D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[Fifth Element]

I wasn't setting out to rebut your point. I was replying to your post. I thought it was an engaged reply - I'm sorry you found it unhelpful.

I apologize - seems I misread your post a bit.

 

[DND_Reborn]

but up until the specifics actual become reality to the players, I don't see any point in handcuffing yourself.

That is the key point for me. Once the specifics are reality and the players have engaged with them, changing them becomes fudging IMO.

Orcs have 2d8 + 6 HP, can wear a variety of armor, and wield a variety of weapons. As long I don't exceed these parameters and keep them constant once "observed", in game logic is kept.

If I roll a random encounter of 6 orcs, then in the heat of combat, I decide rather than use the average of HP value of 15 and AC 12, I'm going to go with 20 HP and AC 13 and ham this guy's description up to get my players pumped, I've not only haven't broken any game logic, but I just made my random encounter a tad more interesting and exciting. And again, the players were fairly rewarded with extra XP.

In the "heat of combat", so the battle is underway, right?

Has anyone attacked or damaged the "hammed up guy"? Have they even seen him? A small change to hp and +1 to AC is fine IMO IF (and big IF) no one has attacked that orc yet. The extra HP could be due to a very high CON or just "rolling hp well" and +1 AC due to a better DEX. It should NOT be due to changing the orc's armor, however, as this is something that would otherwise have been likely noted by the PCs and changing it on the fly breaks reality more:

DM: "Oh, that orcs was wearing a cloak and when you attack him you notice he is wearing a chain shirt instead of hide armor. Yeah, that's it."
Player: "Why didn't we notice that before? The cloak might have indicated this orc was their leader. We would have attacked him first!"

BUT if a PC attacked the orc, hit AC 12, and you tell them it is a miss because at that moment you don't want that orc hit and so change its AC to 13, that is fudging all the way as I see it.

Now, if two orcs have gone down, no one has attack this orc yet, and you realize making him a bit tougher would enhance the encounter, changing things is okay, just not changing the PCs' perceived reality (such as the instant armor-swap).

Finally, it is best to learn from experience and have a "commander" orc in mind as part of the random encounter if you think having one will make for a better encounter.

 

[Fifth Element]

The DM should be having fun too. Unless their fun is entirely bound up in the fun of others, running a game just for the benefit of your players is a job, not a leisure activity. Of course, there's a spectrum here, so the GM probably gets something out of it either way. But shouldn't we be striving for everyone involved to have a fun time?

Nothing about my post suggested otherwise, because the DM is also a player. But the DM does have more responsibility for everyone's enjoyment, since they're ultimately in charge of the game world. And if the DM's idea of fun does not match the rest of the players, they probably shouldn't be DMing for that group, and it's certainly not the players' fault that they don't have the same preferences. DMs certainly don't get to dictate what's going to be fun to everyone else. And if they aren't willing to adapt their approach to the players they're playing with (like all players have to do - almost no one has the luxury of having a group that all have the same preferences), that's a problem.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I reread your "hidden information" comment and don't see any difference in our playstyles. Like I said, as long as changes aren't made after the factor is "observed", then for me it's okay.

In your example, if the party's ranger scouted ahead to see who was in the orc party, that is the time it would be appropriate to "solidify" weapons, armor, and if any of them looked like a "leader". Once combat starts, I agree changing those things would hurt emersion.

Sorry I didn't read this before-- It sounds like we are on the same page.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In a way, this reminds me of the hidden factors in video games that I think many would considering "cheating". If they can do it, why can't DMs!?

To name a few:

• Shadow of Mordor grants additional health to dueling Uruks to increase the length of the fight for the sake of spectacle.
• Assassin's Creed and Doom have more health associated with the last tick of the health bar, to make you feel like you barely survived.
• Ratchet and Clank scaled enemy damage and hid enemies based on time played and total deaths of the player.
• Enemies in some LEGO games have a hit or miss chance. If a projectile misses, it's offset and has no collision. This is done to make fights more hectic.

Sadly, I don't play video games much and none of these except Doom (way back in the 90's!).

