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

[DND_Reborn]

Should they though?

Yes. They already have all the power of creation in the game and more. Once set in motion, they are referee at that point, and should run the game as they set it up. If an encounter is too hard or too easy, learn from it and try to do better next time. Of course, even how you run the encounter should influence things...

But I asked if the players should be able to do the things I suggested because the encounter is not going as they want? Should they??

Even Gygax changed things on the fly:

LOL that doesn't mean he was right IMO to do so, but without knowing precisely what he did, who can say? It depends on your views of the game. Gygax seemed to believe the PCs were meant to succeed judging from the end of the quote.

In the case of mere chance, he doesn't specify how he modified the situation or what ill fortune means?

He also talks about if he over-powered the NPCs/monsters. The DM can certainly run the monsters how he wants, but doesn't need to change the mechanics or fudge dice rolls to make that happen. If a monster is proving too strong, the DM can have it flee at half HP instead of making the PCs fight it to 0 hp. If the PCs can't get it even that low (due to bad luck or something), then they should run themselves. I know players who have pulled their characters out of fight before they dropped to 0 hp, so why can't the DM? Not everything needs to fight to the "death". Morale is too often ignored by most DMs IME.

A fight need not end in a TPK either when all the PCs are reduced to 0 hp. They can be captured and later made to escape, etc. As I mentioned, PCs can typically break from an encounter as well, and the DM can narrate them to safety or whatever, again without changing mechanics.

The DM has all sorts of power, so changing mechanics on the fly really isn't needed IMO.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why is it so important if it's before the encounter or during?

To me, everything game related is in a quantum state of sorts and doesn't "materialize" until it's observed. The orc's AC is normally 13, but until a character "observes" this by hitting with a particular die roll, why can't it be 11 (no armor) or 15 (better armor)?

That...is exactly what we're describing. Reducing or increasing the monster's HP after it has already been hit (but before the results of that hit are reported to the player). Reducing or increasing its AC or hit bonus after an attack has already been made.

The "observation" has already occurred. The DM is intruding between the action and the consequences, not because the rules require it, not because the players' (or creature's) choices require it, but because the DM herself does not like those consequences and feels others would be better instead. It is "I know what you will find fun better than you do," which is a sentiment I have always found questionable at best.

 

[DND_Reborn]

"I know what you will find fun better than you do," which is a sentiment I have always found questionable at best.

Yeah, that is a big part of it as well.

I'll freely admit when I was younger I fudged rolls on occasion, gave more HP to make an encounter harder and more of a struggle, etc. But then I realized as DM I had all sorts of other tools I could use that didn't require such deception, so now I don't do it.

And you know what, when great things or bad things happen of their own accord by the die roll, it is SO MUCH COOLER for everyone, and quite a bit more fun IMO.

 

[pemerton]

Why is it so important if it's before the encounter or during?

Imagine a D&D game that places a big emphasis on hidden information. In that game, part of the skill of play includes learning that information - for instance, by scouting, or collecting rumours, or whatever. So if there is an Orc Captain who is tougher, or better-armoured, than usual, that is a bit of information that the players can in principle obtain. Changing it willy-nilly would be undermining the players' play. Just the same as changing the tiles in a tile-layout-based boardgame would be. (I just played Mystic Wood this morning with my kids!)

At some D&D tables, the hidden information approach is typical. (This seems to be the approach Gygax advocates in his DMG and PHB, and that underlies modules like Keep on the Borderlands and White Plume Mountain.)

Of course, at other tables hidden information plays a lesser role. If the only hidden information that matters to play is the current encounter's stat blocks and map, then changing what has been prepped in advance of introducing it into the current encounter is no big deal. This is mostly how I approached my GMing of 4e D&D.

If hidden information isn't relevant at all, and the key play priority is a series of satisfying story "beats", then changing stuff during combat resolution to help ensure those beats occur would be fine. I personally don't play or GM that way, but have known other tables to favour that approach. I think it's fairly widespread among the current D&D community.

