# Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind



## Kwalish Kid (Jan 7, 2008)

Hi everyone, I was just thinking about some RPG issues. Your feedback would be appreciated.

In his 1984 ethnographic study of role-playing games, Gary Alan Fine speaks briefly on cheating. He notes that every player, including himself, cheats from time to time but that, generally, this cheating is overlooked because the cheating assists the players and the overall narrative of the game. He distinguishes player cheating with the ability of the DM to change rules openly or secretly, something that is an acknowledged part of the game. Additionally, he notes that in both of these activities, there is the possibility for gamers to socially punish either cheating players or DMs who make arbitrary rulings (even when supported in doing so by the rulebooks). 

I bring this up here because one of the explicit design goals of the recent D&D editions has been to give players more control over their actions. Cheating is one way that, it seems, many player exercise in order to avoid poor rolls or other gaming outcomes that would adversely change the fate of the player's character, the party, or the overall story without appealing to the power of the DM to make arbitrary rulings. Some of the mechanics of 4E seem to me to address the underlying desires that lead to player cheating.

Action points (and the roll a replacement die feats from SAGA edition and 4E previews) seem to be a way to address the real desire of players to have to occasional ability to alter the outcome of die rolls. Depending on the mechanism of the points, players can chose to boost rolls, perhaps after the die is rolled, and have some control over the otherwise completely random roll that they are using to decide that small course of the game. As action points are usually limited, this control is similarly limited, allowing for most of the game to follow the somewhat random course that most gamers find appealing. The use of action points will not replace all kinds of cheating, but will channel some of the desire to cheat elsewhere.

The Second Wind mechanic, which provides every player at least one opportunity to apply some healing to his or her character, is another example of a rule mechanic that may channel the desire of a player to cheat. In most RPGs, most players must rely on a source outside of their control in order to replenish the resource that keeps their character active in the game. The importance of this resource (hit points in D&D) is such that there is a great incentive to cheat on the amount of this resource available to a character, especially if that character is at risk. By giving the player the chance to have some control over this resource, even if only small control, the desire to cheat can be channeled into a use of the Second Wind mechanic.

Finally, I wish to note that while these might be small changes to roll results and hit point totals, the opportunities for cheating do not often allow for great changes, at least not very often. In the end, faced with the socially risky act of cheating or the socially acceptable act of a cheating alternative like these mechanics, most players will opt to stick to the latter.

I doubt that the desire to avoid cheating is entirely behind this rule mechanic. Still, I do think that it is plausible that these mechanics will reduce cheating from the game, thus bringing the game rules closer to the desires of players.


----------



## Asmor (Jan 7, 2008)

I'm really hoping not to come off as preachy here, and if I do I apologize, but I don't cheat. Further, the idea of cheating is so anathema to me that if I was ever presented with proof that one of my friends did cheat in a game with me, that would be grounds for me to no longer be friends with them. I can't be friends with someone I can't trust, and I can't trust a cheater.

I don't think cheating is so wide spread as you or Mr. Fine believe. Like anything else, I imagine it depends a lot on your group.

All that said, you do make an interesting point. I think that these new mechanics are more of an example of the "new school" thought (I'm sure someone will call me out on that) that what's most important is fun and doing cool stuff. It's been stated before that action points were introduced specifically to get characters to try crazy stunts, safe in the knowledge that they'd have a bit of a buffer if one was required. Of course, in practice, action points are rarely used that way, but that's a problem with the design of the mechanic.

As for the second wind, that's just meant to reduce downtime and increase the amount of action PCs can pack into a day, as well as make a party which doesn't have a cleric totally crippled.

I think a better example of a mechanic where cheating may have been a motivational factor (though certainly not the only one) is point buy. Not only does it help maintain balance and give players greater control over their characters, but it also makes cheating much more difficult, risky and easier to detect.


----------



## Ahrimon (Jan 7, 2008)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping not to come off as preachy here, and if I do I apologize, but I don't cheat. Further, the idea of cheating is so anathema to me that if I was ever presented with proof that one of my friends did cheat in a game with me, that would be grounds for me to no longer be friends with them. I can't be friends with someone I can't trust, and I can't trust a cheater.
> 
> I don't think cheating is so wide spread as you or Mr. Fine believe. Like anything else, I imagine it depends a lot on your group.




You don't come off as preachy, but you'll forgive me if I can't beleive a word of it.  You've never corrected a challenge mistake by adjusting a few choice rolls to give the players a shot?  Or, would you just let the last four months of the campaigne grind to a screeching halt because of a mistake?  And don't say that you don't make mistakes.  We're all human, except for maybe a few oddballs around here.    

If as a player you've managed to resist that temptation to "miracuosly" stabilize at the last possible second before the character you've been nurturing for the last year bites the dust.  Then I applaud your willpower.  Or it might be that your characters are nothing more than numbers on paper to be used and discarded as needed so there is never a temptation to "adjust" something.  (not attacking you, just a viable game style)

And to your statement that you would not want to be friends with someone that had done even a tiny amount of fudging, then you're not exactly what I would call friend material.  To seriously throw away a friend because they only did 18 points of damage leaving the BBEG on the brink of death or 20 pts of damage and saving the day for all, is extremely shallow in my oppinion.  (This last bit sounds preachy and/or attacking.  I don't mean to insult you at all.  It's just that what you would do over such a minor thing is an anathema to what I would call a friend.)


I honestly think we've all done it at one time or another over the last 30 or so years.  It's not something that's here for the new generation.  It's just something we've done to keep the fun rolling along.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jan 7, 2008)

It seems to me that Action Points are in the game specifically to allow the players to cheat.

By that, I mean that when the game says "according to my rules, your character fails at that roll" action points allow the player to say "that's too bad, because I'm spending this action point to succeed at that roll."


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Jan 7, 2008)

I've introduced a Fate Point mechanic in my game modeled on the experience awards criteria in WoD.  Players get one Fate Point for showing up, and each session they can get one for good roleplay and one for doing something out-of-game that makes the game better--bringing pizza, drawing a comic of the previous battle, giving a ride to people who otherwise couldn't be there, etc.  There are three behaviors I want to encourage above all others at my table: attendance, roleplaying, and a friendly atmosphere.

Fate Points are used to get a re-roll on a d20 roll or a percent roll to stabilize the character, and for no other purpose.  Unlike the Eberron or UA systems, it doesn't allow the characters to exceed their normal bounds, so I can make sure there are still challenges that are firmly and completely beyond the party.  And I think of it in much the same terms Kwalish Kid suggests: it's officially sanctioned cheating.  The game hasn't started yet, so we'll see how the players like it, but I think it will provide a nice release valve for any latent desire to cheat.  Players who roleplay well and support the group get to cheat more often, and that nicely coincides with the way we'd play the game anyway, allowing a "gimme" for the players who play well.

I also make sure my players know that the DM is simultaneously rooting for them and running the rules fairly.  They know I don't fudge rolls, and I like to think that style of play encourages players to be literate in the rules and to follow them.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 7, 2008)

> I don't think cheating is so wide spread as you or Mr. Fine believe. Like anything else, I imagine it depends a lot on your group.



I doubt outright cheating is all that common.

But... lets say that I'm the DM, and I have an orc attack a character.  That character has been taking a beating.  He's down to his last few hit points, and he's got like five negative conditions stacked on him at this point- he's nauseated, frightened, dazzled, cursed, and prone.  A lot's been going wrong for this guy.

I roll the attack roll, and get a 24.  I look at my notes, and declare a miss.

The player knows that his character's AC is actually 23 at this point.  I forgot one of the modifiers from one of the conditions.  I knew the condition was there, but I just forgot it when I calculated the hit.

He knows that if he speaks up, his character will probably die.

He keeps quiet.

Is this player cheating?


----------



## buzz (Jan 7, 2008)

Fine's book is really interesting, but is very out of date.

Action Points and similar mechanics don't have anything to do with cheating. They are a basic way to give players a bit of authorial power via a resource they can draw upon to say "The outcome of this die roll is important to me." They exist to mitigate the effects the rules have as-written, i.e., that sometimes they don't always produce the results you want. 

IOW, the d20 you're rolling doesn't care if it's resolving some critical moment that the campaign has been building towards for months. It's gonna roll what it's gonna roll. "Dramatic editing" mechanics allow the player to influence the outcome to get a result they want, one that may possibly make for "better story," as it were.


----------



## buzz (Jan 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Is this player cheating?



Yup.


----------



## marune (Jan 7, 2008)

IMHO, cheats are mainly due to players playing the wrong game. 

If you are often cheating (DM or player) to make a little more / less damage to end the fight (or any other rolls) in a way to make a better story, the problem may be that D&D is not the best game for your playstyle. 

For example, in some RPG, both success and failures must move the story forward.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 7, 2008)

Funny definition of "cheating" you've got there.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 7, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Yup.



Then next question.    

The player knows I've been keeping track of the modifiers on him, so he hasn't been.  He's pretty sure I messed up.  But he isn't totally sure.  He doesn't ask me to recalculate, but he probably would have if I'd erred the other direction, and hit him when he thinks he shouldn't have been hit.

Is HE cheating?    

This is how I see "cheating" issues come up in real gameplay.  I've only met one or two actual, intentional, knowing and malicious cheaters in my years as a gamer.  I've met a lot of people who just kind of... let things slide when they think they're going their way.


----------



## buzz (Jan 7, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> If you are often cheating (DM or player) to make a little more / less damage to end the fight (or any other rolls) in a way to make a better story, the problem may be that D&D is not the best game for your playstyle.



QFT.

EDIT: Though, I'm reading "cheating" here as "fudging."


----------



## buzz (Jan 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Is HE cheating?



Knowingly misleading another player in order to better your score/performance in a game is cheating.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 7, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> It seems to me that Action Points are in the game specifically to allow the players to cheat.
> 
> By that, I mean that when the game says "according to my rules, your character fails at that roll" action points allow the player to say "that's too bad, because I'm spending this action point to succeed at that roll."




But the game also says, "According to my rules, you can spend an action point to succeed at a failed roll."  Or whatever.

How is that cheating?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jan 7, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Knowingly misleading another player in order to better your score/performance in a game is cheating.



That is a good working definition of cheating.

I want to say again that Fine and I both distinguish between cheating and DM fiat. Players can feel cheated if a DM goes against the rules to save their bacon, but the DM is usually encouraged by the game rulebooks to modify outcomes when necessary.

And by the way, I agree that Fine's book is a bit dated. The internet alone has changed the way RPGs are played. Still, I have seen a lot of player cheating in my twenty-five years of gaming (Yikes! Call the grognard wagon!) some of it I cared about, some I didn't. Some cheating is very subtle and some is pretty gross. In most cases I've seen (and this is definitely not a good sample), it has tended to be in circumstances of desperation. Action points, and other mechanics, give a constructive avenue for this desperation. I think this is a good thing, whether or not this desperation would lead to cheating for any given player.

(Cheating is definitely not so nice, though. Heck I knew two brothers who practiced passing their hands over dice so that they could flip them to another side without anyone noticing. I think it worked best with d6s, but they were big Champions players. When they played AD&D (1st Ed), they always had good stats.)


----------



## CharlesRyan (Jan 7, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Action Points and similar mechanics don't have anything to do with cheating. They are a basic way to give players a bit of authorial power. . .




I have to agree with buzz. I first encountered the action point concept in TORG, and I was struck at the time by how it gave the players a share of the dramatic control normally exercised only by the GM. It gives the players some (albeit limited) ability to say "in fact, this is what happens," in a way that has nothing to do with cheating.

And I really doubt that such mechanics discourage cheating. People inclined to cheat will not do less of it simply because they started out with more mechanical advantages. Instead, they'll use up those advantages, and then cheat!


----------



## marune (Jan 7, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> EDIT: Though, I'm reading "cheating" here as "fudging."




When I'm playing a *challenge-based game* like D&D, I don't want the DM to cheat, i.e. making the challenges easier / harder based on his current mood (pity or cruelty).

Of course, some fudging is necessary if the challenges aren't set up right at first. (For example, using a high-CR monster from MM2)


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I doubt outright cheating is all that common.
> 
> But... lets say that I'm the DM, and I have an orc attack a character.  That character has been taking a beating.  He's down to his last few hit points, and he's got like five negative conditions stacked on him at this point- he's nauseated, frightened, dazzled, cursed, and prone.  A lot's been going wrong for this guy.
> 
> ...




This is why many DMs roll behind a screen.  

In a similar situation, if I, as the DM, "fudge" the roll to let the character live...am I cheating? If I let it hit, and then declare that I rolled "just enough" damage to drop him to 0 hp, am I still cheating?


----------



## marune (Jan 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This is why many DMs roll behind a screen.
> 
> In a similar situation, if I, as the DM, "fudge" the roll to let the character live...am I cheating? If I let it hit, and then declare that I rolled "just enough" damage to drop him to 0 hp, am I still cheating?




IMHO, yes, see above post.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> IMHO, yes, see above post.




I absolutely agree, and while I, as a DM, will do that from time-to-time, I really, truly dislike the necessity.

I love the action point concept. I think it would probably be best not on a "per-level," "per day," or even per-adventure basis, but rather as a resource available every few encounters.

For example, if we want PCs to be able to pull off something implausible heroic every 4 encounters or so, we should give the PCs enough action points that they can do just that. Something in the way of a rule like this:

"Every level, each PC gets 6 action points. This assumes the PCs will gain a new level every 18 encounters. If you alter the rate of advancement in your game so that characters need to face more (or less) encounters each level, you should correspondingly adjust the number of action points to match."

I love action points. And quite honestly, I can't wait to see the 4th Edition take on them.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This is why many DMs roll behind a screen.
> 
> In a similar situation, if I, as the DM, "fudge" the roll to let the character live...am I cheating? If I let it hit, and then declare that I rolled "just enough" damage to drop him to 0 hp, am I still cheating?




Nah, it's not cheating. The GM is supposed to use his discretion with regard to the application and interpretation of game mechanics. It does tend to sap something from the game, in my opinion though. Especially if done too often or obviously.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I love the action point concept. I think it would probably be best not on a "per-level," "per day," or even per-adventure basis, but rather as a resource available every few encounters.




Less save-or-die effects and actions points will reduce greatly the numerous death of 3.x, and that is IMHO a good idea. 

Death as the "ultimate" failure/penalty is needed in D&D IMHO but the main reward/penalty system must be XP.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Less save-or-die effects and actions points will reduce greatly the numerous death of 3.x, and that is IMHO a good idea.
> 
> Death as the "ultimate" failure/penalty is needed in D&D IMHO but the main reward/penalty system must be XP.




I actually think it would be FAR, far better if death were a whole lot less likely to occur as the result of a random event, and more as a result of character choice.

The player who knowingly sacrifices his character to win the day (and/or because it's something the _character_ would do) is contributing something great to the game. Said player should be able to come back into the game with a character that's as powerful as the one he just lost would have become _had he not died._

When death is the result of player choice and results in a great and dramatic victory (or a Thermopylae-like heroic defeat), the players will remember it _forever._ It will become an ideal to be aspired to, rather than a punishment to avoid.

To me, that's how D&D should treat character death. It should be the ultimate resource for the player to spend. You should have the option to cash in your epic destiny to achieve stunning victory _at the dramatically appropriate moment._


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

Action Points are codified, legalized cheating. That's not a bad thing.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Action Points are codified, legalized cheating. That's not a bad thing.





QFT.

But I hate any other kind.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Action Points are codified, legalized cheating. That's not a bad thing.



"Legalized cheating". Love that phrase.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The player who knowingly sacrifices his character to win the day (and/or because it's something the _character_ would do) is contributing something great to the game. Said player should be able to come back into the game with a character that's as powerful as the one he just lost would have become _had he not died._
> 
> When death is the result of player choice and results in a great and dramatic victory (or a Thermopylae-like heroic defeat), the players will remember it _forever._ It will become an ideal to be aspired to, rather than a punishment to avoid.




Some RPG goes that way, but that's not D&D.

