D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[Crimson Longinus]

No game I know of has any design which prevents the use of weighted dice. Hence, weighted dice are not cheating.

It would seem there are unstated premises before we can reach the conclusion you desire.

Sure. But the GM not being bound by rules is not even unstated. It is stated, so there really isn't any ambiguity about that.

Having a reason does not make it a good reason. As I said, plenty of people want to be helpful, but cause harm believing that what they are doing is helpful.

As I said above, I see this as a matter of calling a spade a spade. Perhaps that is indelicate. When I speak of things with the kind of precision and specificity I prefer, I find folks tend to ignore the details. When I speak plainly, unadorned, I am accused of missing the details, being unhelpful, etc. How can one tackle the question, then?

Stop missing the context, making unwarranted accusations and assuming your tastes to be universal might be a good start.

A game is, of its nature, an agreement between parties. Changing the details of an agreement between parties, not only secretly, but actively doing so in a way that you never, ever want the other parties to find out, is an abrogation of the very idea of making an agreement between parties.

But that agreement in the first place contains the GM powers. So the possibility of them doing this is already part of the agreement.

Perhaps. But even with a "pirate code" and "guidelines," there are choices which always have negative consequences and choices that don't have those negative consequences. If you can achieve absolutely everything that the former set of choices could achieve, by doing the latter, what is the point of doing the former?

People might not agree with you what the negative consequences are.

But there are ways to address that mistake--even after the fact--that don't require the "shady" elements. That are completely above-board, straight-shooting. Why choose to deceive, when you could achieve all the same things without deception?

Because, frankly, no one except you cares. Changing a little mistake before it can even affect things is not worth interrupting the flow of the game for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. But the GM not being bound by rules is not even unstated. It is stated, so there really isn't any ambiguity about that.

Then, as always, "the GM can do anything" ruins the possibility of game.

You cannot game if you do not have limits.

Stop missing the context, making unwarranted accusations and assuming your tastes to be universal might be a good start.

It would help if others did the same.

But that agreement in the first place contains the GM powers. So the possibility of them doing this is already part of the agreement.

Absolutely not. Tell me where it says, in black and white, "The GM is allowed to do anything and everything, whenever they like, however they like, concealing it all from you as much as they like, and you must simply put up with it."

I'll wait.

People might not agree with you what the negative consequences are.

Then why do they hide it?

Because they do. Every bit of advice about using these tools brings it up, often right away. Letting your players know that you overwrite things, rewrite whatever causes a problem, is a problem. This isn't a me thing. This is the very advocates of doing it explicitly saying it's a problem.

Because, frankly, no one except you cares. Changing a little mistake before it can even affect things is not worth interrupting the flow of the game for.

How can it be "before it can even affect things"?

You're literally talking about changing monsters WHILE they're in play! The effect is literally right there, in play!

 

[Oofta]

Presumably the skilled player would suss out how many thugs there were before engaging?

If so then at that point you are altering the story to change the encounter.

I guess I've never had skilled players who always knew exactly what to expect. But even supposing that they thought they knew how many should be there, and other than a vague approximation I've never seen that, who's to say their intelligence was correct? Even if they somehow spied on the enemy, more guards could have shown up between when they spied and when the encounter happens. Bad, or mistaken, intelligence gathering is a pretty common trope.

On the other hand while I can't say I've never changed details once initiative is rolled, because never say never, things are pretty much set in stone once the encounter starts. I occasionally change tactics, combat can be a dynamic thing based on what happens, and of course the course of battle can change if for example one of the guards manages to ring the alarm bell.

But knowing exactly how many opponents you're going to face and how challenging they will be to defeat? Generalities are known fairly regularly, I don't recall ever knowing exact numbers.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then, as always, "the GM can do anything" ruins the possibility of game.

You cannot game if you do not have limits.

Considering that literally millions of people play the game this way, it is demonstrably untrue.

It would help if others did the same.

Sure. But it seems that at least in this instance the on-true-wayism comes from you.

Absolutely not. Tell me where it says, in black and white, "The GM is allowed to do anything and everything, whenever they like, however they like, concealing it all from you as much as they like, and you must simply put up with it."

I'll wait.

The numerous passages that outline the GM power both in the PHB and DMG have been quoted to you in previous discussions on this topic, and you have participated. I am not going to do this again, but I'll remind you that DMG literally advises how to fudge dice.

