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

[Fifth Element]

Edit:
Oh God, then he starts talking about modifying monster stats on the fly during combat. No, nope, sorry, uh-uh. I already knew that he actively engages in cheating his players (to the point that he will even stage rolling dice while fixing the result, so people will think he actually rolled something he didn't), but modifying encounters on the fly to fit your preconceived notions of what they "should" be? Noooooooope. That's a flag so red we need to invent new color words to describe it.

Good post in general, but you're being needlessly harsh here. Drawing a firm line between the DM's game prep and the game itself doesn't make sense. The DM can set every encounter ahead of time, trying to plan the challenge level carefully, but if when the encounter actually happens they find they were wrong about how challenging an encounter is, changing it at that point is "cheating?" If the DM gets to set the encounters in the first place, why is changing them on the fly cheating?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good post in general, but you're being needlessly harsh here. Drawing a firm line between the DM's game prep and the game itself doesn't make sense. The DM can set every encounter ahead of time, trying to plan the challenge level carefully, but if when the encounter actually happens they find they were wrong about how challenging an encounter is, changing it at that point is "cheating?" If the DM gets to set the encounters in the first place, why is changing them on the fly cheating?

I think they're assuming the DM will be too tempted to make those on the fly changes to make the fight harder, so as to threaten the players more, and they think that's unfair. I could be wrong.

 

[pemerton]

Drawing a firm line between the DM's game prep and the game itself doesn't make sense. The DM can set every encounter ahead of time, trying to plan the challenge level carefully, but if when the encounter actually happens they find they were wrong about how challenging an encounter is, changing it at that point is "cheating?" If the DM gets to set the encounters in the first place, why is changing them on the fly cheating?

Cheating is relative to expectations and the rationale of play.

If the expectation is that the story beats will happen roughly as intended, and the rationale of play is to enjoy those story beats, then changing stats on the fly seems like it is not cheating. The DL modules flag this sort of thing, at least in a proto-fashion, and I think the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks put it front-and-centre. (An alternative to changing stats is just changing dice rolls - these are perhaps technically different things but mostly seem like they are the same in their practical implications.)

If the expectation is that the GM is presenting a challenge which the players are going to try and beat, then changing the parameters of the challenge during the attempt probably needs to be more constrained. If the change in parameters is internal to the logic of the challenge - eg a loud noise attracts reinforcements, or the opponents attack in waves - then that seems fine. But if the change in parameters is done purely "externally" or in a "meta" fashion in order to manipulate the outcomes, then that seems to contradict the rationale of play. And so would be a type of "cheating", or something comparably pejorative in that general neighbourhood.

I think they're assuming the DM will be too tempted to make those on the fly changes to make the fight harder, so as to threaten the players more, and they think that's unfair. I could be wrong.

I think @EzekielRaiden was thinking just as much, or even morseo, of adjusting the challenge parameters to make sure the PCs (and thus the players) succeed.

In a system, like most contemporary approaches to D&D, that gives the GM a lot of latitude in framing situations and introducing adversity into the shared fiction, there normally shouldn't be much need to make "meta"/"external"/"fudging" changes in order to step up the challenge. Because you can just introduce more opponents by using your authority over the relevant fiction. I did this in my 4e GMing quite a bit. It doesn't deprive the players of anything they're entitled to: you just note the additional XP added to the encounter so that (i) the players get the XP they're entitled to, and (ii) the encounter's contribution to milestones and hence accruing action points and daily item uses is properly factored in.

(I've referred to "contemporary approaches" because in some more classic approaches the GM doesn't have the same degree of authority: monsters that have not already been placed in the dungeon key are supposed to be regulated by wandering monster roles rather than GM fiat.)

