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

[EzekielRaiden]

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).

At least with the undead/deathless thing, I only realized after the words had left my mouth that "oh no...this person's build depended on this working..." That was part of what motivated me to find a workaround. And, as stated, I got lucky, there was not only a workaround, but it was both thematically and mechanically better than the original path. (Character was an undead who had previously served an evil PF god, but been turned toward goodness by Sarenrae; it made perfect sense that, given he had received her divine favor, she would sponsor his transition from undead to deathless.)

But yeah as noted I try to apply the highest standard only to myself, if I'm in any way unsure about what to do. Either that or I might try to find the workaround first before mentioning it to the group.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

No.

But if two rounds into what you'd hoped would be an epic battle all four thugs are down and the captain is sinking fast, having three more thugs show up "just because" is most definitely spawning-in (and, IMO, poor form).

 

[Lanefan]

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

Thing is, in older-edition D&D there's a whole pile of rules the players never see, and aren't expected to. Combat and save matrices. Magic item lists and write-ups. Monster stats and write-ups. All sorts of less-frequently-used charts and tables. Etc.

Here, of course, it's on the DM to take on the role of neutral arbiter and apply those rules impartially.

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.

If a rule doesn't work, change it. Once. Get it right, then lock it in as a houserule.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Restoring or preserving fairness--as noted above--rarely has any positive impact on the player's experience. I brought up the Dark Souls games for a reason. They are notorious for being fair, which is why they can be so disheartening. Outside of cases where something is genuinely bugged out, literally the whole point is that the challenge is hard, but absolutely always fair. If you die, it is, always, your fault.

If one's goal is to preserve a certain emotion, or to inculcate a feeling of triumph, or whatever else--restoring fairness won't achieve that. Instead, manipulating results will achieve that. And that is exactly what fairness isn't.

Thing is, in older-edition D&D there's a whole pile of rules the players never see, and aren't expected to. Combat and save matrices. Magic item lists and write-ups. Monster stats and write-ups. All sorts of less-frequently-used charts and tables. Etc.

You will be unsurprised to hear that this is one of the things I dislike most about old-school D&D. The idea that the rules should in any way be hidden from the players--I don't mean monster stat blocks, I mean the rules of the game--is not only alien to me, it is something I cannot fathom. The only motive I can see for such a thing is borderline Machiavellian, so since I don't believe that is anyone's motive, it is genuinely a mystery to me why anyone would ever desire to do that.

Here, of course, it's on the DM to take on the role of neutral arbiter and apply those rules impartially.

"Neutral abiter [who applies] those rules impartially" is what "fairness" means.

If a rule doesn't work, change it. Once. Get it right, then lock it in as a houserule.

As you know, I consider this different from how the word "houserule" is usually used. That is, ad hoc rulings is what most people mean by "houserule". Instead, you do what might need to be called "house design". You actually design rules--and then they don't change unless they genuinely break.

 

[AlViking]

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!


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


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.


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!

I assume you balance combat encounters based on the party? Don't throw a Balor at the low level party unless there's a way to easily escape. Don't throw a lone Kobold at a high level party?

That's all I'm doing, I just acknowledge that sometimes I do it during the session but before the players are aware of the encounter.

For simplicity say I have a scenario where I expect the characters to confront Pirate Bob at The Leaning Tavern. When I was planning this out, I thought the characters would likely have had at most a combat encounter or two before this, maybe even a long rest after. So i wanted a pretty tough fight. So Pirate Captain and 4 thugs makes sense.

Turns out though that the characters got sidetracked and into several combats and are going to meet up with good ol' Bob. They're not at full health or resources. What was a tough combat is now going to be a likely TPK, so I lower the difficulty by dropping a thug (Chuck is back on the ship up-chucking).

The only thing that changes is the number of mates Bob has with him. I don't care if I made the decision to have 3 thugs instead of 4 a week or a minute before the characters entered the tavern.

I don't care if you think that's blasphemy as far as you're concerned or not. As far as why I do what I do? I think that matters. What triggers the combat doesn't change. The fiction of the world doesn't change because until the encounter starts there is no established fiction. Whether or not they parlay with Bob or go in swinging is still up to the players. But if a fight does start I want it to be balanced.

Meanwhile I don't have enemies pop into or out of existence once the fiction is established. Unless of course magic.

P.S. I also don't have an issue with narrative style game mechanics, they just aren't for me.

 

[AlViking]

No.

But if two rounds into what you'd hoped would be an epic battle all four thugs are down and the captain is sinking fast, having three more thugs show up "just because" is most definitely spawning-in (and, IMO, poor form).

If the players win that epic fight easily, good on them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

At least with the undead/deathless thing, I only realized after the words had left my mouth that "oh no...this person's build depended on this working..." That was part of what motivated me to find a workaround. And, as stated, I got lucky, there was not only a workaround, but it was both thematically and mechanically better than the original path. (Character was an undead who had previously served an evil PF god, but been turned toward goodness by Sarenrae; it made perfect sense that, given he had received her divine favor, she would sponsor his transition from undead to deathless.)

But yeah as noted I try to apply the highest standard only to myself, if I'm in any way unsure about what to do. Either that or I might try to find the workaround first before mentioning it to the group.

There might be a few cases where something had a broad enough potential consequences that I'd decide letting it stand was just a really bad idea, grit my teeth and bring it up knowing I'd get some serious blowback, but it'd have to be something I thought had really bad knock-on effects.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Thing is, in older-edition D&D there's a whole pile of rules the players never see, and aren't expected to. Combat and save matrices.

I don't think that's true. Those things were all too visible in the first OD&D book; it was going to be hard for players not to see them unless they never looked at any of the books at all, and that's a pretty big ask. It certainly wasn't true with any group I ever encountered, and I'm not even sure how it could have been enforced.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all. It is most strongly motivated by:

• Preserving the appearance that the GM does not make mistakes

Not in my experience.

• 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)

This one I see quite a bit.

• 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.

And the above would actually be unfair if not fudged. It's not fair to leave something to chance or have it fail when it should have automatically succeeded. It's an example of restoring fairness.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's very possible. Some encounters are not avoidable or the players fail to avoid them, but need for whatever reason to get past. It would be very unfair for that situation to happen.

DM: Hey guys. I know that you've been playing the last 3 months, moving towards this final goal, but I messed up and made the encounter impossible for you guys to beat. You aren't going to be able to achieve what you wanted. Sorry, but it would be very unfair for me to adjust it on the fly, so you guys will just have to deal with the totally fair situation of a wasted 3 months of effort.