Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lance845 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Here is the thing about OLD dnD that is really not part of the game anymore. Followers. You used to need to rent/hire/enslave people to do all the super dangerous stuff, and then make charisma checks AFTER said incident to ensure they don't bolt and run. Also, Gygax never promised you an enjoyable adventure. He promised you a CHANCE at fame and fortune, if you just undertake the adventures. Take a look at the old campaigns. He literally designed the game to kill the players, in a SERIOUSLY jerk way. There is a dark hole, you can tell it's a tunnel. With good perception, you can just make out something shiny in the back of the tunnel. Anyone who went in was instantly killed by the sheer fact that it was a portal to a realm of anti-matter. Not a tunnel, just a black portal. The CONSTANT memes about Mimics and checking for traps, are because the game was a SUPER jerk to players. It wasn't enough to just deny them a roll, you had to do it in an extremely abrupt and crushing way that was almost comical at times.

Yes, and this is regularly cited as the root cause of a lot of the GM versus Players mentality and how the game breaks down into an antagonistic back and forth between people at the table. The GM doing their best to smite any player that steps out of line and the players doing their best to cheat or trick their way around the GM because feth that guy. It resulted in decades of miserable game play and trained a ton of bad GMs. The old DMGs are full of some of the worst GM advice you could possible put to paper. There are games that do a similar kind of meat grinder style game play. Paranoia being one. And those games don't make the GM into an enemy of the table by creating and encouraging bs Tucker's Kobolds style nonsense for players to fail to wade through. Instead it crafts an actual game play experience around it. But again, the players actually get to play. It's still hyper lethal. It's still got traps and tricks and nonsense the players can fall for. But the players have far more agency in the individual actions. It's a better GAME.

The meat grinder you're looking for can exist without the horrible mechanics.

Honest question: Do you believe a GM should ever lie? Fudge dice rolls? Avoid double tapping the downed healer? Because that's all the "learned behavior" I've gained from 5th. If I want to be "allowed" the honor of being the DM of a group of players these days, I have to break my back to avoid them killing themselves. I have to create the world, the fights, the lore, manage the encounters, and meanwhile play baby sitter and make sure they don't accidently die after charging into a group of Dire Trolls because they didn't want to stop and make a nature check and tell, these aren't just TROLLS.

This is the exact result of making everything simple and just handing it to the player. They just don't care about the entire list of skills anymore. If they can't just ask the DM "Can I roll to tell what type of troll it is?" it's too complicated. "Can I roll to X?" has to be the most dumb question I hear more often. Tell me what you want to do, and at least try and include a relevant skill name in the question.

Thats about when I get - "Can I arcana to learn what type of trolls these are?" No. No you may not. You may Nature.....you know what? They're dire trolls. You can tell they're dire Trolls. What do you want to do now? Oh you're attacking? Got it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Honest question: Do you believe a GM should ever lie?

Lie how? Like should an NPC lie to the players? Yes. Should a GM purposefully falsify information that the PCs should have? No.

Fudge dice rolls?

Absolutely not. You all agreed to play this game when you sat down and starting playing. Every person at that table should be following the rules. The GM is also a player. A asymetrical player, but a player none the less. The PCs are expected to follow the rules. The GM is also expected to follow those rules.

Avoid double tapping the downed healer?

The GM have NPCs behave the way NPCs would behave.

Because that's all the "learned behavior" I've gained from 5th.

I am going to reiterate something I said before. 5th is also a bad game. All dnd is a bad game.

If I want to be "allowed" the honor of being the DM of a group of players these days, I have to break my back to avoid them killing themselves. I have to create the world, the fights, the lore, manage the encounters, and meanwhile play baby sitter and make sure they don't accidently die after charging into a group of Dire Trolls because they didn't want to stop and make a nature check and tell, these aren't just TROLLS.

Don't do that? Let them suffer the consequences of their actions. That is part of the game.

This is the exact result of making everything simple and just handing it to the player. They just don't care about the entire list of skills anymore. If they can't just ask the DM "Can I roll to tell what type of troll it is?" it's too complicated. "Can I roll to X?" has to be the most dumb question I hear more often. Tell me what you want to do, and at least try and include a relevant skill name in the question.

Do a session zero. Set the expectation for your table. Have your first session be a introduction into the way the game works.

Thats about when I get - "Can I arcana to learn what type of trolls these are?" No. No you may not. You may Nature.....you know what? They're dire trolls. You can tell they're dire Trolls. What do you want to do now? Oh you're attacking? Got it.

Stop DMing. You're burned out.

Dnd like most RPGs has explicit permission for the GM to fiddle with the rules and outcomes to ensure a better experience, so fudging dice IS following the rules.

And not everyone agrees to play the same kind of game style you do, so assuming that every group must have agreed to play exactly to the letter of the rules no fudging, is fallacious reasoning.

 Hellebore wrote:
Dnd like most RPGs has explicit permission for the GM to fiddle with the rules and outcomes to ensure a better experience, so fudging dice IS following the rules.

And not everyone agrees to play the same kind of game style you do, so assuming that every group must have agreed to play exactly to the letter of the rules no fudging, is fallacious reasoning.

Most players don't read the gmg. They read the players handbook as the rules. How many conversations as or with a GM have you had where they flat out told you they would be fudging dice rolls to create the experience they thought was best for the group? Is it none? Then the group didn't agree to play by those rules. The GM just decided to do them.