Well.. I suppose it could be done, but many other parts of D&D don't support that kind of play.


----------



## Xethreau (Jan 8, 2008)

I don't get you guys.  If action points are *in the rules,* then how is it cheating?  Furthermore, the DMG gives DMs the right to botch rolls in private, so if it is in the rules, how is it cheating?  What the DM says goes, and that is a rule of D&D.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

RyukenAngel said:
			
		

> I don't get you guys.  If action points are *in the rules,* then how is it cheating?  Furthermore, the DMG gives DMs the right to botch rolls in private, so if it is in the rules, how is it cheating?  What the DM says goes, and that is a rule of D&D.




Read what I wrote slowly. Codified. Legalized.

That means Action Points take what a large portion of the player base does/thinks about doing (namely, fudging dice rolls/memorized spells/etc), sets up guidelines, and places it in the base rules.

Without APs, fudging dice rolls is cheating.
With APs, fudging dice rolls is following the rules of the game.

You're still performing the same basic action for the same motivation. The only difference is that you don't have to feel guilty after using APs.


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2008)

Action Points, second winds, and rerolls won't stop a player from cheating if they already cheat in the first place. It's the same reason the person who just found a 20 dollar bill probably won't turn down a ten dollar bill on the theory that he'd "found enough money today."


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 8, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> "Legalized cheating". Love that phrase.



OT: yep thats what accountants try to do all the time.
back on topic- I like John Snows idea of APs, I always thought how APs were done in Eberron where not quite right. Having stated the exact amount that these APs should be used per encounter means that it is easier to house rule/modify.
APs are really needed in 3.5 because of the way encounters can quickly go wrong with bad rolls, it is a better system IMO than DM fudging! However I hope that in 4E bad rolls are going to be less of a problem so APs can be used for more dramatic action, rather than reversing a couple of bad will saves that resulted in a PCK or TPK


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 8, 2008)

First off, Action points by their very definition are NOT cheating. They can't be, because they are defined in the rules.

That's like saying that a spell that grants a player a reroll is cheating. Action points are simply a mechanic that allow players and dms to keep some of the "narrative drive" found in all stories but maintain the randomness of die rolls.


Cheating is always a tricky thing in dnd, because dnd is not a tradtionally competetive game. In general, cheating is frowned upon in games because it gives one side an unfair advantage. But if you have a healthy gaming group, the players are not competiting directly against each other, nor are they competing directly against the Dm.

Everyone is interacting in the story and playing their characters, killing monsters and having fun.

So to me, if a dm fudges a roll to save a player from a run of bad luck that's not cheating, because unless your friends are complete a** holes, they don't want to see each other die. Fun is maintained by all.

However, if a player is fudging a lot to make his character better than everyone else, then he is overshadowing the other players, which is denying fun. That's cheating in my book.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Cheating is always a tricky thing in dnd, because dnd is not a tradtionally competetive game. In general, cheating is frowned upon in games because it gives one side an unfair advantage. But if you have a healthy gaming group, the players are not competiting directly against each other, nor are they competing directly against the Dm.




I agree that competition between the players is not D&D, because D&D is based on teamwork (that's why we have classes & roles in 4E). However, want it or not, D&D is based on a competition between the players and the DM who is the guy setting up the challenges the players will try to overcome.

I know many groups try to move away from this (fundamental) aspect of D&D, but you can have much more fun embracing it or switching to a RPG that is not built around that idea.


----------



## buzz (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> When I'm playing a *challenge-based game* like D&D, I don't want the DM to cheat, i.e. making the challenges easier / harder based on his current mood (pity or cruelty).



Ditto. Then again, I don't want fudging in any game I play.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Ditto. Then again, I don't want fudging in any game I play.




Thanks, but like I said earlier, fudging can become a necessity when the DM makes error or is faced with the errors of the designers during play.

That is strongly linked to the complexity of the D&D rules. For example, figuring out the appropriate CR for a new monster.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

Well, even from the "Challenge Game" perspective (as opposed to the "Interactive Storytelling" one) it is occasionally necessary to fudge; it is part of the GM's job in that school of gaming to produce reasonable challenges.

I'm more of an Interactive Storytelling type myself, but in the off-chance I'm running a Challenge-based game and I find myself slaughtering the PCs because I made my challenge too tough, I'll quietly lower the stats of the enemies or do whatever it takes. 

Now, granted, if I'm in a group wholeheartedly in support of the "Be Challenged!" paradigm the line between "Too Hard" and "Challenging" is tough to gauge; in a "Challenging" scenario there is the possibility of defeat. Wouldn't want to erode that.

But on the other hand, you want to ensure the possibility of success- and so you fudge in this particular instance.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> So to me, if a dm fudges a roll to save a player from a run of bad luck that's not cheating




It is, though. The rules say that you roll 1d20 and add the BAB to determine the attack roll and compare it against the target's AC to determine if the attack roll hits. If your DM rolls a d20, adds it up, and determines that it was a hit, but decides that he really doesn't want the monster to hit so he spontaneously decides it's a miss instead, that's cheating. Cheating is defined as "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" and that's exactly what the DM is doing.

Again, I'm not saying it's bad. Too many people see the word "cheating" and their brains translate it to "badwrongevilmustkillKILLKILL!!!!". It's a loaded word. Unload it for the purpose of this discussion. The original poster and his point are talking about the _dictionary_ definition of cheating - violating the rules deliberately - rather than the loaded "all cheaters are evil SOBs that deserve to die" that most people instantly associate with the word.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

Ah, but remember that the rules of RPGs are subject to GM authority, interpretation, revision and selective implementation. 

We're not playing Monopoly or Risk here; there's a human decision making element in these games for a reason.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 8, 2008)

Quite afew times in school, we would have these tests where the teacher would say would be open book.  Now, normally when you have a book open during a test its called cheating. With optional rules such as action points or second wind, this is like the teacher saying open book. Still the same playing field. The rules are still balanced and no one is "cheating".  

Such an offensive word "cheating".  It implies that someone is purposely trying to trick others and bypass the rules.  When something is a rule though, it is simply following them. 

D and D is agame like no other.  People are so quick to want to label "their way" the right way, when there is no right way if you always factor in rule 0.  

I ran a really cool module this weekend, one in which the party were to fight through this tower to the top floor they managed to bypass every encounter by using some cunning on the rooftop.  At full strength this would make the final battle quite easy and probably not satisfying for the pcs. Luckily the mod contained a time mechanic that could be used against or for the main villian specifically for overwhelming odds in either favor. Did I cheat?  Did they cheat with their roof technique.  Now, if that's not written in and i put an equalizer in there did i cheat to provide more fun for my game. 

I don't think dms can cheat.  I don't think of dungeons and dragons as a typical board game with static rule. Every campaign is its own modded game.  I don't confirm 20s.  As the writer of the game can I cheat at something that I am making.  A game with no real static rules. If they did we could play without a DM. Heck there are board games that mimic the dungeons and dragons tabletop, yet we rarely hear about these being replacements for a book and a grid map.  

I summise that only players of the game can cheat at dungeons and dragons.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Ah, but remember that the rules of RPGs are subject to GM authority, interpretation, revision and selective implementation.
> 
> We're not playing Monopoly or Risk here; there's a human decision making element in these games for a reason.




Correct, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The rules say X. If you do not do X exactly, by _definition_, you are cheating. For the purposes of this discussion, cheating is not instantly and irretrievably wrong, because we're using a strict definition of cheating.


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Cheating is defined as "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" and that's exactly what the DM is doing.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying it's bad. Too many people see the word "cheating" and their brains translate it to "badwrongevilmustkillKILLKILL!!!!". It's a loaded word. Unload it for the purpose of this discussion. The original poster and his point are talking about the _dictionary_ definition of cheating - violating the rules deliberately - rather than the loaded "all cheaters are evil SOBs that deserve to die" that most people instantly associate with the word.




But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 8, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.



Yep I agree a DM cannot, by definition, cheat. However he can really really annoy the players....


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Correct, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The rules say X. If you do not do X exactly, by _definition_, you are cheating. For the purposes of this discussion, cheating is not instantly and irretrievably wrong, because we're using a strict definition of cheating.




But the rules say that before you do X, remember that X is open to interpretation, revision, selective enforcement and the arbitrary whim of fate.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Well, even from the "Challenge Game" perspective (as opposed to the "Interactive Storytelling" one) it is occasionally necessary to fudge; it is part of the GM's job in that school of gaming to produce reasonable challenges.




I agree with this.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I'm more of an Interactive Storytelling type myself, but in the off-chance I'm running a Challenge-based game and I find myself slaughtering the PCs because I made my challenge too tough, I'll quietly lower the stats of the enemies or do whatever it takes.




My favorite playstyle is definitly "interractive storytelling", but when I play D&D it's not what I'm looking for because D&D doesn't support it (doesn't mean it "can't be done").



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Now, granted, if I'm in a group wholeheartedly in support of the "Be Challenged!" paradigm the line between "Too Hard" and "Challenging" is tough to gauge; in a "Challenging" scenario there is the possibility of defeat. Wouldn't want to erode that.
> 
> But on the other hand, you want to ensure the possibility of success- and so you fudge in this particular instance.




Both sucess and failure possibilities are a must have in a challenge-based RPG, as a DM that doesn't have a preference for one or the other (i.e. PCs must win & PCs must fail is bad).


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.




Your own statement gives that the lie.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> It also warns him not to *overrule the rules* without a good reason




Overruling the rules is cheating, by the dictionary definition.



Man, I never thought I'd get so many people incapable/unwilling to look at a subject without bias.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.




Introducing an house-rule during play with players’ consent is not cheating.

Softening up challenges to make PCs win a reasonable challenge they should have failed or setting up the players against unreasonables challenges is. (Even if the DMG bluntly says that the DM can do whatever he wants).

In other words, nitpicking on rules details* is one thing, going against the basic assumption of the game is another one.

*In extreme cases, "power" balance problems can arise, leading to "spot-light" balance problems.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> OT: yep thats what accountants try to do all the time.



See now, I _could_ take that as a personal insult. 

My point was, if it's legal, it's not cheating.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Overruling the rules is cheating, by the dictionary definition.



No, _violating_ the rules is cheating. If one of the rules is that the DM can overrule rules, then the DM overruling a rule cannot be cheating, by definition, since it's a rule. Clear enough?


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No, _violating_ the rules is cheating. If one of the rules is that the DM can overrule rules, then the DM overruling a rule cannot be cheating, by definition, since it's a rule. Clear enough?




But it's not overruling the rules if you're abiding by the rules.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> But it's not overruling the rules if you're abiding by the rules.



It's overruling the _written_ rules that are presented in the books. One of the written rules is you can make your own rules, which obviously will not be written in the books.

Note the quote from the DMG above, which mentions superceding rules _in the books_.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 8, 2008)

deleted 'cos the argument is goin nowhere, sorry


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Some RPG goes that way, but that's not D&D.
> 
> Well.. I suppose it could be done, but many other parts of D&D don't support that kind of play.




It's really not that hard to alter D&D to support "that kind of play." Here are the, IMO, necessary changes:

1) No level loss for character death.
2) Rules for handling the "Dramatic Sacrifice."
3) Action points for enabling "cinematic" heroics and heroic survival.
4) Elimination of "random death" events.
5) Reduction of "reset" spells, like Raise Dead.


That's it. It's a relatively short list. Item 1 is critical because you don't want death to penalize the player. In fact, if the player elects to allow his character to die in a dramatic fashion because it's good for the story, the _player_ should be rewarded. Items 3 & 4 pretty much remove random, pointless character death from the game. Item 5 is necessary because the character who makes the heroic sacrifice can't be brought back, or it's not a sacrifice.

Then the only thing you need is the rules for handling the dramatic sacrifice. My thinking is that after his character is plunged below zero hit points, the player who chooses the "last stand" option can choose to fight on, temporarily refreshing his character completely (as if he were just joining the battle). Maybe this even happens again. When the battle is over (or he's exhausted his last stand), he gets a few final words and then he dies. And can't be raised.

As you can see, characters would only choose this option when they had something the player felt was worth dying for. But I'd be willing to guess that 2 or 3 lives would be enough to finish off all but the most dire threats. And if the entire party chooses the option, we have Thermopylae. That's the kind of death where heroes shout "this may be our end, but we will make such an end as to be remembered for eternity!!"

The player who takes this option then gets the option to rejoin the game with a new character who's the same level as his old one would have been had he survived. So the player isn't penalized.

You might have to put a limit of "once every X levels, per player" to prevent glory hounds from potentially abusing this rule to always be the one who "saves the day" with their heroic sacrifice. But I imagine that wouldn't be a problem with most groups. On the other hand, in a super-gritty game, character death that frequent might even be appropriate.

I dunno. Maybe it wouldn't work. But I think it might.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's really not that hard to alter D&D to support "that kind of play." Here are the, IMO, necessary changes:
> 
> 1) No level loss for character death.
> 2) Rules for handling the "Dramatic Sacrifice."
> ...




Ok, let say you have done it for death.

Now, if a player choose to do A instead of B in combat, where A is the action resulting from the best strategy to overcome the challenge and B the action giving the most dramatic efffect. 

Using RAW, A is obvious because it's the best way to get XP, avoid getting killed and advancing in levels.

You have now a similar problem that arise a lot more often than the death of a PC.

Your idea above is nice, but it can't make D&D what D&D is not.

Let's stop this now, because it's no longer directly linked to the topic.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

<shrug> Like I said, a surprising number of people are unwilling or unable to discuss this without bias. No more reason for me to continue reading this thread, since only a couple people have bothered to actually read and understand the original post.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

EDIT: Getting back on topic...

Anyone want to fill me in on how action points are supposed to work? I'm not familiar with the mechanic.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> <shrug> Like I said, a surprising number of people are unwilling or unable to discuss this without bias. No more reason for me to continue reading this thread, since only a couple people have bothered to actually read and understand the original post.



**EDIT: I've spoken to Zurai, so I'm editing this post.**

The possibility exists that they are reading and understanding the original post, and they are treating the subject without bias. They just disagree with you. That happens.

Please don't announce you're leaving the thread while firing a parting insult, though. That's comes off as really rude.

Everyone else back on topic, please.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 8, 2008)

I consider action points and such the same as any other buff, especially if it can be self-applied like a potion, or after the roll, like some of the special abilities (which we even had in 2E, Priest of Luck, for example).

It's not cheating if I down a potion of jumping before making a leap.

I'd also disagree with the notion that D&D does not support "cinematic play" - we've been playing in a similar way as was described above for years, with no random pc death, and no regular resurrection mechanics. No action points though.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jan 8, 2008)

The discussion here is good evidence of why DMs changing rules or modifying the game is something that they do carefully and at the risk of social punishment. For longer than I've been playing, there have been explicit instructions to the DM to change rules in order to assist play. However, different players define "play" in different ways. Thus those players who demand a "risk challenge" (to coin a phrase half borrowed from a previous poster), will see any deviation from the rules, except those deviations that overcome conflicts or cover areas not done well in the rules, as a deviation from the social norms of the game and thus at least akin to cheating.

I'm with Piratecat (happily) in that I don't think that this discussion has gone far off topic. I think that the desire for cinematic play is exactly the kind of social norm that varies from table to table, depending on the desires of the gamers involved, and this sets the acceptability for Dm rules changes.

JohnSnow gave an excellent list of ways to make D&D more cinematic that involved minimal rules changes. Accompanying these minimal rules changes would be an expectation of the group about the kind of story told by the gaming sessions. This might make their game different from the (more purely) risk challenge game desired by other gamers and thus make DM changes during play more acceptable.


----------



## Najo (Jan 8, 2008)

I second this. The degree of "cheating" is tied to the playstyle of the group. The story driven party is more likely to have a DM who fudges rules to get the story to go the way they want. The simulationist style of players are going to accept the rules as they occur. But, both of these groups are playing a different game with different reasons for playing and neither way is wrong. 

In the perspective of the wargamer D&D player, fudging dice rolls is near blasphemous. It takes something away from their hard earned victory and cheapens their accomplishments. 