So, I'll ask for some clarifications (if you can elaborate) and address these as I understand them now:

Are "dueling Uruks" fighting in a one-on-one scene? Is that what you mean by dueling? If so, then they are solo monsters and as we know, the stat blocks give the hd and bonuses, so giving a solo bad guy better than average hp BEFORE the fight is perfectly fine. If you take it outside the maximum they could have (orcs have a maximum of 22 hp), then you would have a "special" orc with a different stat block. Nothing wrong with that, either, as long as it is established before the fight.

The "last tick" of health would be a mechanical difference. If it was established as a house-rule, and everyone knows about it, then no issue. But, if as DM, you decided to make such a change during the fight just to make the player feel like they barely survived (maybe you decrease damage after rolling?) then that would be a no-no IMO.

Changing encounters (adding or substracting them) before the PCs encounter them is totally fine. Scaling damage is a bit iffy and it depends on just what you mean. Having some "weaker" orcs with "worse" weapons for some reason might be ok. Perhaps they use clubs and are STR 12 instead of greataxes with STR 16. The other orcs make fun of this group and give them crap assignments, etc.

Missing attacks is also mechanical and if established before hand is fine. For example, perhaps your group house-rules that if you miss a target and another target is adjacent to the first, you can make another attack with disadvantage to see if you happen to hit the second creature. However, again, if you make that rule up during the fight and had an ogre get an additional attack after missing the PC, that wouldn't be right IMO.

All of these mechanical established house-rules would be known and work "both ways", for the PCs and against them, so that is fine.

 

[Jahydin]

Sadly, I don't play video games much and none of these except Doom (way back in the 90's!).

So, I'll ask for some clarifications (if you can elaborate) and address these as I understand them now:

Are "dueling Uruks" fighting in a one-on-one scene? Is that what you mean by dueling? If so, then they are solo monsters and as we know, the stat blocks give the hd and bonuses, so giving a solo bad guy better than average hp BEFORE the fight is perfectly fine. If you take it outside the maximum they could have (orcs have a maximum of 22 hp), then you would have a "special" orc with a different stat block. Nothing wrong with that, either, as long as it is established before the fight.

The "last tick" of health would be a mechanical difference. If it was established as a house-rule, and everyone knows about it, then no issue. But, if as DM, you decided to make such a change during the fight just to make the player feel like they barely survived (maybe you decrease damage after rolling?) then that would be a no-no IMO.

Changing encounters (adding or substracting them) before the PCs encounter them is totally fine. Scaling damage is a bit iffy and it depends on just what you mean. Having some "weaker" orcs with "worse" weapons for some reason might be ok. Perhaps they use clubs and are STR 12 instead of greataxes with STR 16. The other orcs make fun of this group and give them crap assignments, etc.

Missing attacks is also mechanical and if established before hand is fine. For example, perhaps your group house-rules that if you miss a target and another target is adjacent to the first, you can make another attack with disadvantage to see if you happen to hit the second creature. However, again, if you make that rule up during the fight and had an ogre get an additional attack after missing the PC, that wouldn't be right IMO.

All of these mechanical established house-rules would be known and work "both ways", for the PCs and against them, so that is fine.

Oh, I didn't mean to get into the weeds for each one of these, I was just giving instances of hidden mechanics in video games that "cheat" for the sake of fun. All of these things are not apparent when playing the game and were only found by diving into the code.

Just reminded me how some DMs "fudge" for the sake of fun. If just about every video game does it, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on the idea at the table?

To be clear, I don't think so. But every now and then during play I think to myself, "wouldn't it be neat every time a player misses, I secretly add a +1 to their next roll, up to +3, until they hit"? Tempting, but haven't done anything like that yet...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oh, I didn't mean to get into the weeds for each one of these, I was just giving instances of hidden mechanics in video games that "cheat" for the sake of fun. All of these things are not apparent when playing the game and were only found by diving into the code.

LOL ok, I guess I was just being overzealous.

So, let's put this in D&D terms. Do players know all the rules the DM uses? Should they? Or do they just need to know how their own rules work?