I have always used a single rule. The players must enjoy their experience. If that means the Hill Giant accidentally rolled a crit fail when attacking the paladin, oops. But I don't spare them repercussions for their actions.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have always used a single rule. The players must enjoy their experience. If that means the Hill Giant accidentally rolled a crit fail when attacking the paladin, oops. But I don't spare them repercussions for their actions.

The thing is a TTRPG anounts to a board game with a different goal. Your group gets together to play a game that has rules with the goal of a collaborative story telling experience. When you unilaterally decide that you know best what makes for the best time/story and decide to change the rules without the others knowledge or consent thats pretty fethed up.

Gygax's old DMGs would have down right encouraged you to do this btw. His poison terrible advice places the GM over everyone else at the table. But thats a false dichotomy. You are a player just like them contributing asymmetrically but equally to the story. You cover more roles in the story but they take center stage.

If you honestly think it's okay for you to fudge the rolls and take control then tell them and see how they feel about it. If they consent, cool. Your table is all on the same page. But if they don't know or don't agree you might as well be cheating at any other board game.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Dnd like most RPGs has explicit permission for the GM to fiddle with the rules and outcomes to ensure a better experience, so fudging dice IS following the rules.

And not everyone agrees to play the same kind of game style you do, so assuming that every group must have agreed to play exactly to the letter of the rules no fudging, is fallacious reasoning.

Most players don't read the gmg. They read the players handbook as the rules. How many conversations as or with a GM have you had where they flat out told you they would be fudging dice rolls to create the experience they thought was best for the group? Is it none? Then the group didn't agree to play by those rules. The GM just decided to do them.

All you're doing is describing how limited your experience with RPGs and the people that play them is.

Your description of GMs makes them sound like they stand apart from players. My current DnD group is made up of 7 people, 6 of whom have themselves GMed at least one RPG (DnD or otherwise). I've played plenty of games across a range of systems where the initial discussions about how the game would play were had.

 Lance845 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn
wrote:
I have always used a single rule. The players must enjoy their experience. If that means the Hill Giant accidentally rolled a crit fail when attacking the paladin, oops. But I don't spare them repercussions for their actions.

The thing is a TTRPG anounts to a board game with a different goal. Your group gets together to play a game that has rules with the goal of a collaborative story telling experience. When you unilaterally decide that you know best what makes for the best time/story and decide to change the rules without the others knowledge or consent thats pretty fethed up.

Gygax's old DMGs would have down right encouraged you to do this btw. His poison terrible advice places the GM over everyone else at the table. But thats a false dichotomy. You are a player just like them contributing asymmetrically but equally to the story. You cover more roles in the story but they take center stage.

If you honestly think it's okay for you to fudge the rolls and take control then tell them and see how they feel about it. If they consent, cool. Your table is all on the same page. But if they don't know or don't agree you might as well be cheating at any other board game.

You have a very narrow definition of an RPG and there are THOUSANDS of RPGS that are not designed to conform to your definition.

There are diceless RPGs where the outcome is determined by discussion. There are GMless RPGs where the group collectively decide how the plot will unfold.

DnD 4th edition is not the sole definition of a roleplaying game and is in fact the exception.


All I'm hearing is 'I have a very narrow definition of what an RPG is and how to correctly play one'. This restrictive mindset is one of the many reasons I don't like DnD, it encourages people to blinker themselves and only do what's spoon fed to them by the game...

 Hellebore wrote:

All you're doing is describing how limited your experience with RPGs and the people that play them is.

My experience is I have been playing/running them for almost 3 decades, have written 2 of my own. Own every edition of Mage, along with a smattering of other white wolf, have played 4 editions of dnd, pathfinder, paranoia, a bunch of free league stuff including coriolis and forbidden lands, own several PBTA games and most of the products ever produced by Eden Studios.

Your description of GMs makes them sound like they stand apart from players. My current DnD group is made up of 7 people, 6 of whom have themselves GMed at least one RPG (DnD or otherwise). I've played plenty of games across a range of systems where the initial discussions about how the game would play were had.

And in those discussions did the GMs ever talk about when or if they would decide to fudge dice? Bend or break the rules for what they felt was best?

Session zeros are great. Glad your group is doing them.

You have a very narrow definition of an RPG and there are THOUSANDS of RPGS that are not designed to conform to your definition.

There are diceless RPGs where the outcome is determined by discussion. There are GMless RPGs where the group collectively decide how the plot will unfold.

And obviously in a thread titled DnD 5.5/6E Poll in which we are discussing various editions of DnD we are not talking about diceless RPGs. This isn't my narrow definition of what an RPG can be. This is the type of RPG we are discussing.

DnD 4th edition is not the sole definition of a roleplaying game and is in fact the exception.

All I'm hearing is 'I have a very narrow definition of what an RPG is and how to correctly play one'. This restrictive mindset is one of the many reasons I don't like DnD, it encourages people to blinker themselves and only do what's spoon fed to them by the game...

Pretty sure 4E hasn't even come up here. See above for the rest of this.

I have to admit, Lance has been a fairly clear and accurate and honest interlocutor in this thread. They haven't really gotten personal, or made silly accusations. I think they've been honest about what they thinks good gameplay is, and why they think that. I have no problem with how they have represented their arguments here. On the whole I think everyone here has been.

And yes, I only brought up previous versions of DnD to cite an example of what "used to be" and now isn't. I NEVER brought up 4th, because I refuse to ever talk about that. It was singularly the worst edition I ever played.