From the perspective of the story driven campaign, if a bad dice roll ruins months of story building drama, character background, intricate plots and emotional investment, then why let one bad dice roll do that? Its like having a good movie suddenly go the entire wrong direction. 

I think that most D&D campaigns find a place between these two places, and its the ones at opposite ends whose players disagree and declare the other one wrong.


----------



## buzz (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Thanks, but like I said earlier, fudging can become a necessity when the DM makes error or is faced with the errors of the designers during play.



This is a wholly separate issue to what's being discussed here, though.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2008)

In my campaign, both as a player and as a DM, all combat rolls are made 100% in the open.  Mistakes happen, of course, but, that's not cheating, that's just being wrong.

Try it.  It's incredibly liberating.  I've found, over the years, that the action becomes a ton more fun when everything is out in the open.

I would also point out that action points aren't really cheating since you have to apply the action point modifiers BEFORE you know the result of the action.  You might think you succeeded, or you might not, you don't really know.  All Action Points should do is tweak the odds in your favour, not act as a Mulligan.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 8, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> I second this. The degree of "cheating" is tied to the playstyle of the group. The story driven party is more likely to have a DM who fudges rules to get the story to go the way they want.




Not necessarily.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> From the perspective of the story driven campaign, if a bad dice roll ruins months of story building drama, character background, intricate plots and emotional investment, then why let one bad dice roll do that? Its like having a good movie suddenly go the entire wrong direction.




Why indeed?  Why have the outcome (success or failure) ruin the drama?  The trick is to make outcomes dramatic and exciting, so you've got a good story whichever way the dice fall.  _How_ the story turns out you won't know, but it will be interesting!



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> In the perspective of the wargamer D&D player, fudging dice rolls is near blasphemous. It takes something away from their hard earned victory and cheapens their accomplishments.




The same can be said for some story-driven campaigns.  Fudging dice rolls takes away meaningful player choices - it puts the "fudger" in a position of priviliged authorship, and you get one guy _telling_ a story instead of a group _creating_ one.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2008)

Lost Soul said:
			
		

> The same can be said for some story-driven campaigns. Fudging dice rolls takes away meaningful player choices - it puts the "fudger" in a position of priviliged authorship, and you get one guy telling a story instead of a group creating one.




See, the trick is though, typically, IME, in a story driven campaign, the story IS driven by one guy - the DM.  Not that that's a bad thing necessarily.  It can be a great thing.  But, since the DM is actively involved in the story AND has the priveleged position, it seems pretty common, again IME, that story driven campaigns tend to lend themselves towards fudging more often.

Doesn't have to be true, just a tendency.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

> The same can be said for some story-driven campaigns. Fudging dice rolls takes away meaningful player choices - it puts the "fudger" in a position of priviliged authorship, and you get one guy telling a story instead of a group creating one.




Not necessarily. One could fudge merely to narrow the range of possible outcomes to focus on the "more interesting" ones. One of the best ways to fudge is to simply not request a dice roll, even if the rules, strictly speaking, demand one for that particular situation.

For example, I usually handwave combats I don't think would be a meaningful contest and just let the PCs do what they will. If they're up against foes so inferior there'd be no tension to a fight scene, then I prefer to have the narrative (and game time) dwell on that- do they offer mercy? Do they let their opponents flee? Massacre them? Torture them for information? Whether or not they lost a marginal amount of resources in a pointless fight scene is, to me, irrelevant. 

Things of that nature. Or, for a more classic example of fudging- let's say I have a group of NPCs intent on capturing a PC. Unfortunately, in the battle the PC is hit by a surprise critical and instantly killed. Now I, as a GM, have a choice between letting the death happen (a valid  and interesting way for a PC to go) or quietly moving the lost hit points up a few notches so he's merely badly wounded and helpless. Then I can do the whole "Captured by the Bad Guy, Hears Evil Plan, Escapes/Is Rescued" story.

Now, I might ask the PC- "Hey, you're dead- but if you trade in some Action Points, you can be captured instead. Or if you trade in a lot of 'em, you can be left for dead and escape." I do this often in my preferred system because it has such a metagame resource (Drama Points, in Unisystem) but in games without we usually just work out some arrangement. 

My contention is that both are reasonably valid uses of the GM's authorial control. If the whole "Captured and Escaped!" story is something the PCs end up enjoying I really don't see how it is bad gaming. This is especially valid in groups that share authorial control- I'll fudge in a particular direction if a PC requests a particular sideplot.

As another example. Say I want to do an "Enemy Within" story, where one of the PCs is suborned or mind controlled or possessed. So I go to a player I'd expect to be amenable and ask if they'd be willing to go secretly evil for a few sessions. They agree, and we fudge the "Possession Roll" so that the demon/spirit/whatever automatically succeeds. Is that wrong? 

I don't think so.



> See, the trick is though, typically, IME, in a story driven campaign, the story IS driven by one guy - the DM.




Nah, not really. The GM usually has a lot of influence over how the story goes, but ideally...

1. The players have a large amount of input and authorial direction as well, making things unpredictable.
2. The randomness of dice rolls at least sometimes comes into play, making things unpredictable.

The whole point of a narrative RPG is _emergent story_. As in, the story doesn't appear until the game is over- at the end of the day you've got an interesting tale. It's not normally viable to go into it wanting a particular set of outcomes. Obviously you have to go into with a good story hook or setup for a story, but preparing the ending in advance is not how it should go, IMHO.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Why indeed?  Why have the outcome (success or failure) ruin the drama?  The trick is to make outcomes dramatic and exciting, so you've got a good story whichever way the dice fall.  _How_ the story turns out you won't know, but it will be interesting!




Because in the d20 task  resolution system, failure and sometimes success aren't always meaningful and can lead to dead-ends.




			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> The same can be said for some story-driven campaigns.  Fudging dice rolls takes away meaningful player choices - it puts the "fudger" in a position of priviliged authorship, and you get one guy _telling_ a story instead of a group _creating_ one.




You are right, but usually "story-driven" RPG uses a conflict  resolution system.

In other words, it's not surprising that players & DM who want to have a story-driven RPG cheats when playing D&D.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> You are right, but usually "story-driven" RPG uses a conflict  resolution system.




It's easy enough to run d20 using conflict- (or intent-relevant) resolution.  Just ask what the player is trying to accomplish on the roll, and the roll resolves it.  Maybe that's against the RAW, though.


----------



## Najo (Jan 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.




I wasn't being all inclusive. From my experience and what others have said, story driven GMs tend to fudge over simulation driven GMs.



> Why indeed?  Why have the outcome (success or failure) ruin the drama?  The trick is to make outcomes dramatic and exciting, so you've got a good story whichever way the dice fall.  _How_ the story turns out you won't know, but it will be interesting!




I think this is a given. I also think 99% of story driven games do this. But, when all of those statistically modified random results that did help build a story come to a lurching halt from time to time, many GMs and players both fudge to get the best entertainment possible. Notice I said many, not all. I do think most of the time a good GM can work with whatever the dice say happens, but a good storyteller knows when a random result ruins months of effort and they are doing nothing wrong by bending rules. That is why in nearly every role playing game it says that the GM can break the rules when they deem it appropriate.



> The same can be said for some story-driven campaigns.  Fudging dice rolls takes away meaningful player choices - it puts the "fudger" in a position of priviliged authorship, and you get one guy _telling_ a story instead of a group _creating_ one.




This can happen, but more often than not, the randominess of dice hurt smart player choices that should work, even with all of their effort, planning and high levels of bonuses and skills, when the die rolls a 1. Most of the time its ok to let failure occur, but if it entirely ruins the campaign, why let an abstract and poor simulation of reality being represented by the dice rolls do that when 95% of the time it would have gone the other way any ways?

Keep in mind, there are entire camps within the roleplaying hobby that are advocates of diceless role playing or games without systems at all. They tend to be high drama and story driven, require a degree of maturity to resolve disagreements and usually spend time exploring character development, puzzles and the hidden aspects of the campaign's world. These groups using this play style use common sense and drama, incuding allowing characters to die, when the story and the player's actions deems it necessary.

Some groups enjoy a form of this style of play that plays off the dice to give random results so that the game is more unexpected, but still driven by story (as you are suggesting). Then there are all of the styles of play ranging in between. The conclusion is still, a GM who fudges dice from time to time is not cheating or spoiling the experience as long as they are not taking anything away from the player's choices and allow positive and negative consequences to occur.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> It's easy enough to run d20 using conflict- (or intent-relevant) resolution.  Just ask what the player is trying to accomplish on the roll, and the roll resolves it.  Maybe that's against the RAW, though.




Of course you can use a d20 and the skills name on the character sheet forgetting about the DC tables in the PHB.

You can also make the changes to death a poster gived above, etc.

However, you will eventually face some fundamental aspect of D&D (like levels) that doesn't really make sense for a "story-driven" RPG.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

Generally speaking, I prefer to only use the game mechanics when I'm prepared for any possible outcome. If I don't want the possibility of character death to occur as a result of a particular combat, I'll just handwave it entirely, or skip over it. This certainly cuts down on the fudging I have to do- only when I failed to anticipate an unacceptable outcome do I have to do it. I haven't fudged in the classic sense (secretly altering a dice result) in years, now that I think about it.

Though obviously due to the "selective enforcement of game mechanics" technique, I have fudged in that sense all the damn time.

I like game mechanics to introduce an element of randomness and tension to a storyline.


----------



## Najo (Jan 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> It's easy enough to run d20 using conflict- (or intent-relevant) resolution.  Just ask what the player is trying to accomplish on the roll, and the roll resolves it.  Maybe that's against the RAW, though.




Which it is sounding like 4e is finally incorporating something of this nature.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> I think this is a given. I also think 99% of story driven games do this. But, when all of those statistically modified random results that did help build a story come to a lurching halt from time to time, many GMs and players both fudge to get the best entertainment possible. Notice I said many, not all. I do think most of the time a good GM can work with whatever the dice say happens, but a good storyteller knows when a random result ruins months of effort and they are doing nothing wrong by bending rules. That is why in nearly every role playing game it says that the GM can break the rules when they deem it appropriate.




When the story is already written by the DM and then "played", it's not a "story-driven" game but also a simulation-driven one.




			
				Najo said:
			
		

> Keep in mind, there are entire camps within the roleplaying hobby that are advocates of diceless role playing or games without systems at all. They tend to be high drama and story driven, require a degree of maturity to resolve disagreements and usually spend time exploring character development, puzzles and the hidden aspects of the campaign's world. These groups using this play style use common sense and drama, incuding allowing characters to die, when the story and the player's actions deems it necessary.




Some story-driven RPG uses dices others only use ressources management. The techniques used to resolve the conflicts are only a little part of what make an RPG story-driven or not.


----------



## Benimoto (Jan 8, 2008)

Even as a DM who rolls all dice in the open, I feel the need to "cheat" from time to time.  Recently, I allowed a villain to stick around an extra round after his HP ran out, just because I felt the extra longevity added to the climactic nature of the encounter.  When I create advanced monsters from the book, I occasionally add extra abilities or HP without following a strict formula for CR.  (It wouldn't strictly matter anyways, since the campaign follows a formula for XP awards that doesn't depend on ELs--perhaps another form of cheating.)

As a player, I occasionally cheat, usually by making mistakes and then not reporting them later long past when the time is relevant.  I sometimes see other players cheating, for example by rolling their save quietly against an effect first when it's announced, and then re-rolling when the the DM asks for their result.  Or I'll see situations where the player is not playing by the rules, but may not be aware of it, such as players who take too many swift actions in a round, or incorrectly determine cover or their ability to charge.

I consider a lot of this fairly harmless, as the player or DM doesn't really have the plan of making things less fun for everyone.  I do think that things like action points will reduce some parts of this casual cheating, by giving the player more control over how to respond to a threat (like a failed save) in proportion to how important it is to his character, and I like it.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 8, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> I wasn't being all inclusive. From my experience and what others have said, story driven GMs tend to fudge over simulation driven GMs.




Cool, I just wanted to bring up a different point of view.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> I also think 99% of story driven games do this. But, when all of those statistically modified random results that did help build a story come to a lurching halt from time to time, many GMs and players both fudge to get the best entertainment possible. Notice I said many, not all. I do think most of the time a good GM can work with whatever the dice say happens, but a good storyteller knows when a random result ruins months of effort and they are doing nothing wrong by bending rules. That is why in nearly every role playing game it says that the GM can break the rules when they deem it appropriate.




Hmm.  

A while ago I was running a story-driven game.  Two characters were about to start shooting at each other.  I didn't want my NPC to die, and the player didn't want his NPC to die.  I didn't really care to kill his NPC, he didn't want to kill my NPC.

Before we engaged in combat, we took death off the table.  "If I win, my guy storms the palace and takes it for himself, and your guy has to retreat into the desert."  We roll the dice, knowing that success and failure will both be okay, excited to see the outcome.

I lost the roll.  In the game, the two guys fought, and my guy was defeated and had to retreat.

We used the dice to resolve what happened, but there was no "bad" outcome.  We'd be cool with success or failure.

Also, it may be important to say that we were not using the system to model realilty or anything like that.

edit: Oh yeah, the point.  When you're playing with this kind of technique, there isn't a need to fudge to keep the random dice rolls from blowing up your game.



			
				Najo said:
			
		

> The conclusion is still, a GM who fudges dice from time to time is not cheating or spoiling the experience as long as they are not taking anything away from the player's choices and allow positive and negative consequences to occur.




I agree, though I think it's hard to allow fudging and maintain meaningful player choices at the same time.


----------



## MisterWhodat (Jan 8, 2008)

I honestly can't recall the last time I didn't cheat.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> A while ago I was running a story-driven game.  Two characters were about to start shooting at each other.  I didn't want my NPC to die, and the player didn't want his NPC to die.  I didn't really care to kill his NPC, he didn't want to kill my NPC.
> 
> Before we engaged in combat, we took death off the table.  "If I win, my guy storms the palace and takes it for himself, and your guy has to retreat into the desert."  We roll the dice, knowing that success and failure will both be okay, excited to see the outcome.
> 
> ...




Of course ! But that's not how D&D/d20 is to be played.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Of course ! But that's not how D&D/d20 is to be played.




Says who? If it's not fun, _then _you're playing it wrong - _for you_.


----------



## marune (Jan 8, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Says who? If it's not fun, _then _you're playing it wrong - _for you_.




Of course you can always do something else with a game than what it was designed for (children are very good at it) but you have no guaranteed results.

What I don't understand, is the idea that D&D should be able to be modified to meet every playstyle and that using RPGs built to support those playstyles is not preferred.

I prefer to let D&D be itself and use a different game when I want a different playstyle.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 8, 2008)

According to the rules, death is just a temporary setback until the raise dead/ressurection/true ressurection can be applied, so - if you play it as if your character would die, you're not playing as it was meant to be played.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 8, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I prefer to let D&D be itself and use a different game when I want a different playstyle.




While logical, a lot of people don't like learning new systems. I mean, I'm not one of them since I have like seventy of the godforsaken things, but these people exist for which D&D is the only game.


----------



## DSRilk (Jan 9, 2008)

Perhaps it's generally an age thing, but cheating in D&D?  Not since 3rd grade (nigh 30 years ago).  My group fesses up if they see a condition they've forgotten, even if it's bad for them.  "Oh, sorry, my AC is actually 22, not 24; he hits," has been heard plenty of times (given the volume of modifiers in D&D that us old guys forget).  I've had one player cheat in my last 25 years of gaming, and when it was discovered, we didn't invite him back.  If you're cheating, then you're missing the point (the way I play the game at least -- as an RPG group story telling device), and I have no need of that at my table.

Someone mentioned retroactively going back and "fixing" things.  Finding an accidental error that occurred in the past is not grounds for backing up time, and not going back is not cheating.  Good pacing is one of the jobs of a DM (and not an easy one at that).  Jumping back and redoing things because your forgot a modifier breaks the intent of the rules and the point of the game.

