Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Best DM Advice Was Writren in 1981.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8496278" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Not at all. If I have invoked the dice and am truly convinced that I was a fool to do so, I will just tell my players that. No need for subterfuge. "Hey guys, I think I screwed up here, this isn't the cool thing it should be." Or, alternatively, I actually make the modification something <em>real,</em> tangible, existing in the world, and identifiable by the players. "You landed that swipe, you KNOW you did, he SHOULD be dead...but somehow he's not. A strange purple light exudes from his wound, and he laughs, but it sounds...different. Wrong." Suddenly there's now some new thing in the world--something the players can come to know, understand...and most importantly either <em>prevent</em> or <em>exploit</em>.</p><p></p><p>Neither of these things is fudging. The first is not, because it openly declares the rules in abeyance due to review. The latter because, while the rules have changed, it equips the players to <em>know</em> that the rules have changed, and adjust accordingly. And even then, I'd only use that latter option with EXTREME caution, as in, I haven't ever actually used it in the game I run, in over three years of play. I <em>have</em> openly admitted to my own failure as DM before though. My players have expressly told me that they appreciate my candor and that I <em>neither</em> leave the game beholden to chance, <em>nor</em> secretly pull them along by puppet-strings.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You have described two completely equivalent things. Fudging a die roll that reduces a target's HP such that it would kill, preventing that damage, is exactly equivalent to increasing the target's HP--in both cases, you have made it so that the damage dealt is retroactively meaningless, secretly modifying the world to produce a different outcome.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So what? You've changed the world without them being able to ever know it. You've presented them with things, leading them to believe those things are persistent and durable in the fictional space, and then turned that presentation into a deception.</p><p></p><p>This is like saying that because the players don't know <em>for sure</em> that their extremely good evidence that the Countess killed the Baron is reliable, you can always just decide that all the evidence they've found up to this point was fake, even though literally the week before you gave it to them because it wasn't.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As I understand it, no, it's not. You have interrupted victory, and made it into a puppet show with yourself pulling the strings. The events that occur--success or failure, victory or defeat, vanquishing or being vanquished--occur only because you let them, not because they are the consequence of the players' choices.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I disagree. I'm not a puppetmaster pulling my players' strings. I'm a facilitator. I enable them to make choices, and those choices have actual consequences, even if I don't like those consequences, even if I think those consequences are disappointing. I only intervene--and even then, only do so very rarely--by either expressly telling my players that something has gone wrong, or immediately informing them that the situation has changed in an unexpected (and perhaps even unexpectable) way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>First question: How do you "know"? Whence does this certainty come? You clearly have some kind of ability to objectively determine the quality of a play-experience, so this would be incredibly useful information. Unless, of course, you're basing this "knowledge" on your perceptions and intuitions--aka, <em>your feelings</em>, because it's a subjective evaluation.</p><p></p><p>I don't trust myself to have superior subjective evaluations than my players. So I don't make them. I let the players evaluate for themselves what is worthy and what is not. Thus far, I have received only one complaint, and that was when using a supplement that we have (mostly) finished our interactions with, so that specific problem is unlikely to ever come up again. (But I did take it to heart; essentially, the player argued that all stakes drained away when he realized that, because every room was randomly generated <em>just before entering it</em>, it didn't matter whether they went north or south or whatever. They'd run into the rooms they'd run into either way, no matter what.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>If permanent death is so uninteresting, why would you even allow that to be an option in the first place? Every death is an opportunity for some insanely good story. Some of my best roleplaying experiences came about during the process of finding a way to bring a character (in one case, my own character) back to life. And you can pair it with so many incredibly interesting possibilities by giving the dead character an adventure of their own while they're dead!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Or you make it so defeating that enemy isn't enough. DM lesson learned: don't make linchpins you can't afford to lose.</p><p></p><p>Like, this isn't hard. <em>Who cares</em> if you take out the current leader of the assassin-cult? The cult still exists! It's not like its terrorist-style cells will suddenly vanish just because one important person died! The cult will need time to recover, of course, but the threat is far from over. Or if you knock down the queenpin of a vast criminal empire--suddenly, all the unsavory forces she had kept in check are free to do as they please, and the prize if they can win is fabulous wealth and power. Boom: threat ended, but now an almost <em>worse</em> threat arises almost immediately in its place. </p><p></p><p>And, sometimes? Sometimes it's <em>more</em> satisfying for the players to have a "disappointing" conclusion that proves their mettle. I had had a huge boss-fight planned for an area the party went to, an underground druid school in the marshy headwaters of a major river that had been burned by a third party's attack. A molten obsidian golem with mythril spider-automaton-leg claws, an unholy and accidental amalgam of twisted druids' exploitation of life forces and zealous assassins' shadow-magic. The party instead lured the creature back to a water-logged pit trap, tricked it into walking into the trap...and just shattered it when its molten-obsidian body solidified on contact with the water. They still, every now and then, talk about how cool it was that they outsmarted me and blasted through that thing like it was nothing, even though by comparison to the pitched battle I had planned, it was a trivial two-minute affair with zero fanfare or tension or excitement. Because sometimes having that contrast--seeing that yes, they truly can outsmart the DM, and truly win an unexpected or derailing victory--really is worth it.</p><p></p><p>So I never bring those preconceptions. I have honestly told my players that if they decided that all the stuff we've built up over time didn't matter, and they wanted to go sail off into the sunset, they could. I've told them I would be very disappointed (mostly in myself, for having failed to fill their characters' lives with adventure), but I would absolutely roll with it. They have, most graciously, said that there was never any fear of such a thing happening, but that they appreciate that I <em>would</em> do that if that's what they wanted.