In theory, I think they should be known, even if not understood. That is the difference between video games and TTRPGs. Unless you dive into the code, you don't know the rules the game runs by. Now, if a video game was based on D&D, and then had hidden rules/mechanics to make it more fun which were NOT part of the TTRPG rules and players didn't know about them, that would certainly be shady IMO.

Just reminded me how some DMs "fudge" for the sake of fun. If just about every video game does it, maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on the idea at the table?

Sure, I used to do it. But the point then becomes on what gives me the right to decide what is fun or not fun for the players? If I fudge things just because I think it would be better, that is pretty arrogant of me. Now, if I see it as an issue, discuss it openly with my players, and they agree a fudge would make an encounter more fun, then there is no issue since all agree.

Personally, I would rather finish the encounter as it was written and afterwards address the issue for the next encounter. That could involve coming up with a house-rule after the fact, and then testing it as a group during the next couple encounters. But even then everyone knows about it, and it wouldn't be "hidden in the code", as it were.

To be clear, I don't think so. But every now and then during play I think to myself, "wouldn't it be neat every time a player misses, I secretly add a +1 to their next roll, up to +3, until they hit"? Tempting, but haven't done anything like that yet...

You know other games have an escalating die for such instances, but then the question you have to ask is why do it in "secret"?

It could be a house-rule, applied to both PCs and creatures, so that if a series of bad rolls escalates a bonus to eventually increase the chance of getting in a hit again. It starts taking some of the swinginess out of the d20 because you are gaining a higher bonus over time.

 

[Jahydin]

In theory, I think they should be known, even if not understood. That is the difference between video games and TTRPGs. Unless you dive into the code, you don't know the rules the game runs by. Now, if a video game was based on D&D, and then had hidden rules/mechanics to make it more fun which were NOT part of the TTRPG rules and players didn't know about them, that would certainly be shady IMO.

Sure, I used to do it. But the point then becomes on what gives me the right to decide what is fun or not fun for the players? If I fudge things just because I think it would be better, that is pretty arrogant of me. Now, if I see it as an issue, discuss it openly with my players, and they agree a fudge would make an encounter more fun, then there is no issue since all agree.

Personally, I would rather finish the encounter as it was written and afterwards address the issue for the next encounter. That could involve coming up with a house-rule after the fact, and then testing it as a group during the next couple encounters. But even then everyone knows about it, and it wouldn't be "hidden in the code", as it were.

I can defiantly see where you're coming from, but there is defiantly a difference in players from yours to mine.

None of mine would ever be bothered to read the rules and "master" the game for instance, so just about every ruling I make is hidden to them, haha. Also, any discussion of how I should run things would be incredibly boring and they would just quickly tell me "whatever's fun for you".

You know other games have an escalating die for such instances, but then the question you have to ask is why do it in "secret"?

Same reason the video game designers keep it a secret, it's more fun when the players don't know about it!

 

[Jahydin]

The first rule to making D&D fun is to listen to your players at your table. Not the designers. Not the people on youtube. Not the people who post on forums daily and will likely never sit in one of your games.

This also applies to almost everything else in life.

I mean, nothing wrong with learning and trying new things right?

 

[DND_Reborn]

None of mine would ever be bothered to read the rules and "master" the game for instance, so just about every ruling I make is hidden to them, haha.

Well, we rotate DMing sometimes (although I usually DM, but currently I get to play--yeah!) so most players have to know the rules...

Also, any discussion of how I should run things would be incredibly boring and they would just quickly tell me "whatever's fun for you".

As long as everyone is having fun, it is all good.

Same reason the video game designers keep it a secret, it's more fun when the players don't know about it!

Is it, though? The game would be just as fun, either way, I would think.

I mean, nothing wrong with learning and trying new things right?

Certainly nothing wrong!

To be clear, if everyone agrees with how the game gets run and has fun in that manner, it's all good. Fudging rolls, changing the script (so to say), etc. is just something I refuse to do anymore. I still have so much I can choose to do as DM to shape encounters without resorting to those methods.