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

[Weiley31]

Yeah I can see/agree with Colville in regard to the fact that EVERY TABLE is different in way they are played. Especially when it comes to DM styles and what the players want. When I started doing my duo only DND focused, both the player of the Warlock pc and the Ranger pc were trying DND for the first time. Ever. Like they didn't even play any of the prior editions. They have heard of it before, but didn't really have/knew anybody that played it. So for the first couple of sessions after having our Character Creation/Session 0, I would explain to both players every table is different in how DND is played. How I may DM/run the sessions or whatever, will totally differ compared to how another DM/table will operate. And I did that because I didn't want either of the players to get confused if they saw differences or even being hit with a "RAW" type explanation were trying to do something that was supported by the rules. Because some DMs might be so "sporting" to explain such things in a nice way at a different table. (Especially since there are some unfortunate DM horror stories out there that ruin the hobby/game for people.) And I felt that was hella important. And both players seemed to have understood that.

Because there were times that as a DM, I allowed/ruled a decision or action that made sense to me. During a carriage chase scene involving Bandits, the Warlock player wanted to use Mage Hand to smack a Bandit rider's horse, to cause it to like go crazy and throw the rider off. Now I know that Mage Hand can't be used to make attack rolls. And something like that would probably have counted as an attack roll. But the Warlock player was just so happy with himself for coming up with, what he thought, was a smart/tactical solution in a sudden, high speed situation. And, to me, it made perfect sense to allow such a thing to happen, despite Mage Hand, RAW, not being able to do that.

Same thing with the Rope Trick topic. Some would say that allowing it to do anything else, outside of its function, wouldn't be kosher/RAW written. And while true, I wouldn't have any problems having it completely negate a confrontation with monsters if said monsters weren't smart/led properly/saw it first hand, or able to Detect Magic the spell. Because again, something like that would make a whole heck of a lotta sense to me as a DM. At another table, allowing something like that could cause an argument between players/DMs or perhaps having the DM be viewed in a negative light. Especially if you get those "Rules are Law" type DMs/players.

As for encounters, I'm still figuring that out. Especially in a Duo-Style focused campaign. The ranger player fought an Assassin Stat Block enemy, which is CR 8, while being at Level 3. He won against the Assassin, but when the Assassin hit, half of the Ranger's HP was pretty much gone. (I guess I should be lucky the Assassin wasn't able to pull off the Auto-Crit.) And I still remember the Ranger pc player going, "What happens if we die?"

....................................still trying to figure out an answer for that as I plan on this Duo Campaign to just be the Ranger/Warlock PC, just so they can like enjoy a full campaign and get comfortable with playing as a whole. So yes these two are getting a Main Character-type experience for their very first Campaign.

 

[Fifth Element]

Cheating is relative to expectations and the rationale of play.

If the expectation...

If it's necessarily based on the particular expectation of play, then a blanket statement that it's cheating remains invalid. So this does not rebut my point. If the group in question has an expectation in which such a thing would not be considered cheating, then the claim that it's cheating it invalid. The claim that it's cheating requires an assumption about the group playing it, and that assumption may be inaccurate.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't believe the point of 5e is just for the DM to show the players a good time. As has been said, feels very cruise director-y to me. That said, I'm glad it works for you.

Given the context of the post this is in response to, this feels like a self-report. The alternative is to assume that you're not being charitable, since there are many values of "having a good time" when playing D&D and it varies from group to group and person to person and which include old-school challenging-as-in-characters-die-a-lot, which would itself not be a charitable interpretation. So I'm left with "the DM should 'challenge' the players even if it means they don't have fun playing the game."

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

It's not precisely identical, no. If you make a change that lasts throughout the rest of the battle, for example. that's different from making a change that lasts exactly one die roll. Especially if you make the change to a particular combatant who has not had any interaction in the combat involving that particular stat (e.g., changing the AC of a monster that has not yet been attacked), which is always a possibility but would still be lumped under "cheating" using this paradigm.

Even if the above were not true, though, I'm still unconvinced this can reasonably be described as "cheating" given the enormous amount of power a DM has over the game world and what the characters encounter in it.

When the DM fudges dice or stats (the two are mathematically equivalent)

This makes it more clear. You meant mathematically equivalent, not "precisely identical." But this is untenable because the DM making the same change while designing an adventure is also mathematically equivalent to this. So it's not just the math that matters, unless you want to argue that a DM making any changed to a published monsters is cheating.

 

[Oofta]

Nearly 50 years of advancements in game design. But they threw that all out.

Really? I didn't see it. Yes 4E had everyone recharge at the same rate, but it's not like the version was particularly successful. That and it just meant that every PC wanted a 5 minute work day instead of just some of them.

 

[pemerton]

Though I should note this was not non-controversial even in the early days; I distinctly remember some discussion of "softkeying versus flexkeying versus hardkeying" even back in the day, maybe in A&E.

Sure - that's why I referred to some classic approaches.

 

[pemerton]

If it's necessarily based on the particular expectation of play, then a blanket statement that it's cheating remains invalid. So this does not rebut my point.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given the context of the post this is in response to, this feels like a self-report. The alternative is to assume that you're not being charitable, since there are many values of "having a good time" when playing D&D and it varies from group to group and person to person and which include old-school challenging-as-in-characters-die-a-lot, which would itself not be a charitable interpretation. So I'm left with "the DM should 'challenge' the players even if it means they don't have fun playing the game."

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?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

No, that's absolutely valid to do. He's discussed this more in-depth in other videos, but it basically boils down to the fact that he (and a lot of other DMs) design a lot of monsters and encounters and playtest them in their main campaigns, which they don't want to completely destroy by a single encounter.

If you accidentally homebrew an overpowered monster for your players to fight or end up adding too many enemies to a single encounter (which could lead to a TPK), it is perfectly valid to adjust their stats mid-combat and fudge die rolls to make them a more appropriate challenge for the party's specific level and class composition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, that's absolutely valid to do. He's discussed this more in-depth in other videos, but it basically boils down to the fact that he (and a lot of other DMs) design a lot of monsters and encounters and playtest them in their main campaigns, which they don't want to completely destroy by a single encounter.

If you accidentally homebrew an overpowered monster for your players to fight or end up adding too many enemies to a single encounter (which could lead to a TPK), it is perfectly valid to adjust their stats mid-combat and fudge die rolls to make them a more appropriate challenge for the party's specific level and class composition.

I feel that should be stated up front, but assuming this I agree.