But adjusting the parameters to make sure the PCs survive isn't so easy to do. It's always possible for a GM to use their authority over the fiction to introduce a helper or rescuer - thus sticking to an "internal" logic rather than going "external"/"meta"/"fudging" - but this doesn't seem to be a very popular approach. The only RPG I can think of that expressly advocates it as a GM technique is Prince Valiant - but much as I love Prince Valiant it's not something I've ever done, because it can really seem pretty cheap. I prefer systems that allow flexibility in consequence narration, so that even if the PCs fail in a challenge the overall game can go on (I've used this approach in Prince Valiant, in Burning Wheel, and in 4e D&D).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Good post in general, but you're being needlessly harsh here. Drawing a firm line between the DM's game prep and the game itself doesn't make sense. The DM can set every encounter ahead of time, trying to plan the challenge level carefully, but if when the encounter actually happens they find they were wrong about how challenging an encounter is, changing it at that point is "cheating?" If the DM gets to set the encounters in the first place, why is changing them on the fly cheating?

Changing a creature's AC once battle is joined is precisely identical to fudging a player's attack roll (regardless of the direction you fudge). Changing a creature's hit bonus once battle is joined is precisely identical to fudging its own attack rolls (regardless of the direction you fudge). Both decouple consequence from choice, whether for or against the players.

I think they're assuming the DM will be too tempted to make those on the fly changes to make the fight harder, so as to threaten the players more, and they think that's unfair. I could be wrong.

Nah, it's equally bad whether it's for or against the players.

When the DM fudges dice or stats (the two are mathematically equivalent), it decouples the connection between in-combat choices and in-combat consequences. If fudging genuinely never occurs, then the player can evaluate the connection between action and consequence fairly, even if the appropriate evaluation is "you shouldn't trust the dice so much." When secret, consequence-altering DM intrusion occurs, whether it is rare or common, you can't do that anymore. You can never actually know that it was "your fault" if things went wrong, or "your victory" if things went well, even if the difference between fault and victory may have come down to the whims of dice.

Keep in mind, here and elsewhere, "fudging" as I understand the term requires that the DM conceal it from their players, to the point of hoping that the players never discover that any change occurred. That deception is a huge part of what makes me oppose fudging, whether dice-fudging or bonus/target-number-fudging, and why I call it cheating. Active deception about how a game works--whether for or against the player's interests--very much fits the meaning of "cheating." A croupier that stacks the deck, so that a player loses or wins at blackjack more than chance and skill would allow, is cheating despite merely being the game's referee.

But adjusting the parameters to make sure the PCs survive isn't so easy to do. It's always possible for a GM to use their authority over the fiction to introduce a helper or rescuer - thus sticking to an "internal" logic rather than going "external"/"meta"/"fudging" - but this doesn't seem to be a very popular approach. The only RPG I can think of that expressly advocates it as a GM technique is Prince Valiant - but much as I love Prince Valiant it's not something I've ever done, because it can really seem pretty cheap. I prefer systems that allow flexibility in consequence narration, so that even if the PCs fail in a challenge the overall game can go on (I've used this approach in Prince Valiant, in Burning Wheel, and in 4e D&D).

Often, I find a foregoing commitment to "combat does not have to be lethal if you don't want it to be" helps a lot here, but even then that can be dicey. So I have a secret weapon.

I change numbers....but I do it in the open. Not "I physically change the die" or whatever, I mean I tell the players, "That attack should have hit you. You KNOW that attack should have hit you. You have enough fighting experience to know that you absolutely should be bleeding on the floor right now...and you aren't. You don't have time to ponder the ramifications of this right this second...but SOMETHING is up." If I'm feeling fancy, I may add more flashy descriptions or give more specific details (especially if a good idea strikes). Works just as well for opponents if I "need" them to survive a little longer or whatever.

This, unlike fudging as described above, does not interrupt the ability for players to learn from consequences, because it isn't concealed from them. They can see that something is going on, and learn from/about it. They can do research later to try to figure out how it worked, how to exploit it, or how to prevent others from exploiting it. It becomes part of the experience.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Here's my take from the video:

Theme: style of play will vary so much by individual table that one immutable rule set will not suit every table. Online rule discussions may be fundamentally flawed because of this. A person is arguing from the stance of their style of play and unique game table setup, which may not translate well to another table.