DM's can't cheat.  Rule 0.  It's the most important rule in the book.  It's not about stopping arguments about what a rule really means, it's letting you know up front that the rules are guidelines that sometimes get in the way of the goal of D&D and that it's okay for the DM to ignore the rules as necessary.  My job as a DM is to generate an enjoyable time for myself and my players.  Sometimes that means turning a hit into a miss or giving a BBEG extra hit points if he would have gotten taken out by a crazy crit in the first round -- that's boring, and again, my job as DM is to provide an interesting and enjoyable time, not to act as a rules lawyer.

It may be cliche to say that if you're cheating, you're only cheating yourself (well, you're gaming group), but in a way it's true.  Nothing real is hinging on these rolls, but if you're cheating, I really feel like you're focused on something that is stopping you from enjoying D&D to its fullest extent.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I prefer to let D&D be itself and use a different game when I want a different playstyle.




I prefer to be the one to decide what D&D is when I play it, and to play it in whatever playstyle I want. And to not give a damn how other people are playing it. 

Saves me a lot of aggravation. Especially the second sentence.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I prefer to be the one to decide what D&D is.




Sorry but that is already done by the designers up to EGG.

Of course you can feel free do to whatever you want with the books you purchased, but that doesn't change what the D&D game is or is not.

I mean, you can roleplay over a chess or monopoly board, that will not make chess or monopoly RPG.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Sorry but that is already done by the designers up to EGG.
> 
> Of course you can feel free do to whatever you want with the books you purchased, but that doesn't change what the D&D is or is not.




Just like a cookware manufacture gets to decide what you make with their pots and pans...?


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Just like a cookware manufacture gets to decide what you make with their pots and pans...?




Well they can say : if you do otherwise than X and Y, you warranty is void.

However, I'm not even sure I want to play around with that metaphore.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Well they can say : if you do otherwise than X and Y, you waranty is void.




True, true. And it's tough to wear the Player's Handbook as a hat.



> However, I'm not even sure I want to play around with that metaphore.




Basically, D&D isn't a recipe for a specific dish, it's a set of tools for creating a wide variety of dishes.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Basically, D&D isn't a recipe for a specific dish, it's a set of tools for creating a wide variety of dishes.




I think we disagree on the size of the variety.

And, that is IMHO one of the main reason why we see so much cheating in D&D.

What is outside D&D and often done with more or less success depending on the specific group :

- Using it to simulate a fictional fantasy world.

- Using it for collaborative story building.

What D&D is really good at ? Provide a rich and deep fantasy background to set up challenges that players are asked to overcome using teamwork, strategies, taking guts descision, etc.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Because in the d20 task  resolution system, failure and sometimes success aren't always meaningful and can lead to dead-ends.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Skeptic - I'm interested in what you are saying here.  Could you further define what you mean by task vs conflict resolution systems?


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Skeptic - I'm interested in what you are saying here.  Could you further define what you mean by task vs conflict resolution systems?




The terms come from The Forge.

The basic idea is that conflict resolution is much more abstract than task resolution.

In conflict resolution, the main concept is the intent, i.e. what the player wants to happen in the shared imagined space, while the task is how he does it.

Then, if the player gets a success (using dices or whatever) the GM must fulfil the intent. Usually, the consequences of failure are also stated.

It is really more powerful than for example D&D 3.x Move Silently where you have to do a check every time you move your full round movement.

I could say more, but I would have to talk about a specific implementation, for example how Burning Wheel does it.

For example, you could have a player saying : I want to sneak in the house and grab the X I need without being noticed. It could be all resolved doing a "Sneak" skill test, where failure is for example a witness that may come back at him later (but he gets the X anyway).

With such a system, fudging is a thing of the past.


----------



## Victim (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> The terms come from The Forge.
> 
> The basic idea is that conflict resolution is much more abstract than task resolution.
> 
> ...




That's both conflict resolution and stake setting.  Pure conflict resolution wouldn't necessarily have failure get X but with some complication.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> That's both conflict resolution and stake setting.  Pure conflict resolution wouldn't necessarily have failure get X but with some complication.




Right. 

Two other interesting "variants" :

1- Say "yes" : If both players and DM agree that the intent should be fulfilled, there is no need to roll anything. 

2- Let it ride : Once something have been tried, the result stay until major changes to the condition. (No retry, but also no check until failure). For example... We want to go over the mountains to reach the elven lands. "Climbing" test fail = Try the secret route that goes under the moutains instead.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2008)

Thanks for that guys.

I can see what you mean now.  If I'm understanding this right, D&D uses task resolution - intent is largely irrelevant - "I want to jump 10 feet" and roll a jump check.  

Would it be fair to say that in conflict resolution, the focus is larger?  In other words, you don't really look at each individual step, but rather just what the player wants to achieve and then determine success based on that?

Sorry to be a bit behind here.  I'm trying to catch up.  What is stake setting?  I think it means that the player determines a set amount that he is willing to "lose" if there is a failure.  Is that right?


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 9, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Would it be fair to say that in conflict resolution, the focus is larger?  In other words, you don't really look at each individual step, but rather just what the player wants to achieve and then determine success based on that?




Not really.  Here's a neat little chart that explains some of it:
Clairty & Revelance of Player Intent Chart 

Look at Gather Information.  You can resolve an entire night's chatting and talking and hunting for clues with one roll.  That doesn't tell us if it resolves the conflict - if there even is one.

If you want more info, post a situation from a game of yours and I can go into more detail on it.

edit: Here's a blog post that may answer some questions and raise others.  I found it helpful when I first encountered this concept.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Not really.  Here's a neat little chart that explains some of it:
> Clairty & Revelance of Player Intent Chart
> 
> Look at Gather Information.  You can resolve an entire night's chatting and talking and hunting for clues with one roll.  That doesn't tell us if it resolves the conflict - if there even is one.
> ...




Read both links above, they will explain why my previous examples may be misleading.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 9, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Knowingly misleading another player in order to better your score/performance in a game is cheating.



So every remotely competent poker player cheats constantly?

Try again.


----------



## Victim (Jan 9, 2008)

jeffh said:
			
		

> So every remotely competent poker player cheats constantly?
> 
> Try again.




I think there's a big difference between misleading players as to one's intentions in game and misleading them as to the rules applying to the situation.


----------



## Najo (Jan 9, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Thanks for that guys.
> 
> I can see what you mean now.  If I'm understanding this right, D&D uses task resolution - intent is largely irrelevant - "I want to jump 10 feet" and roll a jump check.
> 
> ...




Conflict resolution allows for resolving outcomes between two or more opposed results that cannot be done through the measured physics of the typical task systems of D&D and other similar games. Usually, these systems resolve social conflicts or pit the odds of certain circumstances in a broader sense than the play by play of round based actions. So yes, in a sense it is broader defination, but because of that, allows for more fluid conflict resolution. 

White Wolf's storyteller system uses a mix of task and conflict resolution with a single opposed roll very well. Check out Vampire Dark Ages or Exalted for a D&D like setting to compare D&D's mechanics too. 

The downfall of these systems is they are not as detailed, so they lend themselves to story driven game play better than combat simulation game play. This does mean they play faster and are more flexible though.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> The downfall of these systems is they are not as detailed, so they lend themselves to story driven game play better than combat simulation game play. This does mean they play faster and are more flexible though.




Two things.. 

WoD is not the perfect example of story-driven game play.

The details and complexity of D&D (even more true in 4E) is there to promote the use of strategies more than to simulate a fictional fantasy world.

Edit : You can also have a "round-by-round" conflict resolution combat system where strategies are useful, for example the Fight! rules in Burning Wheel.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

Najo said:
			
		

> The downfall of these systems is they are not as detailed...



It really depends on what game you're talking about. Duel of Wits (social conflict res) in _Burning Wheel_ is detailed/robust as heck. No social mechanic in most mainstream RPGs (D&D, GURPS, WoD) even comes close.

Honestly, you could probably point to a ton of different games where non-combat mechanics are far more detail-oriented than comparable ones (should they even exist) in most popular RPGs.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

jeffh said:
			
		

> So every remotely competent poker player...



I was unaware that we were talking about poker. In fact, I'm pretty sure we weren't.


----------



## DSRilk (Jan 9, 2008)

Perhaps it's a matter of experience, but I don't see the need for an abstract "conflict" resolution system versus a "task" resolution system.  Actually, I'd argue that even for role-playing purposes (my games average 4 combats a year -- we're pretty much all RP) "task" resolution is better.  Here's why: If I'm engaged in a tactical encounter, where every round counts, I need a system that's specific - Every round check move silently to move X feet.  That tells me how far characters are moving and in what state, which is what I need when I'm in blow-by-blow mode of 6 second rounds where everyone's acting in relation to everyone else.  However, there's absolutely nothing stopping me from making the rational DM judgment to generalize a check.  If a party member says, "I need a candlestick.  Are there any houses nearby that might have one?  If so, I sneak in and get it."  As the DM, I say, "No problem.  Make a stealth check.  If you fail, you either can't get access to it or you get it but someone spots you -- your call."  D&D is not designed to be a straight jacket - hence rule 0.  With a little common sense, "task" resolution systems like D&D give you the best of both worlds.  This is not fudging the rules or cheating, it's applying a rational mind to the task of keeping good pacing in the story.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

DSRilk said:
			
		

> If a party member says, "I need a candlestick.  Are there any houses nearby that might have one?  If so, I sneak in and get it."  As the DM, I say, "No problem.  Make a stealth check.  If you fail, you either can't get access to it or you get it but someone spots you -- your call."  D&D is not designed to be a straight jacket - hence rule 0.  With a little common sense, "task" resolution systems like D&D give you the best of both worlds.  This is not fudging the rules or cheating, it's applying a rational mind to the task of keeping good pacing in the story.



Actually, it's you implementing intent-relevant conflict resolution into D&D's intent-irrelevant task system. The other RPGs being talked about here simply do this out of the gate.


----------



## DSRilk (Jan 9, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Actually, it's you implementing intent-relevant conflict resolution into D&D's intent-irrelevant task system. The other RPGs being talked about here simply do this out of the gate.




Personally, I don't find a paragraph stating "use checks for things that make sense in order not to RP a game to death" necessary.  I think having the skills listed and described is enough to make it inherent.  I do have a question though.  Do these other systems have tactical resolution as well?  To me, it's easier to generalize from specifics than it is to create on-the-fly specifics from a generalization.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

DSRilk said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't find a paragraph stating "use checks for things that make sense in order not to RP a game to death" necessary.  I think having the skills listed and described is enough to make it inherent.



Well, first off, intent-relevance isn't just about using checks to avoid RP'ing thing to death. It's about, well, making sure the player's intent is addressed by the check. As to how to make use of checks, the RPG _Dogs in the Vineyard_ coined an important phrase: "Say, yes or roll the dice." I.e., if there's no conflict over an issue ("Is there a candlestick nearby?"), then you can often just say, "Sure, there's a candlestick on the table." The dice come out when there's uncertainty or conflict, e.g., "Can I steal the candlestick without waking up the baker's dog?"

As for being explicit about this in the rulebook, I think it's a good idea. Better to explain how to run the game than assume the reader will just "figure it out." You can read a metric ton of accounts of bad game sessions on gaming fora that revolve around people who don't just figure this stuff out.



			
				DSRilk said:
			
		

> I do have a question though.  Do these other systems have tactical resolution as well?  To me, it's easier to generalize from specifics than it is to create on-the-fly specifics from a generalization.



It'll depend on the game. _Burning Wheel_ has a very detailed combat system (though you don't always need to use it if the combat isn't a big plot point) that involves a lot of strategy and blow-by-blow action. Games like _Dogs in the Vineyard_ and _The Shadow of Yesterday_ don't have separate systems for physical combat; a conflict is a conflict. However, they do let you break down any conflict into multiple steps (in _Dogs_, it's always that way). I.e., you're not always just making one roll to see if Sir Kevin defeats the dragon. If that event is important, you break it down step-by-step.

For an example, you can look to the _The Shadow of Yesterday_ rules wiki section on resolution. The whole text of the game is available there.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 9, 2008)

I think I know why these discussions seem to taper off. Its because they violate an enworld rule, politics.  

I started  thinking about this because I was going to write how at my table, I take the Samual L. Jackson approach to DM'n. 

 I am a monarch and I like that.  I am a nice monarch.  I ask my players before I do things.  i reject things that they really hate. But my job as a DM is to provide the best game to my players.  

There are some players and dMs that are more of the democratic table.  Everything is fair and the DM gets his power from the players.  Everyone's on a fair shake. Nothing gets put into the game unless it is preagreed upon form all parties.  The DM is not allowed to make any decision that effects the game without discussing it with the players. 

There are also people who believe in military rule, in which if it is my house and my Cheeto's then the game rules will go as i say, no matter who the dm and players are.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I think I know why these discussions seem to taper off. Its because they violate an enworld rule, politics.



One thing I notice is that there's a common mistake made. Notably, an assumption that the GM-player power relationship is zero-sum. I.e., you start talking about giving players authorial power, and people start complaining about "taking power away from the GM." Add in the unfortunate occurrence of people sometimes tying up too much of their self-worth in their role as a GM, and you get arguments.

Thing is, it's not zero-sum. You're not taking power away from anyone; you're simply giving more to some of the people at the table. IMO, the end result is almost always really fun. 

I only wish more people would actually try some of the games that do this rather then dismiss them at first glance.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 9, 2008)

Yes, gaming philosophies that postulate an adversarial, zero-sum or otherwise antagonistic relationship between GM and player confuse me. Without trust, shared expectation and cooperation toward a common goal of "fun!" what's the point of the gaming group at all?


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Yes, gaming philosophies that postulate an adversarial, zero-sum or otherwise antagonistic relationship between GM and player confuse me. Without trust, shared expectation and cooperation toward a common goal of "fun!" what's the point of the gaming group at all?




Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.

The competition is not fun any longer when the DM cheats by setting the player agaisn't unreasonable challenges, or being too soft, etc...


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Jan 9, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> For an example, you can look to the _The Shadow of Yesterday_ rules wiki section on resolution. The whole text of the game is available there.




Wow, thanks for that link!  You have single-handedly convinced me to branch out into RPGs other than D&D.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 9, 2008)

Ahrimon said:
			
		

> You don't come off as preachy, but you'll forgive me if I can't beleive a word of it.  You've never corrected a challenge mistake by adjusting a few choice rolls to give the players a shot?  Or, would you just let the last four months of the campaigne grind to a screeching halt because of a mistake?  And don't say that you don't make mistakes.  We're all human, except for maybe a few oddballs around here.




So you are equating "making a mistake" with "cheating"?  I hope you know they are not the same thing.  Cheating is intentional, making a mistake is not.  And I can only speak for myself personally, but when I find that I made a mistake, I try to correct it, whether it is to my benefit or detriment.  Sometimes it is too late (too much time went by that correcting the mistake will really make that much of a difference), other times we correct it.

Mistake <> Cheating.

Edit: Just wanted to mention I am speaking from the player's perspective.  The rules on DM "cheating" are a little different than when a PC tries to cheat.  So the above is just from the player's perspective.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> Wow, thanks for that link!  You have single-handedly convinced me to branch out into RPGs other than D&D.



Heck, you're welcome.   



			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.



Absolutely. _Burning Empires_ is a great example of an intent-relevant, new school RPG that is also incredibly adversarial; the game works best when the GM is pushing hard against the players.

But I think Prof. Phobos' meaning was pretty clear; trust, cooperation, and willingness to share, even in an adversarial game (rpg, boardgame, etc), is a key part of maximizing fun.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.




There isn't, not from my perspective or experience. The GM can't "win", so he's not participating in any kind of friendly competition.


----------



## Henry (Jan 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> There isn't, not from my perspective or experience. The GM can't "win", so he's not participating in any kind of friendly competition.