Then why do they hide it?

Because they do. Every bit of advice about using these tools brings it up, often right away. Letting your players know that you overwrite things, rewrite whatever causes a problem, is a problem. This isn't a me thing. This is the very advocates of doing it explicitly saying it's a problem.

It is not a secret. It is in the rulebooks that the GM can do this. That the flow of the game is not constantly interrupted to give running commentary on GM's decision making process is not a deception.

How can it be "before it can even affect things"?

You're literally talking about changing monsters WHILE they're in play! The effect is literally right there, in play!

I have reskinned a monster, the players are fighting it. Then they hit it with a spell. At that point I realise the statblock lists resistance to that type of damage, but that resistance really makes no sense for what the reskin is representing. So I ignore the resistance and let the spell to do full damage.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Considering that literally millions of people play the game this way, it is demonstrably untrue.

Some people sit down at tables and tell stories, I do not deny this. Are they gaming? That seems to be rather a different question.

When one person, as you have said, has literally unlimited power, and actually uses it to manipulate the world in ways that DO affect the players, but which the players are never allowed to know about, which will be hidden from them, and which will be denied if questioned, how exactly can you be gaming? You're certainly witnessing a fictional world, I have never questioned that. But poor play will be corrected and good play will be countered. That's not gameplay; that's being taken for a ride.

Sure. But it seems that at least in this instance the on-true-wayism comes from you.

Is it? You're the one who is claiming people HAVE to be able to deceive their players--not just have characters that tell lies, but actively pretend that they never make mistakes.

The numerous passages that outline the GM power both in the PHB and DMG have been quoted to you in previous discussions on this topic, and you have participated. I am not going to do this again, but I'll remind you that DMG literally advises how to fudge dice.

I'm aware of what the 5e DMG says. I am also aware that it's one of the things that says that players react badly to these tactics.

It is not a secret. It is in the rulebooks that the GM can do this. That the flow of the game is not constantly interrupted to give running commentary on GM's decision making process is not a deception.

So you tell your players you're fudging the dice? You have made it explicitly clear to them that any results you don't like, you're going to eliminate and replace with ones you do like?

Because that's what you're saying here. And that's what I'm opposed to. Anything you can do with deception--even "fixing" an encounter that has gone completely pear-shaped, even "adjusting" a monster that doesn't fit, even adding new creatures or eliminating excess creatures--literally anything you can do with deception, you can do without it.

Why, then, should we do it if it has even potential negatives that cannot even in principle be present if we avoid deception? Why is deception necessary when it at least could cause problems (and almost everyone agrees will cause various problems if any use of deception gets revealed to the players), if there are non-deceptive methods that get all of the same results?

This insistence that you have an absolute right to deceive your players whenever you feel like it--that's what sounds one-true-wayist to me. It's clearly a problem for a large chunk of players. If it weren't, you wouldn't see nearly every discussion of it explicitly warn to never let your players find out. And if it is a problem for lots of players, why not just...not? It's not any harder. You don't lose out on anything you could do without it. You don't take any additional risks by avoiding it. What is gained from deceptive techniques?

I have reskinned a monster, the players are fighting it. Then they hit it with a spell. At that point I realise the statblock lists resistance to that type of damage, but that resistance really makes no sense for what the reskin is representing. So I ignore the resistance and let the spell to do full damage.

Is that simply an error--as in, you were going to remove that, you knew that it should be removed, the players are aware that that thing shouldn't be there, and it just happens to be there because you, personally, just didn't remove it?

In that case--and literally ONLY that case--I might tolerate such a change, but it should still be noted. "Oops, forgot this thing shouldn't have fire resist. That's getting ignored, I assume you guys are okay with that." (I would expect chuckles and/or sarcastic "oh noooo" responses to that at most tables.)

Changing HP? AC? Turning crits into misses or misses into hits? You're either taking away players success or removing the cost of player failure.

I will grant you one thing. You have, in fact, actually managed to generate a case where a change to a monster statistics is warranted, purely because it is a clerical error and for literally no other reason. That's something I hadn't seen before.