 

[overgeeked]

For me, the idea of changing things on the fly during a combat is a no go. The DM should be a neutral arbiter of the rules and play the world as it exists. If the PCs run into a fight they cannot win, they either run or die. It's not for the DM to put their thumb on the scales either way. That destroys the presumed neutrality the DM should have. If there's a dragon in the cave and the PCs go inside, they end up face-to-face with a dragon. Doesn't matter what level they are.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with fudging is that where do you draw the line. In my last session we had a real knock down drag out fight. Wound up chaining about four different encounters at the same time.

Fantastic fight. Fun all around. Now the last baddie standing was a brutal monster. The party would have won the fight, I’m sure but it would have been close and quite possibly killed more than one pc.

But I decided instead that the very intelligent monster would realize that it likely would not win and realizing that, it ran away. Given the situation and abilities of the monster it could do so.

Now, I drastically reduced the threat of an encounter. I certainly could have fought it out.

Did I fudge or not? Some would say yes and some no. If I choose to attack this pc rather than that pc because I know I won’t seriously hurt one and will likely kill the other, am I fudging?

If I choose a less optimal spell am I fudging? Or monster ability?

If I bunch up the baddies in a very poor life choice, am I fudging?

There are a million ways to adjust encounter difficulty. When does it become “fudging”?

 

[DND_Reborn]

But I decided instead that the very intelligent monster would realize that it likely would not win and realizing that, it ran away. Given the situation and abilities of the monster it could do so.

And this is exactly what I was talking about that a DM CAN do without "fudging".

Did I fudge or not? Sorry me would say yes and some no. If I choose to attack this pc rather than that pc because I know I won’t seriously hurt one and will likely kill the other, am I fudging?

If I choose a less optimal spell am I fudging? Or monster ability?

If I bunch up the baddies in a very poor life choice, am I fudging?

If you are making choices based on your knowledge of the PCs and their capabilities, when it would not be information the NPCs/monsters would have, then IMO, yes, you are fudging.

If you are playing the NPCs/monsters they way you imagine the should be played, based on their knowledge and understanding, no.

For example, having a monster target a spellcaster is not fudging if the NPC/monster recognizes the PC as a spellcaster and the potential difficulty that spellcaster can bring to the fight.

There are a million ways to adjust encounter difficulty. When does it become “fudging”?

For me (anyway), when you are using DM knowledge to adjust behaviors and not NPC/monster knowledge.

If you are changing dice rolls or mechanics simply to adjust the fight on the fly--fudging.

That is my take anyway.

 

[pemerton]

For me, the idea of changing things on the fly during a combat is a no go. The DM should be a neutral arbiter of the rules and play the world as it exists.

<snip>

It's not for the DM to put their thumb on the scales either way. That destroys the presumed neutrality the DM should have.

That "presumption" is just a preference. Other players have other preferences.

Here are some examples from my 4e play:

By misadventure, the PCs in my game have ended up in the Underdark.

<snip>

As the PCs continue through the tunnels, I described them coming to a cleft in the floor, and got them to describe how they would cross it. The drow sorcerer indicated that he would first fly over (using 16th level At Will Dominant Winds) and then . . . before he could finish, I launched into my beholder encounter, which I had designed inspired by this image (which is the cover art from Dungeonscape, I think):

I'm not sure exactly what the artist intended, but to me it looks as if the central beholder is hovering over a chasm, with uneven rocky surfaces leading up to it (archer on one side, flaming sword guy on the other). I drew up my map similarly, including with the side tunnel (behind the tiefling) which on my version ran down into the chasm, and the columns, stalactites, etc.

I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!")

<snip>

The PCs had two ways out - the main tunnel, and the side tunnel that the eye of flame had come out of - and decided to go down the latter

<snip>

a couple of skill challenges. The first, which had been commenced back at 17th level and involved navigating through the underdark, failed, and the PC fighter ended up falling through thin stone into the underground river

<snip>

After heading down this underground river for some time, they came onto their sixth encounter of the day. This started as a 21st level enounter - an 18th solo hydra (a flamekiss hydra spawned from the primordial Bryakus) and 3 16th level salamander guards, one of them elite.