 Lance845 wrote:
Pretty sure 4E hasn't even come up here. See above for the rest of this.

I mentioned it briefly. Just that I was getting back into it for fun.

The strange thing about D&D is that it relies more on unwritten social contract to work than the actual written rules.

It is clear that Rule 0 is that the DM makes the rules. Full stop. The reason this is called Rule 0, is because it is an inherent assumption in D&D. I am not sure if it is even written anywhere officially because I am not that familiar with D&D, even after playing since '84.

However, there is another unwritten corollary to Rule 0. If a player is not having fun playing in a game, they can quit. This is also not a written rule.

The two main "rules" of the game aren't even written down anywhere that I can think of. Because the core question of D&D is "Are you willing to play the game?" is assumed in the written works.

Therefore, playing a game of D&D is more about the unwritten social contract between all the players than it is about the actual rules-as-written, and creating a balance in the social dynamics of the group is more important. The Rules are just one-component of doing that, but the group dynamics are also part of it as well.

A personal example, I have seen 100's of times where my PC has been done. The DM could easily killed the character dead-dead without even a dice roll. For some reason, they don't use the three attack monster next to me to just attack me and remove all my death saves and kill me. Why? It is fully within the rules? We never talked about it in Session 0? Because doing so would end the game.

The core assumption of D&D is that the game must continue in some form as long as the players are willing to play. The game really only ends when the players are no longer willing to play. Therefore, there is no winning or losing D&D, there is only playing D&D.





*= Of course, if a single character dies I could just make a new one, but the barrier of re-entry is higher than continuing with an existing one. Every time a campaign ends, a character dies, or a story line is over; it is that much harder to get the players to say they will play again. It is easier for the players to simply agree to just keep going with what they have.

I have only once seen the "The Monsters know what they're doing" style of DM'ing, and it was a request by a group of players to have a no-holds barred "Deadly" campaign. It lasted literally 1 session, where the Orc Chief double tapped the Paladin and the cleric, killing them instantly, and the rest of the party was fairly quick.

People don't expect to go up against actually intelligent creatures/BBEGs in combat. Which is why Character level 5-8 is so difficult for a lot of DMs. It's hard to justify the Lich NOT using Disintegrate on the first turn, or counter spelling the healer. The really ugly stuff starts showing up around level 5, 6, and 7.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have only once seen the "The Monsters know what they're doing" style of DM'ing, and it was a request by a group of players to have a no-holds barred "Deadly" campaign. It lasted literally 1 session, where the Orc Chief double tapped the Paladin and the cleric, killing them instantly, and the rest of the party was fairly quick.

People don't expect to go up against actually intelligent creatures/BBEGs in combat. Which is why Character level 5-8 is so difficult for a lot of DMs. It's hard to justify the Lich NOT using Disintegrate on the first turn, or counter spelling the healer. The really ugly stuff starts showing up around level 5, 6, and 7.

Why would you be fighting a Lich at level 5-8?

In 5E, it's CR 21. A party of five level eight PCs has a daily experience budget of 30,000, while a Lich is worth 33,000 alone-and why would it be alone? And in-universe, what the heck are a couple of low-level chumps doing to raise the ire of a Lich?
In 3.5, it's a minimum of CR 13, if the template is applied to a level 11 caster. So, on its own, it's technically supposed to be a reasonable if somewhat difficult encounter for four level 8 PCs. But, why on earth would it be alone?

As the DM, it's possible to kill the PCs at any time. You control literally the entire universe, besides the PCs-and sixteen DC 48 Wisdom/Will saves later, they get mind controlled because screw them.
I'm not saying to coddle the characters or players. But there should be ways for them to interact-signs that an encounter is overwhelming and a way to escape, if an overwhelming encounter makes sense.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have only once seen the "The Monsters know what they're doing" style of DM'ing, and it was a request by a group of players to have a no-holds barred "Deadly" campaign. It lasted literally 1 session, where the Orc Chief double tapped the Paladin and the cleric, killing them instantly, and the rest of the party was fairly quick.

People don't expect to go up against actually intelligent creatures/BBEGs in combat. Which is why Character level 5-8 is so difficult for a lot of DMs. It's hard to justify the Lich NOT using Disintegrate on the first turn, or counter spelling the healer. The really ugly stuff starts showing up around level 5, 6, and 7.

Why would you be fighting a Lich at level 5-8?

In 5E, it's CR 21. A party of five level eight PCs has a daily experience budget of 30,000, while a Lich is worth 33,000 alone-and why would it be alone? And in-universe, what the heck are a couple of low-level chumps doing to raise the ire of a Lich?
In 3.5, it's a minimum of CR 13, if the template is applied to a level 11 caster. So, on its own, it's technically supposed to be a reasonable if somewhat difficult encounter for four level 8 PCs. But, why on earth would it be alone?

As the DM, it's possible to kill the PCs at any time. You control literally the entire universe, besides the PCs-and sixteen DC 48 Wisdom/Will saves later, they get mind controlled because screw them.
I'm not saying to coddle the characters or players. But there should be ways for them to interact-signs that an encounter is overwhelming and a way to escape, if an overwhelming encounter makes sense.

No you're right. Lich was an extremely bad example. I was trying to think of a high intelligence monster, and Acerak popped into my head, because you're supposed to be around 6-8+ just to enter the dungeon.

Extremely dumb example.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

All you're doing is describing how limited your experience with RPGs and the people that play them is.

