D&D 5E Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?

[Kaychsea]

I know exactly when to fudge as a DM. Never.

I know exactly when I want the DM to fudge. Never.

Knowing when to fudge is a not an integral part of everyone's D&D experience.

(Note, I play 100% in the open - all die rolls are in plain view and, when there are hidden die rolls, they are still recorded in the chat log and viewable later. I do not fudge dice.)

Bully for you.

If the dice threaten to screw up a night of play I have no qualms about throwing the party, or for that matter the Big Bad, a bone. For instance recently I've avoided a TPK by ignoring the fourth successful breath weapon recharge on consecutive rounds.Three had them on their knees, four would have killed them.

 

[pemerton]

I've never played with a DM that didn't. Knowing when to fudge is an important part of the role.

If it's part of the GM's role, then how is fudging cheating? Which is what I was talking about.

But personally, I adopt a similar approach to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s - I roll my dice in front of my players.

If the dice threaten to screw up a night of play

This is why I play a system, and frame situations, which don't work this way.

 

[aramis erak]

If it's part of the GM's role, then how is fudging cheating? Which is what I was talking about.

But personally, I adopt a similar approach to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s - I roll my dice in front of my players.

This is why I play a system, and frame situations, which don't work this way.

It's one of the most controversial bits of advice Gygax penned.

I discovered that I have a lot more fun, and so do every group of players I've run for, when I don't fudge, and roll in the open. If I have a specific outcome I need, then I don't bother to roll.

I've also discovered that a lot of Gygax's advice creates a toxic relationship between players and DM's. I'm starting to suspect a lot of Gygax's advice to DM's was actually written tongue-in-cheek, because so much of it is at the heart of so much bad gaming. Especially since so much of the bad advice didn't make it into his post-TSR efforts.

 

[Kaychsea]

It's one of the most controversial bits of advice Gygax penned.

Not really, to put the story above the dice isn't that controversial.

I discovered that I have a lot more fun, and so do every group of players I've run for, when I don't fudge, and roll in the open. If I have a specific outcome I need, then I don't bother to roll.

I think we come at the problem from different ends, I do it to avoid an outcome that I don't want, in the example I quoted there would have been a TPK with another breath attack, four on the trot was bad enough, the dice would have effectively ended the campaign.

By not rolling, even if for nothing more than effect, you leave yourself open to accusations of railroading, if nothing else you run the risk of telegraphing plot points. Out of interest do you roll openly for things that the party don't know about, for instance breath recharge or stealth rolls against party passive perception?

 

[Elf Witch]

Just to be clear, this is what I'm saying:

In a case where the DM cannot make a case for disallowing something beyond a simple, "Well, I don't like it" then I do think that the DM should allow it. That's certainly how I DM. Obviously others see it differently. OTOH, there may be all sorts of perfectly reasonable reasons for disallowing something - it breaks the game badly, it doesn't fit with the game, it violates genre, it would cause me to have to do a bunch of work (I am, in fact, very lazy ). Any of these reasons would be perfectly acceptable. Let me illustrate:

1. Player comes to a Forgotten Realms game with his Jedi. Player is wrong. Player needs to get with the program.

2. Player comes to a Dark Sun game with a priest of a water god and can create food and water virtually at will. Player is wrong. Player needs to get with the program.

3. Player comes to a fairly stock fantasy setting with an off the menu race that fits with genre and is balanced in the game. Unless there's a campaign specific reason not to allow this, the DM should allow it. It's simply far too easy to adjust a setting to allow for this.

4. Player comes to the game with a new source book with a new class he wants to try out. The class is balanced and isn't a mechanical problem and fits with genre. DM needs to relax and trust the player to bring something interesting to the game.

That's how it works for me This is how I believe that the DM should act. Now, again, obviously, other DM's will disagree. I think they do so to the detriment of the game and I'm very reticent about playing in any group where the DM is that inflexible. And, there is room for considerable nuance with numbers 3 and 4. You'll notice that I agreed with [MENTION=16528]Pirate[/MENTION] Cat's compromise examples for the different races. I believe that a reasonable player probably wouldn't have a major issue with the proposed compromises.

