception on top.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I don't understand what the difference is.

You "balance encounters a touch before it starts". Okay. So...does that mean you might add or remove combatants before the fight begins? If so, you're literally doing the thing you've said you won't do, "spawning" (or despawning) entities in order to meet your subjective perception of what would make a good experience. Likewise, you are "spawning" a "random encounter" because, to your perception, the area the characters are in is a dangerous one that should have such an encounter, but doesn't.

I don't see how you as a player could see such a pattern in action when the exact same actions are occurring either way. You're just doing it for reason P, while they're doing it for reason Q.