My experience is I have been playing/running them for almost 3 decades, have written 2 of my own. Own every edition of Mage, along with a smattering of other white wolf, have played 4 editions of dnd, pathfinder, paranoia, a bunch of free league stuff including coriolis and forbidden lands, own several PBTA games and most of the products ever produced by Eden Studios.

Your description of GMs makes them sound like they stand apart from players. My current DnD group is made up of 7 people, 6 of whom have themselves GMed at least one RPG (DnD or otherwise). I've played plenty of games across a range of systems where the initial discussions about how the game would play were had.

And in those discussions did the GMs ever talk about when or if they would decide to fudge dice? Bend or break the rules for what they felt was best?

Session zeros are great. Glad your group is doing them.

You have a very narrow definition of an RPG and there are THOUSANDS of RPGS that are not designed to conform to your definition.

There are diceless RPGs where the outcome is determined by discussion. There are GMless RPGs where the group collectively decide how the plot will unfold.

And obviously in a thread titled DnD 5.5/6E Poll in which we are discussing various editions of DnD we are not talking about diceless RPGs. This isn't my narrow definition of what an RPG can be. This is the type of RPG we are discussing.

DnD 4th edition is not the sole definition of a roleplaying game and is in fact the exception.

All I'm hearing is 'I have a very narrow definition of what an RPG is and how to correctly play one'. This restrictive mindset is one of the many reasons I don't like DnD, it encourages people to blinker themselves and only do what's spoon fed to them by the game...

Pretty sure 4E hasn't even come up here. See above for the rest of this.

You specified that RPGS are boardgames as a justification for having hard unfudgeable rules. That paints the entire genre, not just DnD.

Your argument from authority doesn't in any way protect your assertions about unfudgability or boardgame strictures. It makes them look worse, because if in all that time of writing and playing you're still stuck on that concept, then you've not experienced much of the breadth of RPGs.


I mentioned DnD 4th as a direct reference to the 'RPGs are boardgames' comment as its the most boardgamey of the DnD editions and also died the fastest.

I have seen far more RPGs with explicit permission for GMs to fudge rules or ignore them entirely, than I have RPG rulebooks that say 'you cannot deviate from these rules in any way. Fudging is right out because its cheating'. Which runs entirely counter to your argument.

 Hellebore wrote:

You specified that RPGS are boardgames as a justification for having hard unfudgeable rules. That paints the entire genre, not just DnD.

Sure. I don't see what that has to do with mentioning that some games rules are diceless or not. But yeah. Games have rules. TTRPGs as a type of game also has rules. In fact, TTRPGs have some of the longest rule books on the market.

Your argument from authority doesn't in any way protect your assertions about unfudgability or boardgame strictures. It makes them look worse, because if in all that time of writing and playing you're still stuck on that concept, then you've not experienced much of the breadth of RPGs.

This isn't the "unfudgability of boardgame strictures". This is about games period. It doesn't matter if you are playing Football, Baseball, Uno, Monolopoly, dnd, or Dread. The game has rules and the people playing the game agree to play by those rules. Can the group decide to play by different rules? Absolutely. House rules can, do, and SHOULD exist. But everyone playing should be on the same page of what rules they are playing by. That is the baseline social contract of all players getting together to play a game.

What exactly are you defending here? Do you think the GM should be capable of making up their own rules? Or keeping the rest of the players in the dark about what exactly the rules are? Why do you think TTRPGs are unique in the world of games in that the majority of the players shouldn't be made aware of the rules of the game?

I mentioned DnD 4th as a direct reference to the 'RPGs are boardgames' comment as its the most boardgamey of the DnD editions and also died the fastest.

Ive said it plenty of times. 4th isn't actually any more board gamy then any other edition of dnd. It just hid it the worst. They are all skirmish level miniature wargames first with some RPG stuff slapped on top.

I have seen far more RPGs with explicit permission for GMs to fudge rules or ignore them entirely, than I have RPG rulebooks that say 'you cannot deviate from these rules in any way. Fudging is right out because its cheating'. Which runs entirely counter to your argument.

My argument which you seem to keep missing, is that the whole table should be aware. Again I ask (without anyone answering) have you ever had a session zero in which the GM TOLD the table that they would be fudging rolls and making those decisions? No? Why not? If it's okay to do, why are you keeping it a secret?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

You specified that RPGS are boardgames as a justification for having hard unfudgeable rules. That paints the entire genre, not just DnD.

Sure. I don't see what that has to do with mentioning that some games rules are diceless or not. But yeah. Games have rules. TTRPGs as a type of game also has rules. In fact, TTRPGs have some of the longest rule books on the market.

Your argument from authority doesn't in any way protect your assertions about unfudgability or boardgame strictures. It makes them look worse, because if in all that time of writing and playing you're still stuck on that concept, then you've not experienced much of the breadth of RPGs.

This isn't the "unfudgability of boardgame strictures". This is about games period. It doesn't matter if you are playing Football, Baseball, Uno, Monolopoly, dnd, or Dread. The game has rules and the people playing the game agree to play by those rules. Can the group decide to play by different rules? Absolutely. House rules can, do, and SHOULD exist. But everyone playing should be on the same page of what rules they are playing by. That is the baseline social contract of all players getting together to play a game.

What exactly are you defending here? Do you think the GM should be capable of making up their own rules? Or keeping the rest of the players in the dark about what exactly the rules are? Why do you think TTRPGs are unique in the world of games in that the majority of the players shouldn't be made aware of the rules of the game?