But, at the end of the day, compromise is a two way street. It's not that the DM compromises when he feels like it. The DM should compromise unless there are better reasons than, "Well, I just don't like your character".

I've never played with an adult player who cheated on a roll.

I've played 100s of hours of friendy card games, too, and I've never played with an adult player who palmed the joker!

I know exactly when to fudge as a DM. Never.

I know exactly when I want the DM to fudge. Never.

Knowing when to fudge is a not an integral part of everyone's D&D experience.

(Note, I play 100% in the open - all die rolls are in plain view and, when there are hidden die rolls, they are still recorded in the chat log and viewable later. I do not fudge dice.)

It's one of the most controversial bits of advice Gygax penned.

I discovered that I have a lot more fun, and so do every group of players I've run for, when I don't fudge, and roll in the open. If I have a specific outcome I need, then I don't bother to roll.

I've also discovered that a lot of Gygax's advice creates a toxic relationship between players and DM's. I'm starting to suspect a lot of Gygax's advice to DM's was actually written tongue-in-cheek, because so much of it is at the heart of so much bad gaming. Especially since so much of the bad advice didn't make it into his post-TSR efforts.

Hussar I don't think we are that far off on this. Every example you gave is how I would do it as a DM. I only limit things for flavor and balance. I personally hate half orcs but the only time I ever banned them was when we were playing a Middle Earth game. I think inflexibility can hurt the game but it is not just DMs who can be inflexible I have seen players be just as inflexible as well. I don't understand why players feel the need to bring in a character that the DM has already said does not exist in their game. When a player does this I have to wonder if they are doing it as a control issue along the lines of don't you dare tell me no. And I know that will fight me over every ruling. That has been my experience with players like this.

I have played with inflexible DMs and that is not a lot of fun either because they usually control every aspect of the game and the players don't really have any freedoms.

pemerton You have never played with one that you know of. I do find it kind of hard to believe because every gamer I know has admitted to cheating at least once on a dice roll in their gaming history. I admit to doing so I was frustrated after failing save after save and sitting the game out either paralyzed or caught in a web that I cheated on save.

I don't think cards and RPGs are the same at all. I have never cheated in a game of cards or a strategy game simply because if I lose it does not matter next time I might win. But gaming is different I am invested in my character.


As a DM I always roll behind a screen and as a player I don't play with DMs who roll in the open. Because I believe that there are times it is appropriate for the DM to fudge a roll. I don't do it often but I will if I think it will make the game more fun. For example I don't find it fun to die in back to back sessions and I don't think it is fun if the players do everything right and the only reason they are losing is because of dice rolls. My players know I do this and want me to do it.

This is a accepted playstyle for a lot of tables just like rolling in the open is an accepted playstyle for a lot of tables and imo neither is badwrongfun or better than the other.

 

[Hussar]

Bully for you.

If the dice threaten to screw up a night of play I have no qualms about throwing the party, or for that matter the Big Bad, a bone. For instance recently I've avoided a TPK by ignoring the fourth successful breath weapon recharge on consecutive rounds.Three had them on their knees, four would have killed them.

Does that decision make you a better, more skilled DM than one that would have TPK'd the party?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION], I agree with everything you just said.

 

[Kaychsea]

Does that decision make you a better, more skilled DM than one that would have TPK'd the party?

Did I say it did? It was an example of a situation where, had I gone with the dice, five players would have been rolling new characters because of an extremely unlikely set of die rolls. Not because they had done anything wrong or dashed in without thinking, but because of something happening 1.2% of the time.
Bad beats are for poker not D&D.
I'll ask you the same question I asked above. Do you roll everything in the open, for instance breath recharges?

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION], I agree with everything you just said.

And it only took 48 pages to get to that agreement. LOL I had a feeling that many times we were talking across each other.

 

[billd91]

Does that decision make you a better, more skilled DM than one that would have TPK'd the party?

If that's what's right for your table, yes.