In my experience, the DM does have a "win" condition. If he can by hook or crook elicit the response he wants from the players, then he has succeeded, whether that is dread, elation, laughter, or a sense of accomplishment. If he challenges them to something, and they succeed, and they feel happy about that and have had a good time, then he's done his job, and he wins. That's the friendly competition in my group - the players look at me askance and call me a rat bastard when their characters are in a tough spot, they figure out how to beat the tough spot, and they tell me they had a good game, and I go away feeling like a million bucks.

It's like two roomies playing a video game to see who picks up the dinner tab this Friday night. You got me this time, but I'll get you next time.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 9, 2008)

I would call that _success_, but not "winning", since the players certainly don't _lose_.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Sorry but in D&D there is a "fun" competition between the DM and the players.
> 
> The competition is not fun any longer when the DM cheats by setting the player agaisn't unreasonable challenges, or being too soft, etc...



Read my earlier post.  Your style of play says that d and d is a competition.  My style does not say this. My style says that d and d is a group activity with the DM as the moderator and facilitator, not the adversary.  

Neither style is correct or incorrect.  I am sure that just as many players will want to play with you as will want to play with me.  Since fun is not quantitative pursuing this argument is moot. 

Wotc should commend themselves on coming up with a living document, it is difficult to come up wit ha document so well written, that its interpretations can lead to great differences between factions, much similar to our constitution.  

From my perspective i have no win condition.  I don't care what the PCs do, only that i provide them adventure where it is. If my win condition depended on me trying to coax the right reaction out of the pCs, I'd be the Detroit Lions of Dungeons and Dragons. Instead, I'd say I earned my two titles as Iron DM because I was able to provide the PCs the most fun adventure no matter what their motivations were.  

Recently my pcs went to a plane and needed to collect eight items to leave it.  They decided that it was awful back home and they wanted to stay there.  So I provided them adventures there.  We all had fun. Of course I was not expecting this.  Two of the PCs were soldiers in the war and I expected them to want to return to save family members.  But it didn't matter what my expectations were because only they know their characters.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Read my earlier post.  Your style of play says that d and d is a competition.  My style does not say this. My style says that d and d is a group activity with the DM as the moderator and facilitator, not the adversary.
> 
> Neither style is correct or incorrect.  I am sure that just as many players will want to play with you as will want to play with me.  Since fun is not quantitative pursuing this argument is moot.




That's not a question of personal style, that's how the game is built.

You can always do something else with it, but YMMV.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> There isn't, not from my perspective or experience. The GM can't "win", so he's not participating in any kind of friendly competition.



Maybe, but the players can certainly "lose." 

The most obvious situation being the default D&D setup: players outfit a team of adventurers who have a limited set of resources (abilities, items, points) that they pit against challenges posed to them by the DM, often in pursuit of an overarching goal, which may be as simple as "survive and level up in order to do it again." Assuming the DM is not rigging the game in order to insure any given outcome (be it a TPK or total Monty Haul PCs-can't-die play), they essentially serve the role of thwarting the PCs. Not accomplishing their goal, or more simply, death, is a very obvious "lose" condition. So is accomplishing the goal, yet paying a higher price than expected, e.g., too many resources spent, sacrifices made, etc.

Ergo, there can certainly be friendly competition. If anything, it's the most traditional mode of play. Look at any game where the players start to sweat when a combat goes south, or when the DM stares in dismay at a carefully planned encounter that PCs breeze through.

EDIT: I think it's important to note that "adversarial" doesn't necessarily map to "win"/"lose". In most RPG play, everyone at the table generally knows that yes, we will make it to the end of the module no matter what. The question is usually. "What's it going to take to get there?" The GM's role is generally not to just happily walk the players through to the end; there's no game then. The GM's job is to get in the players' way, i.e., serve as an adversary. Without conflict, you have neither challenge nor drama, i.e., "fun." Ergo, even if the sole end goal is "fun," that doesn't mean that the GM and players don't hammer on each other en route.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Ergo, there can certainly be friendly competition. If anything, it's the most traditional mode of play. Look at any game where the players start to sweat when a combat goes south, or when the DM stares in dismay at a carefully planned encounter that PCs breeze through.




Yeah.

Players lose and "DM win" is the same, the players fail a reasonable challenge because the DM's strategies were better than the players' ones (or simply lucky).

That doesn't mean TPK, but probably no XP (at least less than if they had succeeded).

However, in a typical D&D campaign, the goal is to have more "players win" than "dm win", the right proportion is probably group specific.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> EDIT: I think it's important to note that "adversarial" doesn't necessarily map to "win"/"lose". In most RPG play, everyone at the table generally knows that yes, we will make it to the end of the module no matter what. The question is usually. "What's it going to take to get there?" The GM's role is generally not to just happily walk the players through to the end; there's no game then. The GM's job is to get in the players' way, i.e., serve as an adversary. Without conflict, you have neither challenge nor drama, i.e., "fun." Ergo, even if the sole end goal is "fun," that doesn't mean that the GM and players don't hammer on each other en route.




Right, if the end is already set, i.e. the choices made trough the way are not significant, you have neither challenge nor drama.

Sadly it's seem that many groups don't try to get better than this "enjoy the ride" playstyle.

Edit : BTW, the ride is often seen in the Realm of Fudging.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> However, in a typical D&D campaign, the goal is to have more "players win" than "dm win", the right proportion is probably group specific.



Yep, I think the CR system (and previous "encounter grading") is pretty much built around this. Odds get stacked in the player's favor, but the DM is allowed to make them really earn that "win."

Granted, there are styles of play to which this adversary stuff doesn't always apply. Play focused on immersion obviously requires the GM to focus on maintaining the simulation, and challenge/conflict needs to take a back seat of it threatens that. I don't see this as a primary focus of D&D, though.


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Play focused on immersion obviously requires the GM to focus on maintaining the simulation, and challenge/conflict needs to take a back seat of it threatens that. I don't see this as a primary focus of D&D, though.




Well, first I have to say that I hate the "simulationist" playstyle, but I won't go in details here.

Second, D&D was always more challenge-based (or gamist) than simulationist over the editions (maybe less under 2E). 

Third, 4E seems to go farther this way and it's of course IMHO a very good idea.

Finally, even if my favorite playstyle is a "story-driven" one, I like D&D for what it is and I don't want it to change is basic nature.


----------



## buzz (Jan 9, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Right, if the end is already set, i.e. the choices made trough the way are not significant, you have neither challenge nor drama.



True, but knowing the end doesn't necessarily mean that choices can't be meaningful en route. For example, a supplement for the RPG _Sorcerer_ has an option for a PC to have a specific destiny, meaning that the player may know full well that their PC simply cannot die until that destiny is achieved. Does that make the game boring? No, because now the PC can be faced with a number of hard choices made harder by the fact that sacrificing themselves isn't an option.

Granted, not knowing the outcome is probably more consistently fun. 

(Which reminds me that it's unfortunate that most non-dungeon-crawl adventures for D&D that I've seen are so heavily plotted. One of the reasons I will not pull punches as a DM is because PC death is too often one of the few variables left in an adventure.)


----------



## marune (Jan 9, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> True, but knowing the end doesn't necessarily mean that choices can't be meaningful en route. For example, a supplement for the RPG _Sorcerer_ has an option for a PC to have a specific destiny, meaning that the player may know full well that their PC simply cannot die until that destiny is achieved. Does that make the game boring? No, because now the PC can be faced with a number of hard choices made harder by the fact that sacrificing themselves isn't an option.




Yeah, just after I wrote my post I thougt of such an exception. But that's not the kind of "setted end" you find in D&D modules.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 10, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> That's not a question of personal style, that's how the game is built.
> 
> You can always do something else with it, but YMMV.



But we disagree on how the game is built. You call the player's losers if they fail an encounter, my players don't consider this. If they don't defeat an encounter and no one dies then they try another method. Unless it is the final game of the campaign, I"ve rarely heard a player say "man we loss that game of d and d".  

We often have a joke at our table where someone says "I just won' d and d", because for usit is absurd. There are no winners or losers with our style.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 10, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Right, if the end is already set, i.e. the choices made trough the way are not significant, you have neither challenge nor drama.
> 
> Sadly it's seem that many groups don't try to get better than this "enjoy the ride" playstyle.
> 
> Edit : BTW, the ride is often seen in the Realm of Fudging.



I think DMs start to feign off when they present themselves too much into the adversarial role.  An adversary is someone who directly opposes you. I do not oppose the party. The villian whose actions i control does.  I am simply following the tactics predetermined by the villian, the players are actually determining their actions in real time.  

If a vampire fights until the end that is predetermined by me. He players however, can decide to retreat then change their mind then change their mind again.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jan 10, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> But the game also says, "According to my rules, you can spend an action point to succeed at a failed roll."  Or whatever.
> 
> How is that cheating?




Action points are designed to allow players a mechanism to screw with the normal game mechanics. It's cheating within the rules. That's why I said that Action Points are in the game specifically to allow the players to cheat.

Since Action Points are themselves rules, it's not *actual* cheating. Maybe I should have put quotes around "cheat".


----------



## marune (Jan 10, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I do not oppose the party. The villian whose actions i control  does.




Ok re-read this aloud.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I am simply following the tactics predetermined by the villain, the players are actually determining their actions in real time.




Okay, if you are giving up the control of the villain and instead following a kind of predetermined course of action, you're having a "sim" playstyle that is not adversarial.

Here, don't confuse the "predetermined course of action" with the "tactics round by round" found in some MM. 

The first one is built according to the fictional world "internal logic", the second one according to the CR system.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 10, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Action points are designed to allow players a mechanism to screw with the normal game mechanics. It's cheating within the rules. That's why I said that Action Points are in the game specifically to allow the players to cheat.
> 
> Since Action Points are themselves rules, it's not *actual* cheating. Maybe I should have put quotes around "cheat".




Action Points are usually "metagame" mechanics - while you can say, "It's the Force" like I did the first time I saw them in play (Star Wars d6), I now tend to think of them as a resource that a player draws upon to act on player goals, instead of an ability of the character.

Maybe that's why they are "cheating". 

On adversity:



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I think DMs start to feign off when they present themselves too much into the adversarial role. An adversary is someone who directly opposes you. I do not oppose the party. The villian whose actions i control does. I am simply following the tactics predetermined by the villian, the players are actually determining their actions in real time.




I think that one role the DM has is to provide adversity for the players (doing so through his NPCs or environment).  It's the adversity that allows the players to make meaningful choices.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying the villian predetermines his actions; the villian doesn't exist, so how could he?


----------



## marune (Jan 10, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying the villian predetermines his actions; the villian doesn't exist, so how could he?




A good example would be "Monster X would never surrender because of Y or Z" or "Monster A is too intelligent to ever fight to death", etc.

Of course those sentences are not written in the MM but part of a sub-culture of the D&D players.


----------



## marune (Jan 10, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think that one role the DM has is to provide adversity for the players (doing so through his NPCs or environment).  It's the adversity that allows the players to make meaningful choices.




In D&D yes, but that's not the only way to do it.

And I'll would add again that if it's not possible for them to fail agaisn't these challenges, there is no meaningful choices.

On top of it, XP should reward the good choices that made them succeed (So they can level up to fight bigger challenges).


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 10, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> A
> I think that one role the DM has is to provide adversity for the players (doing so through his NPCs or environment).  It's the adversity that allows the players to make meaningful choices.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying the villian predetermines his actions; the villian doesn't exist, so how could he?



The DM's role is to provide adversity and challenge, not become that adversary. Understanding this is detrimental to being a DM. It is not the DM against the party.  If it were, then no DM should provide things like treasure, and technically, the every sessions should end in a tpk.  Now, the DM can provide adversaries without being the adversary.

PCs think in real time, they have full control over what their characters do. DMS control NPCS with predetermined personalities and in most combat cases tactics.  DMs can control a character without being the adversary themselves. When I control the red dragon, the red dragon's strategy in the combat is determined by a tactical pattern that is predetermined. 

example: The party's rogue steals a green gem of life that the dragon wants.  During the combat, the dragon fights the party. The Dragon knows the party has the gem and because he's smart he is going to take out the wizards and fighters first, partly because he doesn't know which one the rogue is nor that the rogue has the gem. The dm knows this. The dm sees this the whole time.  Heck the rogue told the dm he was doing this.  So if the dm were the true adversary, then the red dragon would immediately attack the rogue and take the gem back and not risk his life on the wizards and warriors.  

That is the different between the DM being an adversary and the dM controlling adversaries.  I had a conversation last night about this very subject where i was mentoring a dM who had a problem with a player whom could not figure out that the DM was not the enemy. At every point he could he'd dispute what the DM had to say, and in some cases would not believe the abilities of the DM.  

Of course my advise was the boot the disruptive player for the sake of your other players. Just an example of how important it is for both players and dms to understand that the dm is not the enemy.


----------



## marune (Jan 10, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> The DM's role is to provide adversity and challenge, not become that adversary. Understanding this is detrimental to being a DM. It is not the DM against the party.  If it were, then no DM should provide things like treasure, and technically, the every sessions should end in a tpk.   Now, the DM can provide adversaries without being the adversary.




No, that would be cheating. The DM must set up appropriate challanges and gives rewards (treasures and XP) according to the rules of the game.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> PCs think in real time, they have full control over what their characters do. DMS control NPCS with predetermined personalities and in most combat cases tactics.  DMs can control a character without being the adversary themselves. When I control the red dragon, the red dragon's strategy in the combat is determined by a tactical pattern that is predetermined.




The DM can ajust NPCs behavior in real time too, that is irrelevant.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> example: The party's rogue steals a green gem of life that the dragon wants.  During the combat, the dragon fights the party. The Dragon knows the party has the gem and because he's smart he is going to take out the wizards and fighters first, partly because he doesn't know which one the rogue is nor that the rogue has the gem. The dm knows this. The dm sees this the whole time.  Heck the rogue told the dm he was doing this.  So if the dm were the true adversary, then the red dragon would immediately attack the rogue and take the gem back and not risk his life on the wizards and warriors.




Again, that's a cheating DM not an adversarial one.


----------



## buzz (Jan 10, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> When I control the red dragon, the red dragon's strategy in the combat is determined by a tactical pattern that is predetermined.



No; round to round, the red dragon's strategy is determined by you. That you may be following guidelines is immaterial.

The only conscious actors involved in a D&D game are the people sitting at the table. Anything else is dice and paper. Regardless of the overall goal being "fun," the DM is still the one acting in opposition to the other people at the table, and vice versa.

There's no doubt that the DM isn't doing _solely_ this, but that's part of the somewhat contradictory setup you see in D&D and most other popular RPGs. I.e., the player (i.e., GM) with the most authority, by a WIDE margin, is also the player that provides all of the opposition. I think that this, combined with decades of abusive DMs, causes people to have a hard time accepting the "adversary" terminology.

Nonetheless, as a DM in D&D, an adversary is what you are.


----------



## marune (Jan 10, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> There's no doubt that the DM isn't doing _solely_ this, but that's part of the somewhat contradictory setup you see in D&D and most other popular RPGs. I.e., the player (i.e., GM) with the most authority, by a WIDE margin, is also the player that provides all of the opposition. I think that this, combined with decades of abusive DMs, causes people to have a hard time accepting the "adversary" terminology.




QFT.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 10, 2008)

I agree with buzz. 



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> The DM's role is to provide adversity and challenge, not become that adversary.




I think we agree, we're just using different language.  The DM has to walk a tightrope, because he needs to challenge the players, but he can't challenge them too much, and he can't use everything at his disposal to challenge them or else there would be no game.  (Just as you say.)

Burning Empires (which I am scheduled to play tonight after too long a layoff!) strictly limits the resources the GM has - the number of scenes I can set up and even the number of rolls I can make.  It's a different take on things, and it fits me well.

But I'm the type of DM who, when running a module, will only use the resources the NPCs have within the module.  I Limit my authority so I can take off the gloves.


----------



## buzz (Jan 11, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Burning Empires (which I am scheduled to play tonight after too long a layoff!) strictly limits the resources the GM has - the number of scenes I can set up and even the number of rolls I can make.  It's a different take on things, and it fits me well.