I mentioned DnD 4th as a direct reference to the 'RPGs are boardgames' comment as its the most boardgamey of the DnD editions and also died the fastest.

Ive said it plenty of times. 4th isn't actually any more board gamy then any other edition of dnd. It just hid it the worst. They are all skirmish level miniature wargames first with some RPG stuff slapped on top.

I have seen far more RPGs with explicit permission for GMs to fudge rules or ignore them entirely, than I have RPG rulebooks that say 'you cannot deviate from these rules in any way. Fudging is right out because its cheating'. Which runs entirely counter to your argument.

My argument which you seem to keep missing, is that the whole table should be aware. Again I ask (without anyone answering) have you ever had a session zero in which the GM TOLD the table that they would be fudging rolls and making those decisions? No? Why not? If it's okay to do, why are you keeping it a secret?

Because showing how the magic trick was done, destroys the "veil of ignorance" that allows the players to be engaged in the make believe setting. If all the sudden you tell the players, you all really died in the last fight, but I faked the rolls, the begin to realize the entire premise is an act/a fake. The DM has a screen for a reason. You're never supposed to "know" the exact truth.

...and by choosing to play, you are telling the magician you are ready for the performance to begin. The first rule of RPG is the GM makes the rules because they interpret the rules.

Many players want to believe that everything is equal and fair and the rules are the arbitrator of success and failure, but they are fooling themselves. The only arbitrator is their willingness to go along with the game and for how long. RPGs are a social contract based on trust more than anything else.

The game stops exactly when the players say it does.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Because showing how the magic trick was done, destroys the "veil of ignorance" that allows the players to be engaged in the make believe setting. If all the sudden you tell the players, you all really died in the last fight, but I faked the rolls, the begin to realize the entire premise is an act/a fake. The DM has a screen for a reason. You're never supposed to "know" the exact truth.

Okay. Couple things to address and I am going to address them out of order.

1) The GM screen exists for a lot of reasons. Reference charts being one. Hidden information is another. But not the hidden information you are implying. The point is to be able to keep a map of the dungeon or a reference to a monster and the players to not be able to see what the layout of the place is or whats coming in the next room. Yes. The players want to be surprised. THAT is the magic trick. What they don't want is to be lied to.

2) And that gets to the example you gave about them dying but they didn't because you fudged. They are pissed because their achievements are not achievements. They never actually accomplished anything. You held their hand the entire time and as a result this wasn't really collaborative at all.

You as the GM are not the magician putting on a show for the table. You as the GM are putting on a show WITH them. They are ALSO in the performance. They share the stage with you. Their role in it ALSO matters. This isn't YOUR show.

That veil of ignorance is important. It helps you to set up surprises and twists and turns and in turn their reactions create surprises for you. But using it to change the rules that everyone agreed to is an abuse of it.

Easy E wrote:...and by choosing to play, you are telling the magician you are ready for the performance to begin. The first rule of RPG is the GM makes the rules because they interpret the rules.

Many players want to believe that everything is equal and fair and the rules are the arbitrator of success and failure, but they are fooling themselves. The only arbitrator is their willingness to go along with the game and for how long.

There is a reason ODnD and the OSR style games with a bent towards GM fiat are built that way. The games are basically incomplete. They require a judge to step in and make decisions because the rules don't account for much of anything outside of combat. This means when the players make up some crazy solution for a problem the GM has to just improve style make up how the game is going to account for it. That is the GM interpreting the rules.

Changing dice results isn't that.

RPGs are a social contract based on trust more than anything else.

The game stops exactly when the players say it does.

Yeah. I agree. And the argument being made here is that GMs are cool to bend and break that trust however they feel like as long as they don't get caught. The cardinal sin isn't the deception. It's the disappointment the players feel when they find out they were deceived.

No, the trust is that you are collaborating for a fun game. You aren't competing. There is no winning or losing RPGs, there is only playing them and experiencing them. The play IS the win.

What is the difference between fudging a dice roll, versus the GM not always attacking a downed PC to remove them from the game in D&D 5e? I have been downed many times next to a monster with three attacks. Shouldn't the GM use those three attacks every time to kill my downed character outgriht? By them not doing that, does it decrease my achievement? But what am I actually achieving in an RPG anyway?

A lot of people advocate for what you are saying Lance. Therefore, I don't think you are "having wrong fun" but I do think players focused on that are missing half of what makes an RPG experience different from a dungeon-crawl board game experience. You can have tons of fun playing RAW, but you are missing out on the world of possibilities by focusing on one aspect of TT RPGs too strongly. What makes a TTRPG a unique experience to other game experiences is the GM and their autonomy over the game itself. The ability to make the world bend based on what characters are doing. I mean, why have a GM otherwise?

 Easy E wrote:
No, the trust is that you are collaborating for a fun game. You aren't competing. There is no winning or losing RPGs, there is only playing them and experiencing them. The play IS the win.

I agree that this is the goal/point.

What is the difference between fudging a dice roll, versus the GM not always attacking a downed PC to remove them from the game in D&D 5e? I have been downed many times next to a monster with three attacks. Shouldn't the GM use those three attacks every time to kill my downed character outright? By them not doing that, does it decrease my achievement?

Outside of the functional mechanics of dnd just to set up the system neutral situation of a character is vulnerable and the creature could kill them: The GM should do what that creature would do. Having effectively eliminated a threat but still being threatened by other people it would generally make sense for the antagonist in this scenario to shift their attention. There are articles and I think even a small supplement/book on the subject of NPC/Monster behavior. How a GM should play a goblin like a goblin and a kobold like a kobold and how that RP behavior changes and shapes encounters and immersion in the world. The GM shouldn't spare your life because it makes for a more fun game. They should be doing what the NPC would do. Which, very reasonably, would mostly be about leaving you unconscious but alive.