<snip>

The invoker (who is a multi-class wizard) meanwhile opened up an Arcane Gate

<snip>

The invoker-wizard also came through the gate, in order to Thunderwave some elementals into the lava, but this turned out to expose him to their vicious melee and he, too, got cut down. In desperate straits as he lay on the ground next to his Gate (he was brought back to consciousness via some sort of healing effect), being hacked down by fire archons, he spoke a prayer to Erathis (one of his patron deities). After speaking the prayer, and after the player succeeded at a Hard Religion check, as the PC looked up into the rock cleft high above him, he saw a duergar standing on a ledge looking down. The PC already knew that the duergar revere Erathis (as well as Asmodeus). The duergar gave the Deep Speech hand sign for "I will offer you aid", and the PC replied with the sign for "The dues will be paid". The duergar then dropped a potion vial down to the PC. (I had already decided that I could place a duergar in the cleft if I wanted some sort of 3rd-party intervention into the fight. The successful prayer was the trigger for implementing that prior decision.)

The invoker took himself and his potion back through the Gate, and he too stayed on the far side of the river for the rest of the fight.

In these examples, I introduce a roper into an encounter as a response to a player's action declaration, because it seemed like fun (and was); I introduced an underground river as part of the consequence-narration for a skill challenge; and I introduced a helpful NPC in response to a successful prayer by a PC.

None of that was neutral GMing. It was all about responding to the unfolding dynamics of play, with an eye towards maintaining pressure on the players and honouring both their successes and their failures.

Of course it's not the only way to approach GMing. It's not what Gygax had in mind when he wrote KotB or ToH. But I happen to think it's the best way to approach 4e D&D, in the sense that it gets the most out of what the game has to offer (there is fuller discussion in this old thread). I suspect that something like it might be feasible in 5e, although the asymmetric player-side resource suites and the lack of a skill challenge mechanic might complicate it a little bit.

(EDITed to correct reference to 5e in the last sentence.)

 

[Hussar]

And this is exactly what I was talking about that a DM CAN do without "fudging".


If you are making choices based on your knowledge of the PCs and their capabilities, when it would not be information the NPCs/monsters would have, then IMO, yes, you are fudging.

If you are playing the NPCs/monsters they way you imagine the should be played, based on their knowledge and understanding, no.

For example, having a monster target a spellcaster is not fudging if the NPC/monster recognizes the PC as a spellcaster and the potential difficulty that spellcaster can bring to the fight.


For me (anyway), when you are using DM knowledge to adjust behaviors and not NPC/monster knowledge.

If you are changing dice rolls or mechanics simply to adjust the fight on the fly--fudging.

That is my take anyway.

But my reason for the monster running away was mostly about pacing - we’d spent a lot of time in combat and I wanted to change pace. Also I had a sliver of an idea that the monster might now become a recurring villain.

I can in game justify the decision however I like but I’m honest enough to admit that my decision was not driven by any “in game” knowledge.

So, am I fudging now?

 

[pemerton]

But my reason for the monster running away was mostly about pacing - we’d spent a lot of time in combat and I wanted to change pace. Also I had a sliver of an idea that the monster might now become a recurring villain.

I can in game justify the decision however I like but I’m honest enough to admit that my decision was not driven by any “in game” knowledge.

So, am I fudging now?

What do the rules and system expectations say?

Is the GM free to decide what NPCs and creatures do, or are you expected to rely on (eg) morale rules? Different approaches to D&D answer that question differently.

When the GM does make decisions about what NPCs and creatures do, is the GM expected to try and extrapolate (as best as possible) from the established fiction in a neutral way? Or is the GM allowed, even expected, to rely on metagame considerations like pacing, the desirability of recurring villains, etc? Again, different approaches to D&D answer these questions differently.

This is why I'm so averse to normative prescriptions that assume there is one single set of correct answers!