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

[AlViking]

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.

I interpret "spawning" as it is used in video games, enemies just appear out of nowhere. I view adding or removing a monster from a planned possible combat encounter a adjusting based on the current situation before the encounter starts.

I'm not adding them randomly or during the middle of a fight. Until the characters are aware of them they aren't fixed in the fiction. Same way as if they unexpectedly went to a tavern. Once they go to the tavern, it exists in the world. Even if I had detailed out Eom's tavern in great detail, it doesn't really exist until it's revealed to the players.

I don't really care what label people want to apply, I don't view it any differently than planning out the monsters for any combat. The reason for the potential combat remains the same, their motivations, affiliations, role in the game doesn't change. I'm not modifying anything because of a failed check.

I'm not doing it because I'm trying to change the outcome other than that if it does end up in a fight I want the combat to be challenging but not overwhelming. I'm not changing things to direct the flow of the game, whether or not there's combat is still based on the same reasons.

 

[Maxperson]

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

They're pretty good, so they generally avoid TPKs. They do lose 1-3 PCs over the course of a campaign, though.

And I feel like there's another one that I am forgetting.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The big difference is that the former is necessary while the latter is not.

When things go in unexpected directions either the DM has to improvise or the session grinds to a halt. Very few of us (if anyone) would say that stopping the session is a desirable result here, thus improvisation becomes required.

Modifying existing and expected scenarios on the fly, however, is neither necessary nor required.

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.

By "spawn in", are you referring to adding more enemies on the fly to a battle that's otherwise turning out to be a pushover? If yes, I see this as poor DMing and, indeed, as something of a violation of the internal logic you've already put in place (such as it may be).

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.

Until something gets missed later and exposes the fudging. You met ten guards in the hallway (would have been four but you beefed up the battle), but when you get to their quarters there's only beds and spare gear for four because you-as-DM forgot to adjust that room description.

 

[Faolyn]

That's been my point all the way along though. I'm not the one insisting that setting changes cannot be done. Of course they are done. We all do them. Everyone admits that we do. I just find the distinction that some justifications for changes is acceptable and others aren't. It's okay to add in an NPC to the town as needed - not because the town necessarily has that NPC, but, because the players asked if there was a particular kind of NPC there and it makes no real difference either way, so, add in the NPC. Cools. We're adding details to make the game more interesting.

But, I've just been told that that's absolutely off the table. You MUST NOT add in setting details to make the game more interesting or to move the game forward. That's "fail forward" and all sorts of bad DMing practices. The fact that we all do it and think absolutely nothing of it gets ignored of course, but, hey, we must never change the details of the setting to "move the game forward".

You really gotta stop assuming that because a couple of people say "do not add setting details" that they speak for everyone.

Some GMs are fine with adding details. Some refuse to do it at all. Some are OK with adding details in some places and not in others. You will never get every GM to agree.

Bob says "you MUST NOT add setting details." Jim says it's OK. If you're in a conversation with Jim, then only bring up what Jim says. Or at most say "Hey Jim, Bob says you can't do this because of these reasons. What do you think?" Don't keep saying "Well, of course we all do it, but people are saying we can't." Because that's not what the conversation is about. It's about how you do it.

Likewise, if you want to keep talking to Bob, then don't bring up what Jim says, except, again, to maybe refer to Jim's reasons.

 

[Lanefan]

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

My point wasn't intended to be specifically gamist, or any other -ist for all that.

I do, however, insist on mechanical symmetry between PCs and NPCs; and I very strongly suspect players would howl if I took away crits and fumbles. Therefore those things stay in, and therefore NPCs and foes can crit and fumble just like the PCs can.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

That latter one is tricky; its one thing to say "This rule decision that benefited me is wrong, and I don't think you should do it"; it has a different tone of its "This rule decision that benefited Joe is wrong, and I don't think you should do it." I'd have to think hard if I did the latter and make sure I knew Joe would be okay with it. (If someone did that to me I'd be fine, other than being embarrassed I didn't notice it myself).

 

[Thomas Shey]

My point wasn't intended to be specifically gamist, or any other -ist for all that.

I do, however, insist on mechanical symmetry between PCs and NPCs; and I very strongly suspect players would howl if I took away crits and fumbles. Therefore those things stay in, and therefore NPCs and foes can crit and fumble just like the PCs can.