A predatory pack animal might try to drag away it's "kill" without checking to see if it is dead. Which can turn a combat in a confined known space into a chase. An exciting change that reshapes the encounter and tells a different story.

But what am I actually achieving in an RPG anyway?

The actual events of the story. You either won because it was handed to you or you won because YOU won. Do you really enjoy defeating the demon king story when you had plot armor?

A lot of people advocate for what you are saying Lance. Therefore, I don't think you are "having wrong fun" but I do think players focused on that are missing half of what makes an RPG experience different from a dungeon-crawl board game experience. You can have tons of fun playing RAW, but you are missing out on the world of possibilities by focusing on one aspect of TTRPGs too strongly. What makes a TTRPG a unique experience to other game experiences is the GM and their autonomy over the game itself. The ability to make the world bend based on what characters are doing. I mean, why have a GM otherwise?

I am not advocating for RAW. I am advocating for known consistent rules. If the GM is allowed to fudge and is going to fudge the PCs should know what game they are playing so they can chose to play or not. What I have a problem with is the GM deciding whatever they want without the rest of the tables knowledge or consent.

 Lance845 wrote:

A lot of people advocate for what you are saying Lance. Therefore, I don't think you are "having wrong fun" but I do think players focused on that are missing half of what makes an RPG experience different from a dungeon-crawl board game experience. You can have tons of fun playing RAW, but you are missing out on the world of possibilities by focusing on one aspect of TTRPGs too strongly. What makes a TTRPG a unique experience to other game experiences is the GM and their autonomy over the game itself. The ability to make the world bend based on what characters are doing. I mean, why have a GM otherwise?

I am not advocating for RAW. I am advocating for known consistent rules. If the GM is allowed to fudge and is going to fudge the PCs should know what game they are playing so they can chose to play or not. What I have a problem with is the GM deciding whatever they want without the rest of the tables knowledge or consent.

Now I think we are getting to the heart of the matter.

Most TTRPGs are pretty clear, typically in a what is a "Role-Playing Game" section; that the GM is the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed in the game. That includes setting challenge levels, interpreting outcomes, NPC reactions, and sharing results. By agreeing to play a TTRPG, you are also agreeing to this as well. Therefore, it is a known and consistent rule right off the bat. I honestly can not think of a TTRPG that does not have this as a core explanation of the game and the rules.

Even in a system where the GM never rolls but sets the challenge level, they can easily "fudge" things up and down whenever they set a difficulty rating or grant Modifiers. Pretending that the GM doesn't control the difficulty rating of a TTRPG is self-delusion. Is changing the Challenge rating up or down really any different than fudging a roll? You could say, well the rules explicitly give them that power! They also are explicitly given the power to fudge in their role as GM.

As someone else pointed out earlier. TTRPGS are not balanced, as the GM controls the world of the game. By agreeing to play, you are agreeing to play a part in the GM's world. You are giving consent that the GM makes the rules. That means they may or may not intervene on your behalf sometimes. This is a collaboration and failures can end the GM's game too.

Some would say, "But then it is just a game of Mother May I or Simon Says!" True, but the players can also stop playing the game whenever they want. That is the check players have on GM worlds they no longer want to play in. Therefore, even though the GMs are the final judge of what goes in the game, there is a hard check on the GM's power. A GM with no players is not a GM at all.

Therefore, it is in everyone's best interests to stay collaborative and bend/enforce/break the rules when needed for the good of the game continuing rather than ending. The worst thing that can happen to a TTRPG, is that it stops before it is supposed to end.

 Easy E wrote:


Most TTRPGs are pretty clear, typically in a what is a "Role-Playing Game" section; that the GM is the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed in the game. That includes setting challenge levels, interpreting outcomes, NPC reactions, and sharing results. By agreeing to play a TTRPG, you are also agreeing to this as well. Therefore, it is a known and consistent rule right off the bat. I honestly can not think of a TTRPG that does not have this as a core explanation of the game and the rules.

All of this. Agree. I agree that the GM sets the challenge rating. But it doesn't say they can change dice results.

Even in a system where the GM never rolls but sets the challenge level, they can easily "fudge" things up and down whenever they set a difficulty rating or grant Modifiers.

Agree. The GM easily CAN do. Just like a PC can easily roll a die, announce a 20 despite it being a 1 and put the die back in their hand before anyone can check. What someone at the table easily CAN do is not the same as what they SHOULD do. What we are discussing here is correct conduct. That PC would be ostracized for cheating.

Pretending that the GM doesn't control the difficulty rating of a TTRPG is self-delusion. Is changing the Challenge rating up or down really any different than fudging a roll?

No. Once the CR is set it should stick.

You could say, well the rules explicitly give them that power! They also are explicitly given the power to fudge in their role as GM.

Now is where i disagree. Where? Name a book and page number for me to look up where a GM is given explicit permission to change dice results and lie to the players about it. This thread is specifically about dnd (5.5/6th), so if you have a 5th ed reference that would be great. But id love to see anything from 3rd forward. But more importantly, tell me where this is spelled out to the PCs. Otherwise we are back to my previous statements on informed consent.