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8496278, member: 6790260"] Not at all. If I have invoked the dice and am truly convinced that I was a fool to do so, I will just tell my players that. No need for subterfuge. "Hey guys, I think I screwed up here, this isn't the cool thing it should be." Or, alternatively, I actually make the modification something [I]real,[/I] tangible, existing in the world, and identifiable by the players. "You landed that swipe, you KNOW you did, he SHOULD be dead...but somehow he's not. A strange purple light exudes from his wound, and he laughs, but it sounds...different. Wrong." Suddenly there's now some new thing in the world--something the players can come to know, understand...and most importantly either [I]prevent[/I] or [I]exploit[/I]. Neither of these things is fudging. The first is not, because it openly declares the rules in abeyance due to review. The latter because, while the rules have changed, it equips the players to [I]know[/I] that the rules have changed, and adjust accordingly. And even then, I'd only use that latter option with EXTREME caution, as in, I haven't ever actually used it in the game I run, in over three years of play. I [I]have[/I] openly admitted to my own failure as DM before though. My players have expressly told me that they appreciate my candor and that I [I]neither[/I] leave the game beholden to chance, [I]nor[/I] secretly pull them along by puppet-strings. You have described two completely equivalent things. Fudging a die roll that reduces a target's HP such that it would kill, preventing that damage, is exactly equivalent to increasing the target's HP--in both cases, you have made it so that the damage dealt is retroactively meaningless, secretly modifying the world to produce a different outcome. So what? You've changed the world without them being able to ever know it. You've presented them with things, leading them to believe those things are persistent and durable in the fictional space, and then turned that presentation into a deception. This is like saying that because the players don't know [I]for sure[/I] that their extremely good evidence that the Countess killed the Baron is reliable, you can always just decide that all the evidence they've found up to this point was fake, even though literally the week before you gave it to them because it wasn't. As I understand it, no, it's not. You have interrupted victory, and made it into a puppet show with yourself pulling the strings. The events that occur--success or failure, victory or defeat, vanquishing or being vanquished--occur only because you let them, not because they are the consequence of the players' choices. Again, I disagree. I'm not a puppetmaster pulling my players' strings. I'm a facilitator. I enable them to make choices, and those choices have actual consequences, even if I don't like those consequences, even if I think those consequences are disappointing. I only intervene--and even then, only do so very rarely--by either expressly telling my players that something has gone wrong, or immediately informing them that the situation has changed in an unexpected (and perhaps even unexpectable) way. First question: How do you "know"? Whence does this certainty come? You clearly have some kind of ability to objectively determine the quality of a play-experience, so this would be incredibly useful information. Unless, of course, you're basing this "knowledge" on your perceptions and intuitions--aka, [I]your feelings[/I], because it's a subjective evaluation. I don't trust myself to have superior subjective evaluations than my players. So I don't make them. I let the players evaluate for themselves what is worthy and what is not. Thus far, I have received only one complaint, and that was when using a supplement that we have (mostly) finished our interactions with, so that specific problem is unlikely to ever come up again. (But I did take it to heart; essentially, the player argued that all stakes drained away when he realized that, because every room was randomly generated [I]just before entering it[/I], it didn't matter whether they went north or south or whatever. They'd run into the rooms they'd run into either way, no matter what.) If permanent death is so uninteresting, why would you even allow that to be an option in the first place? Every death is an opportunity for some insanely good story. Some of my best roleplaying experiences came about during the process of finding a way to bring a character (in one case, my own character) back to life. And you can pair it with so many incredibly interesting possibilities by giving the dead character an adventure of their own while they're dead! Or you make it so defeating that enemy isn't enough. DM lesson learned: don't make linchpins you can't afford to lose. Like, this isn't hard. [I]Who cares[/I] if you take out the current leader of the assassin-cult? The cult still exists! It's not like its terrorist-style cells will suddenly vanish just because one important person died! The cult will need time to recover, of course, but the threat is far from over. Or if you knock down the queenpin of a vast criminal empire--suddenly, all the unsavory forces she had kept in check are free to do as they please, and the prize if they can win is fabulous wealth and power. Boom: threat ended, but now an almost [I]worse[/I] threat arises almost immediately in its place. And, sometimes? Sometimes it's [I]more[/I] satisfying for the players to have a "disappointing" conclusion that proves their mettle. I had had a huge boss-fight planned for an area the party went to, an underground druid school in the marshy headwaters of a major river that had been burned by a third party's attack. A molten obsidian golem with mythril spider-automaton-leg claws, an unholy and accidental amalgam of twisted druids' exploitation of life forces and zealous assassins' shadow-magic. The party instead lured the creature back to a water-logged pit trap, tricked it into walking into the trap...and just shattered it when its molten-obsidian body solidified on contact with the water. They still, every now and then, talk about how cool it was that they outsmarted me and blasted through that thing like it was nothing, even though by comparison to the pitched battle I had planned, it was a trivial two-minute affair with zero fanfare or tension or excitement. Because sometimes having that contrast--seeing that yes, they truly can outsmart the DM, and truly win an unexpected or derailing victory--really is worth it. So I never bring those preconceptions. I have honestly told my players that if they decided that all the stuff we've built up over time didn't matter, and they wanted to go sail off into the sunset, they could. I've told them I would be very disappointed (mostly in myself, for having failed to fill their characters' lives with adventure), but I would absolutely roll with it. They have, most graciously, said that there was never any fear of such a thing happening, but that they appreciate that I [I]would[/I] do that if that's what they wanted. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Best DM Advice Was Writren in 1981.
Top