But if it's anything other than a clerical error--and I really do mean that it needs to be a clerical error, as in, you actually did build it wrong, including something that should not be there at all, not just realizing later that you made a fight that was harder than the party could handle--then the limits of DM power still apply. Changes should be justified if they are going to happen at all. That justification can be as simple as "you don't know why this changed...but you probably want to go find out." (Hence why I say, even without prep, there's never anything you can do with deception that you can't do without deception.) But it needs to be something--or at least a real, reasonable chance to find out, even if the players don't take up that chance, or do take it up but fail to make good on it (e.g. bad rolls, looking in the wrong places, not considering the question, etc.) Players have the responsibility to go looking for answers; DMs have the responsibility to actually have answers, and make them truly find-able, not buried so deep no one would ever actually find them.

 

[Minigiant]

As far as the players working out which approach is being used by a given GM, telling them seems the most straightforward solution to this.

There is a major strainof D&D belief that DM don't have to tell the players anything.

This may have been okay back when D&D was super niche and only likeminded friends played together.

But those days are decades gone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is a major strainof D&D belief that DM don't have to tell the players anything.

This may have been okay back when D&D was super niche and only likeminded friends played together.

But those days are decades gone.

From the way people defend obscurantism and smoke-and-mirrors, you'd think they were only yesterday.

 

[Minigiant]

From the way people defend obscurantism and smoke-and-mirrors, you'd think they were only yesterday.

Because to them it is yesterday. Many play with the same friends or style of friends for years.

But just like life, most people have difficulty understanding that their experience is different from others.

I am fortunate being a born and raised in the most diverse city in the world, that knowing others might not have the same thought processes and experiences is ingrained into my mentality. So I might have to foreshadow a nearby orc tribe or the existence of strange magics or the banning of a race or the alteration of a spell before I introduce them to the players fully.

 

[Scott Christian]

If only folks had taken that attitude with systems that were actually designed to clearly tell you what things do, and left the storytelling for you to figure out.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this comment.

Wish more DMs had an interest in the second clause of that last sentence. I find far too many these days have little to no interest in having player involvement in story-creation. It's the DM's world. The players just happen to witness it, and maybe pick which of two pre-constructed alternate timelines gets promoted to canon.

When choosing, as a player, to play a pre-written adventure, you are probably choosing between a few endings. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, most of my players prefer to play that way. They trust the DM to:

• Let their character shine
• Let their character impact the setting, NPC's and plot (story arc)
• Let their character experience a variety of encounters (hopefully, some of them unique)
• Let their character grow in power
• Let their character grow as a person by making choices in the world (character arc)

I am sorry you don't think that is how D&D should be played. But it is, as the DMG and PHB directly state: a collective storytelling game. This has all the elements of a story, from an exposition and inciting incident to climax and conclusion. Of course, there are other ways to play. And those are great too. I just got done DMing a campaign that was not run that way. My players preferred the way I described above.

This "random monsters are there to enforce the expected rest cycle" thing has absolutely been advocated many times on this very forum, and indirectly referenced in this thread. It's why someone (Oofta, I think?) referred to resting too frequently as an "exploit" that needed to be quashed. Random monster encounters are that "quash that exploit" mechanic.

And what they mean is: wandering monsters can be used by the DM to continue the adventuring day and hinder rest. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it fits the world's design. Sleep in the middle of a desert in no-man's land where you haven't seen a living thing in two days. Odds are there will be no encounter at night. But sleep in a jungle with lizardfolk actively hunting you down because you stole their artifact, chance go up.

It baffles me. This does not seem like a difficult concept to grasp. The DMG, on page 81 "Building Encounters" explains how to do this. If you disagree with the DMG, that is your prerogative. But all it is doing is giving you ideas and suggestions on how to build an encounter, and yes, keep the adventuring day going as long as it makes sense to your story. I mean, they literally frame the events around character objectives - is that not character driven enough for you?

It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of making sense of what's been said. The person I quoted explicitly used the word "infinite" to refer to the reserves which could be drawn upon. That's a nuclear flyswatter if I've ever heard of one. Truly infinite reserves, which can be brought in by portals at a moment's notice, from opponents with a vested interest in ensuring the party fails at their goals? Then the party will lose. The only other option is that the opposition are either so lazy, stupid, or arrogant that they never choose to bring in these reinforcements (which boggles the mind that they could have acquired such forces but be so incapable of using them...while still somehow being a threat), or they are abiding by some rule completely outside the narrative which prevents them from using their actually infinite reserves, meaning, we're right back to where we were, the problem of finite reserves that can only be deployed under valid circumstances, completely defeating the whole point of this nuclear option.