You lucky dog!

Anyway, I think that the CR system (and its successor in 4e) are steps in this sort of direction. The DM is allowed to, within limits, push hard, knowing they won't just plain decimate the PCs unfairly, and the players have some sort of gauge as to whether the challenge being thrown at them is within reasonable parameters.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 11, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> You lucky dog!




It was a good game, I'll write it up over on the Burning Wheel forums (Burning Boldaq).

Oh, and on Circvs Maximvs too.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> No, that would be cheating. The DM must set up appropriate challanges and gives rewards (treasures and XP) according to the rules of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The DM has to give rewards according to the chart, but he can easily have every treasure be 10000 gp worth of hair brushes and design towns that don't accept them.  The DM could, well within the rules, make things as dificult on the PCs as he wishes without stepping outside of the rules nor using rule 0.  

In the dragon example, the DM could easily have placed any type of legal devices, minions or what not that would have predetermined which party member had the gem.  All within the legal bounds and no rule 0.  The DM would make every encounter near lethal and avoid the adventure build that is currently prevalent.  

The DM could nix helpful npcs and useful treasure.  This is what an adversary would do if he were truly opposing the party.  But I"ve never encountered a dm who does this, because DMs know that their roll is control of the adveraries, the comrades and the world.  If you settle into one role you're bound to foster negative relationships.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Jan 11, 2008)

I cheat, hands down. I am however the DM of my group and if I so chose to cheat, its my desision. 
Also, I've caught most of my players cheating at one point or another, and have at some occasions, did somthing about it, and at others let it pass.

In my mind its all about whats fun at the table. If the Players think I'm being so unfair in monster choises, de-buffs, or whatever that they need to cheat to have fun, I let it go. Then again, when I feel a player is getting way to liberal in their cheatery, I godspank their character.

Cheats I've used:
Roll 'n say : Roll the dice, say whatever number you want
Roll 'n Snatch : rolling the dice and grabbing it before others see it
Knocking : tipping a Die to a better number
Stat modding : changing a stat mid-game to tip the odds
No save : Arbitrarily deciding the player will fail a saving throw regardless of the roll result
Not-a-1 : Hitting people on a D20 roll of anything but 1

Cheats i've caught my players using:
Roll 'n say
Roll 'n Snatch
Knocking
Number fudging : changing static numbers that they "forgot" to write on their sheet
Spell swapping : Casting spells when that spell isn't memorised
Bribery : Giving me food and/or money to better thier character
Anti-bribery : Giving me food and/or Money to screw another character (my players are visious)
Begging/whining : complaining or asking somthing repeatedly until I give them what they want to shut them up.

None of these methods work all the time, and with my personal cheatery, I go both ways. I cheat up to slow game progression, and I cheat down to keep the game fun.

Bribery and begging were jokes, I don't actually accept anything less than money as bribes.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> No, that would be cheating. The DM must set up appropriate challanges and gives rewards (treasures and XP) according to the rules of the game.




According to the demands of the storyline and logic of the world, surely? I'm not going to give out a magic item just because some chart says I have to- I'm going to give out a magic item if a bad guy had a magic item and the players kill him for it.

And, of course, in any level-based system they level up when I damn well say they do. But that's more of a house rule.



> The DM has to give rewards according to the chart




I thought the charts were guidelines, suggestions, optional? How else is a GM going to build a world to taste if he's got to follow the inane demographics of the DMG?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jan 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I thought the charts were guidelines, suggestions, optional? How else is a GM going to build a world to taste if he's got to follow the inane demographics of the DMG?



This is the aspect of the problem of DM fiat that I discussed in the original post. Sure, _everything_ in the rules is a guideline for the DM. However, DMs run the risk of player revolt if they do too much change against the expectations of the other players. These expectations will be formulated in part based on the communication between players before the game, on the rules as written, and by communication between the players and players in other groups.

In some ways, the D&D table is a perfect example of Hobbes' state. There is no game unless the players as a group submit much of the control of the game to the will of one player. That one player can do pretty much what he or she wants, up to a point. The DM can make no game, or any other game, better than the current game, so the players as a group leave the game.

There is, of course, incentive to cheat such a system as there is in almost every system. The question is what do players cheat in order to obtain? This is a good measure of the real desires of these players. I think that action points (and second wind) address the things that players cheat to obtain most of the time that they cheat. This helps make the overall system, as written, best meet player desires, even though those desires as the game is played may differ from those (stated) desires before the game is played. (I'm not saying that players who cheat set out to cheat. They intend to play the game as written, but circumstances change or override that desire during play. Or, as Fine nods towards, the concept of cheating is done but never acknowledged; few people at the table truly mind some forms of cheating so it's already a tacit rule.)


----------



## marune (Jan 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> According to the demands of the storyline and logic of the world, surely? I'm not going to give out a magic item just because some chart says I have to- I'm going to give out a magic item if a bad guy had a magic item and the players kill him for it.




The DM has to make the treasures found "believable", e.g. a Beholder doesn't carry a magic sword. That's the only "internal logic of the world" relevant in a gamist RPG like D&D.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And, of course, in any level-based system they level up when I damn well say they do. But that's more of a house rule.




It's a common one and it is a very bad idea because it breaks the fundamental role of the reward system : tell the players what is a good behavior and what is a bad one.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I thought the charts were guidelines, suggestions, optional? How else is a GM going to build a world to taste if he's got to follow the inane demographics of the DMG?




The fictional word is a deep & rich (if you want to) bakground to set up challenges in D&D, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> This is the aspect of the problem of DM fiat that I discussed in the original post. Sure, _everything_ in the rules is a guideline for the DM. However, DMs run the risk of player revolt if they do too much change against the expectations of the other players.




Hell, are you kidding? I'm pretty sure my players would walk if I never surprised them. And, quite frankly, if I had a player who revolted if he decided my world didn't have enough magic items or something like that, I'd let them walk. No chart can tell me what to do. And if the only group I could find insisted that I had no discretion in treasure or XP or NPC design, if my responsibilities were as rigidly defined as some people here advocate, then I would stop GMing. I'd stop playing if a GM rigidly restricted the players, hell I'd stop playing if my GM didn't get to use his imagination.




> It's a common one and it is a very bad idea because it breaks the fundamental role of the reward system : tell the players what is a good behavior and what is a bad one.




That is completely silly. They know that stuff already. I find keeping track of XP awards tedious and I inevitably forget about them until my players ask, "Hey, have we gotten any XP for the last 5-10 sessions?" 

I usually say, "Sure, how much do you want?" or "Just make any changes you deem reasonable." For a while I used a "You get an automatic 1 XP every session, keep track of it yourself" system, but even that got annoying. (Obviously a different game than D&D)

In a level system, I'd probably just have them level up at arbitrarily designated "storyline escalation" milestones, or whenever they got around to asking about leveling up.


----------



## marune (Jan 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Hell, are you kidding? I'm pretty sure my players would walk if I never surprised them. And, quite frankly, if I had a player who revolted if I decided my world didn't have enough magic items or something like that, I'd let them walk. No chart can tell me what to do.




How it feels to be a abusive DM ?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> How it feels to be a abusive DM ?




Well, I did get a lot of back talk, but when I cut out the player's tongues the problem was solved...


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> The DM has to make the treasures found "believable", e.g. a Beholder doesn't carry a magic sword. That's the only "internal logic of the world" relevant in a gamist RPG like D&D.



That's funny.



> It's a common one and it is a very bad idea because it breaks the fundamental role of the reward system :



That's funnier. There are rewards in playing D&D outside XP. Both long-running and successful campaigns I know of dispense with XP-as-reward entirely. You can read about both of them in the Story Hour section of ENWorld, in Rolzup's "Chronicle of Burne" and shilsen's long and popular Eberron tale.



> tell the players what is a good behavior and what is a bad one.



In my game, good behavior is enjoying yourself while entertaining your fellow players. Bad behavior is helping yourself to my 16-year Scotch without asking permission first. 

BTW, I'm noticing your definitions are a bit rigid.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Well, I did get a lot of back talk, but when I cut out the player's tongues the problem was solved...



Did you ever have a TPK (Total Player Kill)?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Did you ever have a TPK (Total Player Kill)?




Nah, if you keep them on antibiotics they won't get any infections from the chains. The trouble is keeping their muscles from atrophying as prisoners. If you let them out for exercise, they try to escape!


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 11, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> In my game, good behavior is enjoying yourself while entertaining your fellow players.




What if you defined what those things were and rewarded XP for that?

Or another step further - defined those enjoyable moments, rewarded something that makes those moments more possible?

Let's say you all get a kick out of cool, off-the-wall moves in combat.  When someone does one of those cool things and the DM notices everyone is into it, he gives the player an Action Point.

Those Action Points, when spent, allow you do do/succeed more easily at the cool, off-the-wall moves.


I played in a campaign of D&D where the enjoyable thing was to kick ass & dominate in combat as a group.  We were on a timeline facing status-quo encounters, so we knew that if we maxed out our XP per day, we'd be "ahead" on the party level - EL scale.  Making it easier for us to kick ass, which is what we wanted.

We looked for random encounters whenever we could, trying to conserve our resources as much as possible.  When we took actions - when players made choices - that allowed us to get more XP without setting us back, we all got excited.

It was a positive feedback loop - do cool stuff, get rewarded with the ability to do more cool stuff, which makes us want to do cool stuff even more, then we'd get more rewards, etc.

I like reward systems like that; so, for me, when one kicks in to support the style of play I want, it's great.


----------



## marune (Jan 11, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I played in a campaign of D&D where the enjoyable thing was to kick ass & dominate in combat as a group.  We were on a timeline facing status-quo encounters, so we knew that if we maxed out our XP per day, we'd be "ahead" on the party level - EL scale.  Making it easier for us to kick ass, which is what we wanted.
> 
> We looked for random encounters whenever we could, trying to conserve our resources as much as possible.  When we took actions - when players made choices - that allowed us to get more XP without setting us back, we all got excited.
> 
> ...




Yup, this positive feedback loop is really important and by doing arbitrary leveling, you kill it.

If the D&D loop (be good at killing monsters so you'll get XP, than level up and fight bigger monsters with bigger tools) doesn't please you, the best thing is probably to try another RPG.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I played in a campaign of D&D where the enjoyable thing was to kick ass & dominate in combat as a group.  We were on a timeline facing status-quo encounters, so we knew that if we maxed out our XP per day, we'd be "ahead" on the party level - EL scale.  Making it easier for us to kick ass, which is what we wanted.




Man, I am bored just thinking about that kind of game. I'm glad you had fun, more power to you, whatever floats your boat, etc, but damn, that sounds exceedingly dull.



> If the D&D loop (be good at killing monsters so you'll get XP, than level up and fight bigger monsters with bigger tools) doesn't please you, the best thing is probably to try another RPG.




But if you want to play that kind of game, why not just load up a CRPG or a MMORPG?


----------



## shilsen (Jan 11, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What if you defined what those things were and rewarded XP for that?
> 
> Or another step further - defined those enjoyable moments, rewarded something that makes those moments more possible?




I'm not Mallus, but I'm in his group (and vice versa) and I'm a big proponent of the approach to XP he mentioned, so I'll take a crack at the questions. 

My personal take on it is simple. Using XP as a reward system is like grading players based on my personal preferences for the game. And as a teacher, I get more than enough grading in my day job. I'd much rather treat XP as a metagame construct (which is frankly what I think it is) which exists to facilitate something that players enjoy - characters going up in levels and getting powerful. 

As long as the group enjoys getting together and playing the game, I can just award a fixed amount of XP per session to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with. And if the group doesn't enjoy the game, I seriously doubt XP awards will improve it.

In short, using XP awards based on any formula and/or on PC actions just doesn't provide any bonuses to my game and provides some negatives I'd rather not deal with. So I don't.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Yup, this positive feedback loop is really important and by doing arbitrary leveling, you kill it.[/quote[
> 
> Really important for your game. Not mine. Which is why I already killed it.
> 
> [quote[If the D&D loop (be good at killing monsters so you'll get XP, than level up and fight bigger monsters with bigger tools) doesn't please you, the best thing is probably to try another RPG.




If a variation of the D&D loop (enjoy all the different things you can do in the game, level up, and enjoy all the things you get to do at the next level, level up again, etc.) works for me, the best thing for me to do is to play with that variation.

In short, I don't think my approach to D&D works for everyone. And I don't think your approach to D&D works for me. Luckily neither of us has to play in the other's game, so we can both have fun with D&D.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> As long as the group enjoys getting together and playing the game, I can just award a fixed amount of XP per session to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with. And if the group doesn't enjoy the game, I seriously doubt XP awards will improve it.




This is close to how I feel about it. I don't like rewarding particular bits inside the game, because I feel that any given game session, no matter what actually happens, should be rewarding to all involved. 

If we spend a whole session in a complex political negotiation, I don't see why there should be less XP than a whole session on a life-or-death struggle to survive. Or a whole session on the characters taking a break and relaxing, just RPing how they spend their time. 

I don't even like rewarding in-game success over in-game failure, because failure is often highly entertaining. If the negotiations fail and the characters now have to prepare for war, how is that "less fun" then the negotiations succeeding due to the cleverness of the PCs and now they have to deal with new allies?

XP is, then, just a mechanism for gradually escalating the scale at which the PCs act and their options. I see little reason not to just set a flat rate or have level ups occur at moments I (we, they) deem appropriate. 

It's everyone's duty to keep things interesting. If that's not happening, the game has a group-level problem, not a mechanics-level problem.


----------



## buzz (Jan 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But if you want to play that kind of game, why not just load up a CRPG or a MMORPG?



Because CRPGs/MMORPGs still aren't as enjoyable as interacting with real people together at a table, all using their brains in a collective, creative pastime. Just because a game is challenge-focused doesn't mean that it's no better than a video game.

I'd actually flip the question around on you and ask: If you're not interested in challenge/combat, level-up play, why are you playing an RPG (D&D) focused on delivering challenge/combat, level-up play?

(I've asked my D&D group this very question in the past, because there are a couple people in our group that are not particularly rules or tactics folk. The typical answers I get are rooted in nostalgia and familiarity. The fact that the RAW don't provide them with the play experience they often want, strangely enough, doesn't seem to phase them.)

Everything that I've been saying in this thread—and I think a lot of what some others have been saying—is all within the context of D&D. Change to a different RPG that's focused on a different play style, and I'll likely answer differently.


----------



## buzz (Jan 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> In a level system, I'd probably just have them level up at arbitrarily designated "storyline escalation" milestones, or whenever they got around to asking about leveling up.



For me, having advancement solely in the hands of the DM really puts me off. Definitely not the kind of D&D that I enjoy.

OTOH, I could totally see doing this in a game of _Spirit of the Century_ ("How about we all add two more Aspects? I think it's time").


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> .
> I'd actually flip the question around on you and ask: If you're not interested in challenge/combat, level-up play, why are you playing an RPG (D&D) focused on delivering challenge/combat, level-up play?




Because I'm not convinced that's all D&D can do, or the only way to do D&D "properly." It's also not all that much work to modify to taste. It's not that big of a gap.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What if you defined what those things were and rewarded XP for that?
> 
> Or another step further - defined those enjoyable moments, rewarded something that makes those moments more possible?
> 
> ...



Say, you might be on to something...

I formally ditched "XP as reward" in my last campaign because I knew full and well that I couldn't be a unbiased judge; I'd reward people for playing the game _my way_. Which wouldn't work seeing as I DM for a group where each player enjoys a different aspect of the game.

But let's say I awarded Action Points to players for doing what _they_ enjoyed most; butt-kickers would get AP's for butt-kicking, immersion-ophiles for playing whole scenes in character, schemers for scheming... that would rock. Not only is it rewarding players for playing the way they see fit, it rewards taking risks. The more proactive you are, the more resources you accumulate. 