I tend to prefer them myself, but there are absolutely people who really hate them, especially in the D&D sphere. And of course some who like crits but not fumbles.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Perhaps its because the GM is both supposed to be either neutral towards or a fan of the players (depending on system and preferences) and running NPCs who want to kill the PCs.

It's hard to find a balance there.

 

[Lanefan]

Not at all. It is most strongly motivated by:

• Preserving the appearance that the GM does not make mistakes

Perhaps.

• 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)

To me this is just as bad as fudging in the players' favour. If they get their unexpectedly-easy kill, why not just let 'em keep it? Hell, if nothing else it makes up for when by sheer good luck you squashed some poor PC last combat.

• Realizing only after the fact that something the GM thought should be left to chance, was actually something that should have been certain

Flip side is realizing after the fact that something taken as certain at the time really wasn't certain at all, and should have been put to a roll. These errors tend to roughly cancel themselves out in the long run, so no big deal.

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

I think restoring (or preserving) fairness falls squarely under "preserving the experience the DM wishes the player(s} to have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I interpret "spawning" as it is used in video games, enemies just appear out of nowhere. I view adding or removing a monster from a planned possible combat encounter a adjusting based on the current situation before the encounter starts.

Yes. So they appear or disappear out of nowhere--just out of sight. Exactly as video games do. Almost always with a planned possible combat encounter!

For goodness' sake, are you presuming that anyone who doesn't do things identically to how you do just instantaneously manifests things directly in the players' line of sight? Like are you seriously trying to claim that just because others approach things differently, they must be doing the most aggressively anti-realistic methods possible?

This is precisely what I mean when I talk about double standards being used all over the place in this thread. If you wouldn't do something like that, why would you immediately presume, most uncharitably, that others instantly WOULD do so? Especially without ever asking to clarify first!

I'm not adding them randomly or during the middle of a fight. Until the characters are aware of them they aren't fixed in the fiction. Same way as if they unexpectedly went to a tavern. Once they go to the tavern, it exists in the world. Even if I had detailed out Eom's tavern in great detail, it doesn't really exist until it's revealed to the players.

The point was that your description applied to both things, so I didn't (and still don't) see what the distinction is.

I don't really care what label people want to apply, I don't view it any differently than planning out the monsters for any combat. The reason for the potential combat remains the same, their motivations, affiliations, role in the game doesn't change. I'm not modifying anything because of a failed check.

Really? So if the party failed, say, a stealth check early on--not badly enough to give the game away, perhaps, but enough that they've now left visible signs of entry--you wouldn't have the guards respond by beefing up security a bit?

Again, it's inherently unfair and uncharitable to presume that others "spawn in" monsters pop pop pop directly in view. So what's the difference between "failed stealth check -> more of the guards that we could pretty clearly tell already existed are now assigned to patrol the halls" and, y'know, any of the stuff you're rejecting here? Because if we assume the GM doesn't just literally pop things into existence on a whim, and only introduces or removes things that have reasonable fiction behind them...then, as stated, I do not see any difference between the things you're describing and the things you're claiming you oppose.

I'm not doing it because I'm trying to change the outcome other than that if it does end up in a fight I want the combat to be challenging but not overwhelming. I'm not changing things to direct the flow of the game, whether or not there's combat is still based on the same reasons.

But...the former thing and the latter thing are identical in both of these sentences. You are changing the outcome, that's...literally what adding or removing forces does? The exception is a hole the same size as the rule itself!

And by adding or removing things from a combat, you are, necessarily, changing things to direct the flow of the game--toward something you consider challenging but not overwhelming, and away from something you consider overwhelming (or, presumably, underwhelming--if you felt the existing mechanics would be inappropriately dull/inadequate, when compared to the information available to the players).

You're saying you're not doing a thing, only to then give a more specific example of...doing that exact thing. You just require that doing so begins and ends with the fiction: it must arise from what is known, or what could be compatible with what is known (e.g., the party probably doesn't know the exact number of bears in this forest, or the exact number of guards in this palace, or...etc.), and then whatever results come out the other side must flow back into the world, with the appropriate consequences.

That's very literally what the rules for Dungeon World (and other PbtA games) explicitly require. So, again, what is the difference? Dungeon World doesn't permit "spawning" enemies in the way you've described any more than you do. In fact, doing so is explicitly against the rules, and the GM is supposed to follow the rules!