As someone else pointed out earlier. TTRPGS are not balanced, as the GM controls the world of the game. By agreeing to play, you are agreeing to play a part in the GM's world. You are giving consent that the GM makes the rules. That means they may or may not intervene on your behalf sometimes. This is a collaboration and failures can end the GM's game too.

Some would say, "But then it is just a game of Mother May I or Simon Says!" True, but the players can also stop playing the game whenever they want. That is the check players have on GM worlds they no longer want to play in. Therefore, even though the GMs are the final judge of what goes in the game, there is a hard check on the GM's power. A GM with no players is not a GM at all.

The players ability to exercise their judgement on playing or not is based on their knowledge of the game they are playing. If they are not informed properly they cannot properly exercize their checks and balances.

Therefore, it is in everyone's best interests to stay collaborative and bend/enforce/break the rules when needed for the good of the game continuing rather than ending. The worst thing that can happen to a TTRPG, is that it stops before it is supposed to end.

Sure. So when the PCs want they can bend and break the rules and lie to the table about it as long as they think what they are doing is best for the enjoyment being had at the table, right? If a PC thinks a crit would be just right in that moment then feth the dice results. Make it a crit. Heroic moment. Everyone cheers.

Does that sit right with everyone?

I will have to go grab by PHB to look at how it talks about what is an RPG. I don't have it in front of me.

From the three RPGs I have within arm's reach at the moment:

1. G.I. Joe- Renegade Studios - Page 32
"Based on a character actions and decisions, and the results of dice rolls, the GM determines what happens in the game."

"There is no winning this game. The objective of the game is to have fun while weaving the goals of the group, objectives of the GM, and whatever happens between together into a story."

2. Legend of the 5 Rings: 5th Edition - Fantasy Flight Games - Page 6
"A role-playing game is a cooperative story-telling experience. Each player takes on the role of a fictional character and decides what the character would think, say, do and feel in dramatic situations! Like many games, it has rules, components, and dice to help describe and resolve those situations. Unlike most games, an RPG has no winner or loser and no opposing teams. If everyone has fun and enjoys the resulting story, then everyone wins"

3. Avatar: Legends - Magpie Games - page 8
"Very importantly, the GM isn't playing against the other players. They are there to build out the world faithfully while building out a set of interesting conflicts - to say what happens and what exists in a way that makes a fictional world make sense. And they are here to keep things compelling and exciting- which includes honoring how awesome the other player characters are."


All of these descriptions have one thing in common, it is the job of the GM to weave things together to tell the story and facilitate fun. It does not say slavishly execute the rules, because that sometimes gets in the way of accomplishing the core goal of the game, having fun.

L5R and Avatar are the most explicit about the GM deciding things. However, even G.I. Joe the GM decides what happens in a game. The character actions and dice rolls are a tool to help them do that, but ultimately it is up to the GM to decide what happens. All of these sections are before a player even tries to make a character.

The intent and role of the GM in these games is clear to new players who read these sections.

**************************

However, ultimately it is up to you (The player) to decide if you like what is happening at any table and decide every time if you want to keep it going or not. If you suspect fudging, and you do not like it? You can walk away at anytime, bow out, or give the GM feedback about what you want to see in a game.

Perfect. So far we have 3 examples that state in a couple sentences what an rpg is and in broad strokes what everyones role is at the table.

In the most explicit one it states that the gm interprets player actions and dice rolls into functional descriptions of the impact in the game world. That means you rolled just enough to hit so the description is about how you barely squeaked by their defences or you went way above and beyond and deliver a crushing blow.

In none of these descriptions does it say it is the job of the GM (Or that they have permission to) just change the results of those dice or just change the rules willy nilly.

They are helping facilitate play and working with the players to create a fun time. Absolutely. 100%. I am all on board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me try to summarize where I think we are in this discussion right now.

You guys are stating both that 1) The players are purposefully kept ignorant of the fact that the GM is fudging results and changing rules to keep the "magic" magic and promote a good game experience AND 2) that the rule books explicitly state that it is the GMs job to do this and that they have explicit permission to fudge that is presented to the players in some capacity.

This is what I think is the reason why you feel this way.

Way back with Gygax in his DMG full of terrible advise and/or some articles written in Dungeon and/or Dragon magazine players were encouraged to do these things. This terrible idea was then carried forward as standard practice despite not actually being in any of the rule books for any of the games you have been playing for the last few decades.

Much like how basically nobody has ever actually played Monopoly by the rules (most people have never even heard of the auction rule let alone implemented it correctly) you guys have been acting out learned behaviors that you picked up word of mouth back in the day and just assumed were in the print when in fact they never were.

Maybe I am wrong about that. But it seems about as good an explanation for this phenomenon as any other.

Happy to be proven wrong. As soon as anyone digs out that page number where it is stated a GM has free reign to fudge dice in DnD I would love to go read it for myself.

 Lance845 wrote:
Perfect. So far we have 3 examples that state in a couple sentences what an rpg is and in broad strokes what everyones role is at the table.

In the most explicit one it states that the gm interprets player actions and dice rolls into functional descriptions of the impact in the game world. That means you rolled just enough to hit so the description is about how you barely squeaked by their defences or you went way above and beyond and deliver a crushing blow.

In none of these descriptions does it say it is the job of the GM (Or that they have permission to) just change the results of those dice or just change the rules willy nilly.

They are helping facilitate play and working with the players to create a fun time. Absolutely. 100%. I am all on board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me try to summarize where I think we are in this discussion right now.