Thank you. I really think I might use this in my next campaign.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> For me, having advancement solely in the hands of the DM really puts me off. Definitely not the kind of D&D that I enjoy.
> 
> OTOH, I could totally see doing this in a game of _Spirit of the Century_ ("How about we all add two more Aspects? I think it's time").



Out of curiosity, what difference does the system make? Isn't how much you trust the person running the game the deciding factor?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> If the D&D loop (be good at killing monsters so you'll get XP, than level up and fight bigger monsters with bigger tools)...



Reductive much?


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Jan 11, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Say, you might be on to something...
> 
> I formally ditched "XP as reward" in my last campaign because I knew full and well that I couldn't be a unbiased judge; I'd reward people for playing the game _my way_. Which wouldn't work seeing as I DM for a group where each player enjoys a different aspect of the game.
> 
> ...




Or you could do it more democratically, removing the idea of the DM as judge entirely.  At the beginning of the session, hand each of the players five poker chips, and keep five for yourself.  Whenever one player likes something another player does, he hands that player a chip.  Redeem all poker chips for experience at the end of the game.  This encourages the players not just to do the things they like, but to dabble in doing things all the other players like.

Also, I'm really on a crusade for physical tokens as meta-game elements at the moment.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2008)

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> At the beginning of the session, hand each of the players five poker chips, and keep five for yourself.  Whenever one player likes something another player does, he hands that player a chip.  Redeem all poker chips for experience at the end of the game.  This encourages the players not just to do the things they like, but to dabble in doing things all the other players like.



Good idea! But I'd definitely would be handing out AP's or something like them. A finer-grained, immediately usable resource.


----------



## buzz (Jan 11, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> But let's say I awarded Action Points to players for doing what _they_ enjoyed most; butt-kickers would get AP's for butt-kicking, immersion-ophiles for playing whole scenes in character, schemers for scheming... that would rock. Not only is it rewarding players for playing the way they see fit, it rewards taking risks. The more proactive you are, the more resources you accumulate.



I agree; Action Points are a much better "encourage the fun" reward than XP.


----------



## buzz (Jan 11, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what difference does the system make? Isn't how much you trust the person running the game the deciding factor?



IMO, because D&D is largely about tactics and system mastery, so I really want XP rewards to be tied to what I'm able to accomplish in-game. E.g., my Monday game has been going for almost five years, and we're getting close to 20th level. I really, really like that my PC has _earned_ his XP by genuinely overcoming the challenges the DM has been throwing at us. It validates the effort I've put into mastering the system and keeping that PC alive for so long. If I got XP just for showing up, at the DM's whimsy, and regardless of what happened in the game, it'd feel like a waste of time to me.

SotC, otoh, is largely about emulating (and reveling in) the pulp genre. I.e., you make cool, pulpy PCs that do cool, pulpy things as part of creating a cool, pulpy story. There aren't really even any rules for advancement in the rulebook. The system is simple and powerful, and playing is typically not an exercise in tactics. Ergo, I'd be fine with a game that just focused on different power levels, shifting gears every so often. "Let's be scrappy newcomers!" "Okay, now let's be seasoned, world-famous adventurers!"

That said, I'd probably prefer it if advancement happened organically, i.e., in-game events justified adding a new Aspect or two.


----------



## buzz (Jan 11, 2008)

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> Or you could do it more democratically, removing the idea of the DM as judge entirely.  At the beginning of the session, hand each of the players five poker chips, and keep five for yourself.  Whenever one player likes something another player does, he hands that player a chip.  Redeem all poker chips for experience at the end of the game.  This encourages the players not just to do the things they like, but to dabble in doing things all the other players like.
> 
> Also, I'm really on a crusade for physical tokens as meta-game elements at the moment.



Tokens rule, as does letting players reward each other.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> IMO, because D&D is largely about tactics and system mastery, so I really want XP rewards to be tied to what I'm able to accomplish in-game.



That makes sense. My D&D isn't like that, but I see where you're coming from; all of D&D to you is more like what I'd label "tournament play".



> SotC, otoh, is largely about emulating (and reveling in) the pulp genre. I.e., you make cool, pulpy PCs that do cool, pulpy things as part of creating a cool, pulpy story.



I play every RPG like you play SotC.


----------



## marune (Jan 11, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I play every RPG like you play SotC.




That's called "simulationist" and your "tournament play" is called "gamist".

Problem is, D&D is built (4e even more) to support gamist more than simulationist play (which is known to be a problematic play style, but I won't go in details here). 

Classes, *levels *, XP based on overcoming challenges, CRs, and abstract HPs are the most gamists concepts of D&D.

D&D also doesn't support at all a "narrativist" play where the goal is to do collaborative story-building.

That doesn't mean a specific group can't do it anyway, only that it would be easier to do it with a game built to support the given playstyle.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 11, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> But let's say I awarded Action Points to players for doing what _they_ enjoyed most; butt-kickers would get AP's for butt-kicking, immersion-ophiles for playing whole scenes in character, schemers for scheming... that would rock. Not only is it rewarding players for playing the way they see fit, it rewards taking risks. The more proactive you are, the more resources you accumulate.




Yeah, something like that!  I wasn't clear enough in the first post - I meant it to be a group award; when the DM looks around the table and sees _everyone_ into whatever the player just did, then he hands out the action point.

edit: Oh yeah, and I'd retain whatever system you use for levelling, just tacking this on top of things.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> That's called "simulationist" and your "tournament play" is called "gamist".



I reject your possibly Forge-inspired terms and substitute my own . 



> Problem is, D&D is built (4e even more) to support gamist more than simulationist play



On this we agree.  



> Classes, *levels *, XP based on overcoming challenges, and CRs are the most gamists concepts of D&D.



This too.



> D&D also doesn't support at all a "narrativist" play where the goal is to do collaborative story-building.



But here I couldn't disagree more. I don't need rules that act on the game narrative directly in order to create an enjoyable game narrative with my players. I like (basically) working with a low-level, primarily physical-task resolution system. I'm not sure I want rules all up in the story-space of the game. Let that all be handled through unmediated negotiations with the players.



> That doesn't mean a specific group can't do it anyway, only that it would be easier to do it with a game built to support the given playstyle.



D&D's benign neglect for story-driven play works fine me.


----------



## marune (Jan 11, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I reject your possibly Forge-inspired terms and substitute my own .




The idea to have a glossary is to avoid to re-explain the same thing in every topic   



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> But here I couldn't disagree more. I don't need rules that act on the game narrative directly in order to create an enjoyable game narrative with my players. I like (basically) working with a low-level, primarily physical-task resolution system. I'm not sure I want rules all up in the story-space of the game. Let that all be handled through unmediated negotiations with the players.




The idea is to have a system, including a reward sub-system that positively support the playstyle the game is built around. In D&D, if you give XP by RAW, the players are better to use the best strategy available for them to overcome the challenges, not doing what their character "should do" (sim) or what would give the best story (nar).


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> The idea is to have a system, including a reward sub-system that positively support the playstyle the game is built around. In D&D, if you give XP by RAW, the players are better to use the best strategy available for them to overcome the challenges, not doing what their character "should do" (sim) or what would give the best story (nar).




If all it takes to change the style of the game one way or the other is to mod the XP rules, then surely D&D can't be that far off?

Also, continuum.


----------



## marune (Jan 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> If all it takes to change the style of the game one way or the other is to mod the XP rules, then surely D&D can't be that far off?




The reward system is important because it's the engine. However, if you only change that component, others will get in the way.

For example, both for sim or nar play, levels don't really make sense.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 11, 2008)

_Continuum_.


----------



## marune (Jan 11, 2008)

Maybe it's time to say again that the idea that started this discussion about "what D&D is" is that the main explanation for cheating is players or DM wanting something else of D&D than a good-old fantasy gamist RPG.

IMHO, adding Actions Points won't help, because it will help those people get rid of some of the symptoms without having a real cure.

In a gamist perspective however, Actions Points are fun because they can give a little boon after some loosy rolls.


----------



## Raloc (Jan 12, 2008)

I still don't think Rule 0 (being *in the rules*) constitutes cheating.  By definition, if it's in the rules, it can't be cheating.


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

Raloc said:
			
		

> I still don't think Rule 0 (being *in the rules*) constitutes cheating.  By definition, if it's in the rules, it can't be cheating.




Rule 0 is as stupid in D&D than in Monopoly.

Of course you can change any damn game if all the people around the table agree to it, don't need to write it down anywhere.

You only need to remember that this "changed game" hasn't been tested and that the average player doesn't have the knowlege & experience of the original designer -> YMMV.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 12, 2008)

But D&D is a fundamentally different kind of game than Monopoly. So are all RPGs. 

Man, the original D&D would have eaten you alive. There were barely rules for _anything_ back then. GMs were making stuff up left and right! House ruling wasn't just something you _could_ do, it was something you were _expected_ and _encouraged_ to do.


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But D&D is a fundamentally different kind of game than Monopoly. So are all RPGs.




Yeah, RPG have an imagined shared space, board games don't.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Man, the original D&D would have eaten you alive. There were barely rules for _anything_ back then. GMs were making stuff up left and right! House ruling wasn't just something you _could_ do, it was something you were _expected_ and _encouraged_ to do.




I would say that DMs were probably making too many rules, mainly "simulationist" kind of rules that aren't needed at all in D&D (think "what happens if while I'm wearing X, Y spell is cast on me while Z is affecting me").

Since I started under 2E, I can't say how many relevant rules/guidelines were missing back at this time.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 12, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I would say that DMs were probably making too many rules, mainly "simulationist" kind of rules that aren't needed at all in D&D (think "what happens if while I'm wearing X, Y spell is cast on me while Z is affecting me").
> 
> Since I started under 2E, I can't say how many relevant rules/guidelines were missing back at this time.




Look, dude, I like the Forge as much as the next guy, but you have to remember the Narrative/Simulation/Gamist tracks are meant to be _continuums_, not mutually exclusive paradigms. Most games will have a mixture of them except the absolutely razor-focused indie games. D&D is not exclusively "Gamist" and even if it was, Gamism does not demand rigid restrictions on GM discretion.

As far as I can tell, the "GM is as rigidly bound by the rules as the players" idea is recent, a quirk of 3.x's exceptional number of rules for things and how awesome Burning Empires is. No other game to my knowledge would establish a set of treasure and encounter tables that GMs were _bound_ to obey. In fact, I somehow doubt the 3e DMG's don't have words like "Suggestion" and "Guideline" and "Optional" there. 

How is a GM supposed to build his world if he's rigidly bound to, say, the Demographics rules in the DMG? How could I make a wasteland of scattered settlements and ruined cities if I'm _obligated_ to have a certain number of priests or a certain number of magic item stores per square mile?

That's just silly. 

EDIT: And it's definitely _not_ gamism, since Gamism in many ways harkens back to the beginning of the hobby, and I distinctly remember world building being encouraged, the DM's word being final, everything being subject to his alteration and discretion...


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Look, dude, I like the Forge as much as the next guy, but you have to remember the Narrative/Simulation/Gamist tracks are meant to be _continuums_, not mutually exclusive paradigms. Most games will have a mixture of them except the absolutely razor-focused indie games. D&D is not exclusively "Gamist" and even if it was, Gamism does not demand rigid restrictions on GM discretion.




I always said that D&D is a somewhat incoherent gamist/sim game. (4e seems to be more gamist focused)

I'm well aware that gamism can be done "on the fly" without any restrictions.

My last post only said that the idea of coming up with a ton of stuff to rule out every possible thing that could happen in the fantasy world is a bad sim habit.


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, the "GM is as rigidly bound by the rules as the players" idea is recent, a quirk of 3.x's exceptional number of rules for things and how awesome Burning Empires is. No other game to my knowledge would establish a set of treasure and encounter tables that GMs were _bound_ to obey. In fact, I somehow doubt the 3e DMG's don't have words like "Suggestion" and "Guideline" and "Optional" there.




I'm also well aware that they are named wealth _guidelines_, however, the fact that the CR system is built according to these guidelines make them de facto more than vague suggestions.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> How is a GM supposed to build his world if he's rigidly bound to, say, the Demographics rules in the DMG? How could I make a wasteland of scattered settlements and ruined cities if I'm obligated to have a certain number of priests or a certain number of magic item stores per square mile?




The only gamist relevant impact the Demographics rules have is the acessibility of good and services (done by NPCs), including loot selling.

Again, since the CR system is built around the idea that the PCs will have access to these services/goods...

Of course it would be easy to ignore them and find another way to be sure the PCs have the appropriate stuff for their level.

If that's not enough, you could ditch the CR entirely and do all the work yourself to estimate the challenge of the different monsters, given the fact that the PCs doesn't folllow the wealth guidelines. YMMV.

Edit : BTW, you can have world-building and gamism, in fact I think that D&D with it's detailled settings is a good game to have an high-exploration gamist play.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 12, 2008)

Then the CR system is bunk, and should be ignored.


----------



## neceros (Jan 12, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> It is, though. The rules say that you roll 1d20 and add the BAB to determine the attack roll and compare it against the target's AC to determine if the attack roll hits. If your DM rolls a d20, adds it up, and determines that it was a hit, but decides that he really doesn't want the monster to hit so he spontaneously decides it's a miss instead, that's cheating. Cheating is defined as "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" and that's exactly what the DM is doing.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying it's bad. Too many people see the word "cheating" and their brains translate it to "badwrongevilmustkillKILLKILL!!!!". It's a loaded word. Unload it for the purpose of this discussion. The original poster and his point are talking about the _dictionary_ definition of cheating - violating the rules deliberately - rather than the loaded "all cheaters are evil SOBs that deserve to die" that most people instantly associate with the word.



DMG, pg 18


> The DM can't really cheat: they are the umpire, what you say goes. It's not fun to let a random die roll sway the tide of a game. Default rule is don't let a PC die due to a die roll gone awry. The main issue here is that everyone has fun playing the game. If you don't want to cheat then don't, but it's not something horrible if you do.


----------



## Rel (Jan 12, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Rule 0 is as stupid in D&D than in Monopoly.
> 
> Of course you can change any damn game if all the people around the table agree to it, don't need to write it down anywhere.
> 
> You only need to remember that this "changed game" hasn't been tested and that the average player doesn't have the knowlege & experience of the original designer -> YMMV.




I think that Rule 0 is a great tool that you hopefully don't need to use very often.  Not because I think that strict adherence to the rules is key, but because there are times when an off the cuff call NOW is much better than a "by the book" call made after 5 minutes of flipping pages.  In those situations, I think it's handy for the GM to have something to point to if a Rules Lawyer among the players tries to hassle him.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 12, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> I think that Rule 0 is a great tool that you hopefully don't need to use very often.  Not because I think that strict adherence to the rules is key, but because there are times when an off the cuff call NOW is much better than a "by the book" call made after 5 minutes of flipping pages.  In those situations, I think it's handy for the GM to have something to point to if a Rules Lawyer among the players tries to hassle him.



I agree, its what seperates d and d from settlers of cataan or monopoly. WHenever one of these threads starts up, its usually because a player has experienced a bad time with it.  WHen i write modules, i have begun putting in places where a dm can fiat (such as insert previously encountered villian or make this item an item the pcs have encountered in the past.)


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> because there are times when an off the cuff call NOW is much better than a "by the book" call made after 5 minutes of flipping pages.




Like in all complex games, board games included ?


----------



## Rel (Jan 12, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Like in all complex games, board games included ?




Possibly.  There are probably a good many board games that would benefit from having Rule 0 included as well. 

But one key difference is that most board games are competitive between the players.  RPG's are generally not.  One reason why such lattitude is generally given to the GM to make off the cuff rulings is that it is supposed that he's doing it to make the game more enjoyable for everybody.


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> Possibly.  There are probably a good many board games that would benefit from having Rule 0 included as well.




My point was "every damn game can be house-ruled if all people around the table agree, there is no need to write it down".



			
				Rel said:
			
		

> But one key difference is that most board games are competitive between the players.  RPG's are generally not.