0 to 1 min intro

D&D co-designer Gary Gygax ideally felt (and wrote) each D&D table should have its own "house rules" and that's how the game should be played. It'll be designed one way, but because each table varies, style of play will vary.

1 to 5 mins

Online arguments about "how to play D&D (correctly)" likely boil down to simply your table makeup and not the game design itself. Having 4 players or 6 dramatically changes perception of encounter design, combat length, and how groups run combats. Immutable rules are great for online video games that can be "won." That idea doesn't translate well to D&D. "One size fits all" can't work for D&D because designers don't know your table makeup, what type of games you like to play, etc.

Many tables have wildly different reactions to the same exact rules (e.g. this class is overpowered or weak-sauce). Doesn't mean the rules are flawed in any way. Style of play is the variant.

6.30+ mins

Call for players to understand where other tables are coming from before saying "that's wrong" or "that's not how to play D&D." Brainstorm of a universal way to communicate to others (e.g. a signature line tag) what kind of game our table likes (e.g. more social). Understanding preferred style of play is paramount to trying to change core game design. (Didn't, but could have cycled back to the beginning. That was the genius of Gygax, to understand back in the 1970s that style of play would vary so much that one immutable rule set wouldn't suit every table).

 

[Arilyn]

I'm sensing some difference of opinions on GMing here. Kinda proving Matt's point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Changing a creature's AC once battle is joined is precisely identical to fudging a player's attack roll (regardless of the direction you fudge). Changing a creature's hit bonus once battle is joined is precisely identical to fudging its own attack rolls (regardless of the direction you fudge). Both decouple consequence from choice, whether for or against the players.


Nah, it's equally bad whether it's for or against the players.

When the DM fudges dice or stats (the two are mathematically equivalent), it decouples the connection between in-combat choices and in-combat consequences. If fudging genuinely never occurs, then the player can evaluate the connection between action and consequence fairly, even if the appropriate evaluation is "you shouldn't trust the dice so much." When secret, consequence-altering DM intrusion occurs, whether it is rare or common, you can't do that anymore. You can never actually know that it was "your fault" if things went wrong, or "your victory" if things went well, even if the difference between fault and victory may have come down to the whims of dice.

Keep in mind, here and elsewhere, "fudging" as I understand the term requires that the DM conceal it from their players, to the point of hoping that the players never discover that any change occurred. That deception is a huge part of what makes me oppose fudging, whether dice-fudging or bonus/target-number-fudging, and why I call it cheating. Active deception about how a game works--whether for or against the player's interests--very much fits the meaning of "cheating." A croupier that stacks the deck, so that a player loses or wins at blackjack more than chance and skill would allow, is cheating despite merely being the game's referee.


Often, I find a foregoing commitment to "combat does not have to be lethal if you don't want it to be" helps a lot here, but even then that can be dicey. So I have a secret weapon.

I change numbers....but I do it in the open. Not "I physically change the die" or whatever, I mean I tell the players, "That attack should have hit you. You KNOW that attack should have hit you. You have enough fighting experience to know that you absolutely should be bleeding on the floor right now...and you aren't. You don't have time to ponder the ramifications of this right this second...but SOMETHING is up." If I'm feeling fancy, I may add more flashy descriptions or give more specific details (especially if a good idea strikes). Works just as well for opponents if I "need" them to survive a little longer or whatever.

This, unlike fudging as described above, does not interrupt the ability for players to learn from consequences, because it isn't concealed from them. They can see that something is going on, and learn from/about it. They can do research later to try to figure out how it worked, how to exploit it, or how to prevent others from exploiting it. It becomes part of the experience.

See that seems infinitely worse to me, because you're breaking the reality of the game in play, in front of the whole group. They know you're not playing straight with them. It seems patronizing and an excuse for a roll of the dice you didn't like. Better to not fudge or make up reasons why an attack didn't hurt and just let the dice fall where they may. IMO, of course.

 

[Flamestrike]

The first rule of DnD is you never talk about DnD.

 

[beancounter]

The first rule of DnD is you never talk about DnD.

Someone was bound to say it eventually...

 

[payn]

The first rule of DnD is you never talk about DnD.