You guys are stating both that 1) The players are purposefully kept ignorant of the fact that the GM is fudging results and changing rules to keep the "magic" magic and promote a good game experience AND 2) that the rule books explicitly state that it is the GMs job to do this and that they have explicit permission to fudge that is presented to the players in some capacity.

This is what I think is the reason why you feel this way.

Way back with Gygax in his DMG full of terrible advise and/or some articles written in Dungeon and/or Dragon magazine players were encouraged to do these things. This terrible idea was then carried forward as standard practice despite not actually being in any of the rule books for any of the games you have been playing for the last few decades.

Much like how basically nobody has ever actually played Monopoly by the rules (most people have never even heard of the auction rule let alone implemented it correctly) you guys have been acting out learned behaviors that you picked up word of mouth back in the day and just assumed were in the print when in fact they never were.

Maybe I am wrong about that. But it seems about as good an explanation for this phenomenon as any other.

Happy to be proven wrong. As soon as anyone digs out that page number where it is stated a GM has free reign to fudge dice in DnD I would love to go read it for myself.

I'm happy that you summarized the discussion, but could you summarize your personal stance? I don't want to strawman you.

I Believe it's the GM's job to make sure the players have a good time and enjoy the game. As for source:

Page 1 of the DMG.

Introduction

Part 3: Master of Rules: "Dungeons & Dragons isn’t a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules. As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role."

As the DM/GM of the game, I have ultimate authority over all rules in the game. I am the Lord Commissar of all things in the game. If I don't like the roll that my Storm Giant just made, it is inherently within my powers to Legendary Failed Action the giant.

I decide all the rules, and am the Referee. Sometimes I get the rules wrong, oh well.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I'm happy that you summarized the discussion, but could you summarize your personal stance? I don't want to strawman you.

Sure. The rules of any game can be anything and that includes personal or house rules. But everyone playing the game needs to be aware of the rules in order to have informed consent to participate in that game. Deception beyond the scope of the game/rules is bad form. It's cheating. Even in a collaborative setting.

The deception beyond the scope/rules: Games like Werewolf, Murder Mysteries, or Resistence or even TTRPGs like the cinematic scenarios for Alien have secret agendas that are a part of the game. The lies and deception ARE the game play. Thats fine. Bending and breaking the rules is not.

I Believe it's the GM's job to make sure the players have a good time and enjoy the game. As for source:

Page 1 of the DMG.

Introduction

Part 3: Master of Rules: "Dungeons & Dragons isn’t a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules. As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role."

I agree to an extent that the GMs job is to make sure everyone is having fun in so much as when you play any game with anyone it is everyone's job to make sure everyone is having fun. That's why you are there playing games. It is why everyone got together to begin with.

See this bit...

" but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules.

As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it"

EVERYONE at the table. The GM is at the table. A referee at a soccer game doesn't make up rules. They ensure the rules are being followed.If you are failing to hold yourself accountable by this same standard then you are utterly failing to be the impartial referee the game is asking for.

As the DM/GM of the game, I have ultimate authority over all rules in the game. I am the Lord Commissar of all things in the game. If I don't like the roll that my Storm Giant just made, it is inherently within my powers to Legendary Failed Action the giant.

I decide all the rules, and am the Referee. Sometimes I get the rules wrong, oh well.

And now we disagree entirely. You are not god. You are not meant to be judge jury and executioner over the table. You are meant to be an impartial arbiter over the game you ALL decided to play. What you are talking about isn't being a referee.

Mistakes can happen and that's fine when we own up to them and take corrective actions. Purposefully getting the rules wrong isn't making mistakes. Just like the PC who lies about his rolls, it's cheating. And it cheats everyone else at the table out of the game experience that COULD have been because you decided you knew best. This attitude is at the very center of 90% of every rpg horror story. Every bad GM. Every bad player.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of GM Fiat is in an RPG.

Our stance is that GM Fiat is very broad. Your is that GM Fiat is limited by the rules.

We think the rules are permissive and living. You prefer to go by what they say exactly.

Honestly, no TTRPG is going to say one way or the other, because that would limit their market share from the people who feel differently. All of this is just RAW vs. RAI in a different game period.



I did manage to grab my 5E PHB and it says this on page 5

"Then the DM determines the results of the adventurer's actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected"




With all that said, play however you want! There is really no need for us to keep going back and forth. You do what works for you and your table, and I will do what is working for me and my table.

To avoid this entire discussion, I have actually moved to letting my players roll ALL the dice in the game.

 Easy E wrote:
I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of GM Fiat is in an RPG.

Our stance is that GM Fiat is very broad. Your is that GM Fiat is limited by the rules.

We think the rules are permissive and living. You prefer to go by what they say exactly.

Honestly, no TTRPG is going to say one way or the other, because that would limit their market share from the people who feel differently. All of this is just RAW vs. RAI in a different game period.



I did manage to grab my 5E PHB and it says this on page 5

"Then the DM determines the results of the adventurer's actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected"




With all that said, play however you want! There is really no need for us to keep going back and forth. You do what works for you and your table, and I will do what is working for me and my table.

To avoid this entire discussion, I have actually moved to letting my players roll ALL the dice in the game.

Well Said. To each their own table.

Absolutely. Your groups are having fun playing the game you agreed to play and that's great.

My groups have fun playing the game we agreed to play.

Like I said. The rules can be anything. You can set the expectation of absolute GM control in your session zero if you want and the players can all agree to those terms or find another game.