I'm not the one who used the word "infinite." The person I replied to did. It was not presented as hyperbole. If I was supposed to understand it as an exaggeration, that was very poorly communicated.

Infinite, because yes, the DM has infinite reserves if they want to use it. It is a fine use of hyperbole. If you sat at their table, I doubt you'd recognize any use of "infinite" in their game. You are taking things too literal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Some people sit down at tables and tell stories, I do not deny this. Are they gaming? That seems to be rather a different question.

You certainly are free to argue that millions of people playing RPGs are not actually doing so. I am not sure that this argument will get you anywhere, and I am not even bothering to engage with it. As with your cheating argument, it simply is not how people generally use these words.

Is it? You're the one who is claiming people HAVE to be able to deceive their players--not just have characters that tell lies, but actively pretend that they never make mistakes.

No I'm not. If you want to provide a running DM decisions making commentary to your players, feel free to do so. I wouldn't enjoy playing in such a table though.

So you tell your players you're fudging the dice? You have made it explicitly clear to them that any results you don't like, you're going to eliminate and replace with ones you do like?

Well that would be actually deceiving them, as I don't fudge.

Because that's what you're saying here. And that's what I'm opposed to. Anything you can do with deception--even "fixing" an encounter that has gone completely pear-shaped, even "adjusting" a monster that doesn't fit, even adding new creatures or eliminating excess creatures--literally anything you can do with deception, you can do without it.

Why, then, should we do it if it has even potential negatives that cannot even in principle be present if we avoid deception? Why is deception necessary when it at least could cause problems (and almost everyone agrees will cause various problems if any use of deception gets revealed to the players), if there are non-deceptive methods that get all of the same results?

This insistence that you have an absolute right to deceive your players whenever you feel like it--that's what sounds one-true-wayist to me. It's clearly a problem for a large chunk of players. If it weren't, you wouldn't see nearly every discussion of it explicitly warn to never let your players find out. And if it is a problem for lots of players, why not just...not? It's not any harder. You don't lose out on anything you could do without it. You don't take any additional risks by avoiding it. What is gained from deceptive techniques?

No one is being deceived, the game simply isn't constantly interrupted to provide irrelevant information.

Is that simply an error--as in, you were going to remove that, you knew that it should be removed, the players are aware that that thing shouldn't be there, and it just happens to be there because you, personally, just didn't remove it?

In that case--and literally ONLY that case--I might tolerate such a change, but it should still be noted. "Oops, forgot this thing shouldn't have fire resist. That's getting ignored, I assume you guys are okay with that." (I would expect chuckles and/or sarcastic "oh noooo" responses to that at most tables.)

Why do you feel the need to interrupt the game to provide useless information? I actually was just talking with one my players and asked whether they would like to know in situation like this, and they very unequivocally said that no they wouldn't, nor they generally care or want to how the GM makes decisions behind the curtains, they just want to focus on what's happening in the game.

Changing HP? AC? Turning crits into misses or misses into hits? You're either taking away players success or removing the cost of player failure.

I will grant you one thing. You have, in fact, actually managed to generate a case where a change to a monster statistics is warranted, purely because it is a clerical error and for literally no other reason. That's something I hadn't seen before.

But if it's anything other than a clerical error--and I really do mean that it needs to be a clerical error, as in, you actually did build it wrong, including something that should not be there at all, not just realizing later that you made a fight that was harder than the party could handle--then the limits of DM power still apply. Changes should be justified if they are going to happen at all. That justification can be as simple as "you don't know why this changed...but you probably want to go find out." (Hence why I say, even without prep, there's never anything you can do with deception that you can't do without deception.) But it needs to be something--or at least a real, reasonable chance to find out, even if the players don't take up that chance, or do take it up but fail to make good on it (e.g. bad rolls, looking in the wrong places, not considering the question, etc.) Players have the responsibility to go looking for answers; DMs have the responsibility to actually have answers, and make them truly find-able, not buried so deep no one would ever actually find them.

So I don't like to change stuff unless it was an actual error. But that is just my preference as a GM, it makes stuff more interesting to me. But as player I really don't care, nor I want to know. This really is just your personal hang-up, you can't generalise some universal law from it.