Even if in board games the competition is between each players (instead of players "agains't" DM in D&D) the idea is that if everyone agree at the table for something, of course they can do it. (However, they may well discover later that the change they made broke something else in the game)



			
				Rel said:
			
		

> One reason why such lattitude is generally given to the GM to make off the cuff rulings is that it is supposed that he's doing it to make the game more enjoyable for everybody.




The problem is he can't do it alone, and that strange idea has caused abusive DM for years.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 12, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> Possibly.  There are probably a good many board games that would benefit from having Rule 0 included as well.
> 
> But one key difference is that most board games are competitive between the players.  RPG's are generally not.  One reason why such lattitude is generally given to the GM to make off the cuff rulings is that it is supposed that he's doing it to make the game more enjoyable for everybody.



As an even bigger board game collector than i am a dungeon master, i can attest that breaking to look for rules in a board game is the NUMBER 1 way to make sure that game never comes out again, especially with newbies.  

Again though, this depends on how competitive you are at d and d.  My way of play says d and d is not adversarial, so i don't have players who challenge my interpretation of the rules becuase no ones trying to win at it. 

The more i look at it, the more this discussion actually  feels like a preference of where your playstyle lies as far as game and roleplaying.  

My number one rule as a dm is to never break the emersion.  The minute rules begin you stop role playing and begin remembering its a game and we play dungeons and dragons to get away from the board game feel, else there's a dozen rpg board games like runebound and shadow of the emperor we could play.  

Because of the large amount of rules in dungeons and dragons, it is not built to be played like a board game.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 12, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> The problem is he can't do it alone, and that strange idea has caused abusive DM for years.




He can totally do it alone. In fact, it is a necessity of his duties. Now, misused, this power can lead to abuse- but if you can't trust your GM, why play with him?


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> He can totally do it alone. In fact, it is a necessity of his duties. Now, misused, this power can lead to abuse- but if you can't trust your GM, why play with him?




Because more than often alone = to ignore what players feel about it.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 12, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Because more than often alone = to ignore what players feel about it.




Not at all. I feel sorry if that is your experience, but it is by no means a guarantee.


----------



## Rel (Jan 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Not at all. I feel sorry if that is your experience, but it is by no means a guarantee.




My sentiments precisely.  However I think what I'm hearing from skeptic (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that while Rule 0 may help protect the GM and the group from a bad Rules Lawyer that it may also promote an Abusive GM.  All the more reason that everybody in the group be open and communicative about their preference in playstyle in my opinion.


----------



## buzz (Jan 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Look, dude, I like the Forge as much as the next guy, but you have to remember the Narrative/Simulation/Gamist tracks are meant to be _continuums_, not mutually exclusive paradigms. Most games will have a mixture of them except the absolutely razor-focused indie games. D&D is not exclusively "Gamist" and even if it was, Gamism does not demand rigid restrictions on GM discretion.



Keep in mind that Forge-GNS are each player agendas that you observe over time. Saying an RPG is GNS-Gamist is a bit of a bastardization of the terminology, since the terminology applies to people and not the RPGs themselves. But, obviously, we talk about what agendas different RPGs support best, and the Forge school of design does generally aim to have G, N, or S in mind and then design to support that. Hence the "razor-focus" of a lot of indie games.

That said, I admit that I have bought into the indie perspective, so when I look at D&D, I see a game that supports GNS-Gamism more than anything else. Ergo, I usually don't look to drift D&D from that perspective. I also notice that most of the people in my group are happiest when we stick to that route while playing D&D.

So, I am no way saying that you _can't_ pursue one of the other GNS agendas while playing D&D; people have been doing so for decades. I just don't really enjoy doing it any more, because I usually end up having more fun playing a game that embraces GNS-S or -N out of the gate. I also get frustrated investing the effort into D&D's inherent tactics-crunchiness, and then spend a session not rolling any dice all night, or doing things that have no bearing on the numbers on my character sheet.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> In fact, I somehow doubt the 3e DMG's don't have words like "Suggestion" and "Guideline" and "Optional" there.



The 3.5 DMG is actually pretty explicit about sticking to the rules-as-written. Despite the passage on p.18 that talks about fudging, p.14 advises the DM to be very cautious about changing any rules, and definitely to avoid doing so mid-game.

I think the design and development staff, admittedly out of necessity, assume that DMs will be following the RAW when they create adventure and supplement products.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> How is a GM supposed to build his world if he's rigidly bound to, say, the Demographics rules in the DMG? How could I make a wasteland of scattered settlements and ruined cities if I'm _obligated_ to have a certain number of priests or a certain number of magic item stores per square mile?



The DMG doesn't actually dictate this. The random town generators, e.g., are labeled as optional. I also don't think these parts of D&D are the primary focus of the discussion here.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> EDIT: And it's definitely _not_ gamism, since Gamism in many ways harkens back to the beginning of the hobby, and I distinctly remember world building being encouraged, the DM's word being final, everything being subject to his alteration and discretion...



Well, in Forge thinking, that early world-building advice in the 1e DMG is full-on GNS-Sim, not G. If anything, it's the prototype for GNS-Sim design in RPGs.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 12, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> My sentiments precisely.  However I think what I'm hearing from skeptic (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that while Rule 0 may help protect the GM and the group from a bad Rules Lawyer that it may also promote an Abusive GM.  All the more reason that everybody in the group be open and communicative about their preference in playstyle in my opinion.




In fact, you need rule zero, as already pointed out. If you have a DM who likes to bully his players around, just don´t play with him. In general you need cheating. Why? because a critical hit with an axe does tripple damage... it will kill a seriously wounded character... 

why not saying: he hits you on the head and you are down to -8 hp... you need not do it secretly... I usually ask my players how much hp they have if I think they are very low... and if I hit them with a crit, I may subtract 1 or two points of damage that he will not be dead instantly.

And if you let your BBEG survive (very badly wounded) a very very lucky something while he was just showing himself... it is (sometimes) ok too...
...or it shows out, that it was just his 1st officer in disguise...

I can´t imagine a worse scenario than your BBEG dying in the first minutes of your gaming session...

I also had good very good adventures, both as player and as DM, where I decided that no matter what direction my group goes, they will find something (if they do it because of good reasoning)... when that´s not cheating... but sometimes it turns out, that the reasoning of 5 players is a lot more logical than your approach, and not adapting to this situation will definitely ruin your game...


----------



## marune (Jan 12, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> ...




I agree with buzz


----------



## buzz (Jan 13, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I agree with buzz



My cult grows!


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 13, 2008)

Eh, I stick to the RAW for the most part anyway, but I'm not bothered by selectively applying them, introducing exceptions and such. Comprehensive as they are, the stuff that happens in games often has no clear answer in the rules. 

And for the sake of time, I'll skip over stuff that would normally require some rolls. Instead of looking up a chart of modifiers, I'll just eyeball something. Stuff like that.


----------



## Lurker37 (Jan 14, 2008)

WARNING: Large amount of text ahead. Contains personal bias. 

I'd like to present an example of what can happen when everyone goes by the dice, without any discretion whatsoever.

Many years ago, I was in a game (not D&D) inspired by a popular fiction series all the players and the GM were fans of. One aspect we particularly enjoyed was when we interacted with certain characters from the series, as the GM was very good at playing them. He really brought them to life, and kept them to character. We had ties to some of these characters, and one was actually our PCs' day-job employer. ( If she knew of our sideline, she never spoke about it. )

Thus when our characters' employer was kidnapped, they of course went to save her.

At the pivotal, do-or-she-dies moment, I rolled a fumble. The system had a luck point system, but it couldn't turn a fumble into a success - just convert it to a normal failure.

Our GM (No, I don't mean DM - this wasn't D&D) went strictly by the book back in those days. No fudging. No exceptions.

As I said, it was the pivotal moment - we'd all acted that round, the next action was the villain's.

The GM took a break for a few minutes trying to think of an out. We weren't meant to fail. He'd awarded luck points mid-session to ensure we had some up our sleeve, so nothing short of a fumble could have stopped us. Unfortunately the villain's declared action didn't require a dice roll since the hostage was in his hands and unconscious. 

In order for us to prevail, either that fumble would need to be somehow re-interpreted as a success that carried a drawback, or someone would need to be somehow granted an extra action on the spot. Neither was allowed for in the RAW.

So, when play resumed, my attempted action failed and the villain executed the hostage - a central character from the setting, and a major person in the PC's lives.

We played out the session, including the funeral, and despite a heroic effort by the GM we all, GM included, went home feeling quite dissatisfied with how things had gone. And we never played another session of that campaign, or that system, again.

A single dice roll had ended the campaign.

So, for those taking a strict no-fudging policy, who insist that GMs should stick strictly to the rules no matter what: I hold this up as an example of how that can be a bad thing for a campaign.

Nowadays, we'd probably rule that the fumble meant that we saved the hostage, but the roller of the fumble would have suffered a serious injury (as in surgery and hospital time required) in the process. The fumble would still have weight, but in a way not spelled out by the rules. Some people will arguing that this is cheating. My question to this is: "Who, exactly, is having their enjoyment of the game diminished by this?"

You see, I think that the previously-stated definition of cheating is missing a critical component. For me, cheating is an act of deliberately breaking the rules of a game _at the expense of another player._ Exercising a power of discretion explicitly granted by the rules is not breaking them, and a good GM will use it to enhance his (or her) player's enjoyment of the game, not diminish it.

So yes, I am in favour of a mechanic that grants players a limited ability to overrule the dice. I don't regard it as cheating. I regard it as a necessity to prevent a bad dice roll at a critical moment from derailing an evening's fun. And I firmly believe that any GM/ST/DM/Ref should always be able to override game mechanics.

You see, I've seen what can happen when they don't.


----------



## Jinete (Jan 14, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Nowadays, we'd probably rule that the fumble meant that we saved the hostage, but the roller of the fumble would have suffered a serious injury (as in surgery and hospital time required) in the process. The fumble would still have weight, but in a way not spelled out by the rules. Some people will arguing that this is cheating. My question to this is: "Who, exactly, is having their enjoyment of the game diminished by this?"
> <snip>




If I get the feeling that the DM is fumbling his die rolls and/or finding ways to turn my fumbles into successes it diminishes my enjoyment of the game. It always leaves a kind of bitter "undeserved victory" aftertaste. Of course it's not as bad as having your character die, or a whole campaign end, but it still sucks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 14, 2008)

I agree with buzz... rules should not be changed midgame, but sometimes you should be lenient when you are executing them...



			
				Jinete said:
			
		

> If I get the feeling that the DM is fumbling his die rolls and/or finding ways to turn my fumbles into successes it diminishes my enjoyment of the game. It always leaves a kind of bitter "undeserved victory" aftertaste. Of course it's not as bad as having your character die, or a whole campaign end, but it still sucks.




if the DM is good, you won´t ever have an undeserved win. My rule as a DM can be described as following:

If the PCs don´t act as complete fools, they won´t die because of a very unlucky roll. If they do, bad luck hits them mercilessly... if they have particular good ideas they may get get some bonuses, which account for their good roleplaying. 
Call it cheating or fudging or conditional bonuses of a different sort.

The fumble in the example above could have just hit the unconsciuos employer, and the luck bonus spent could have meant, that the enemy was so surprised, that he lets him go, or is even also hit by the arrow which shot right through the hostage...

and instead of a funeral, you could have brought him to a healer etc...


----------



## Jinete (Jan 14, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> if the DM is good, you won´t ever have an undeserved win. My rule as a DM can be described as following:
> 
> If the PCs don´t act as complete fools, they won´t die because of a very unlucky roll. If they do, bad luck hits them mercilessly... if they have particular good ideas they may get get some bonuses, which account for their good roleplaying.
> Call it cheating or fudging or conditional bonuses of a different sort.
> ...




IMO DM fudging should be very rare and unnecessary. The rules themselves should never allow that the fate of a character or campaign relies on a single die roll.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 14, 2008)

Jinete said:
			
		

> IMO DM fudging should be very rare and unnecessary. The rules themselves should never allow that the fate of a character or campaign relies on a single die roll.




And this is why I am looking foreward to 4e. In 3.x at first Level a crit from an Orc with a great axe meant certain dead, and later Levels were more or less unplayable if characters were not protected vs death magic. 

Max damage for crits and double damage for special attacks will make sure that you never accidently kill a character... 
but you could ask yourself if it is less fudging to hold back your 1/encounter double damage power for no reason...  

And even though I admited to fudge (only with good intentions...) I am usually doining it only in very unlucky situations... and later, when resurrection is available, I am even more hesitant to fudge anything.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 14, 2008)

The thing is, deciding the stakes and consequences of a die roll is the GM's job anyway. You can always rule some different calamity occurs as a result of a fumble, particularly once you take into account the idea that there are other things PCs can lose besides their lives.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 14, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Rule 0 is as stupid in D&D than in Monopoly.
> Of course you can change any damn game if all the people around the table agree to it, don't need to write it down anywhere.




You might see this as transparent and obvious but there are people that really do need a section that gives them 'permission' to change the rules set down in black and white. I've seen it first hand, especially with new players as one might expect, but it's also a great way to defuse any argument with a player who seems to feel that because it's in the RAW that you can't change it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 14, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> A single dice roll had ended the campaign.




This sort of this is the major reason I love action points/hero points/bennies/whatever. After playing Savage Worlds, 7th Sea, Eberron, and Mutants and Masterminds, it's highly unlikely I will play in a game that _doesn't_ feature action points in some manner.

I like the Savage Worlds and 7th Sea systems where the _GM_ gets action points as well. In 7th Sea you can spend hero points but when you do, they go to the GM to use for _his _ characters, though I think he only gets to spend them in certain ways. It's been several years since I played it so my recollection is fuzzy.

Savage Worlds with the Adventure Deck was quite a bit of fun since there are cards in there that let you mess with the _GM's_ cards or bennies. They had a big climatic fight against a vampire priestess and she was down to one bennie; I started to use it to keep her from that final Wound but one of the players grins and slaps down that card, confiscating my lone bennie. Funny, funny, funny.


----------



## Rel (Jan 14, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> So yes, I am in favour of a mechanic that grants players a limited ability to overrule the dice. I don't regard it as cheating. I regard it as a necessity to prevent a bad dice roll at a critical moment from derailing an evening's fun. And I firmly believe that any GM/ST/DM/Ref should always be able to override game mechanics.
> 
> You see, I've seen what can happen when they don't.




I also like a mechanic that grants a limited ability to overrule the dice.  This is usually in the form of action points or something similar.  Sometimes PC's will have innate abilities like Heroic Surge that lets them take an extra action at some critical moment.  But when all is said and done I like to let the dice fall where they may.

Whether that leads to a success or failure of a campaign is, in my opinion, largely a matter of player expectations.  My players know that I'm not out to screw them over but that sometimes bad luck can bite you.  The deck is stacked in their favor by virtue of all kinds of things.  But once in a while you get that moment where a confluence of bad circumstances and rotten dice rolls will kill off a PC (or beloved NPC or hated NPC or somebody else important).

My experience has been (as you'd probably expect) that the more beloved the PC, the more this impacts the storyline.  But not necessarily negatively.  There have been times when the other PC's will drop everything and undertake whatever quests or actions are necessary to bring the PC back to life.  Other times they seek vengeance on whatever group or individual killed the character.  Still other times they will press forward with whatever goals and ideals were championed by the fallen PC.  Any and all of these things have strengthened my games, not ended them.

However I say that while again underscoring that the players are ON BOARD with this.  They, like me, feel that their victories are all the sweeter for having won them when they know they could have died.  And their rare defeats are plot hooks, not plot stoppers.


----------



## buzz (Jan 14, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> So, for those taking a strict no-fudging policy, who insist that GMs should stick strictly to the rules no matter what: I hold this up as an example of how that can be a bad thing for a campaign.



Well, first, I think this is more an indictment of the RPG in question than fudging/not-fudging. Your group had certain expectations that were not shared by the rule system (possibly due to a bait-and-switch on the part of the RPG, which is pretty common).

That said, if your group wasn't looking to deal with the consequences of failure, I'm not sure why failure was on the table in the first place. What was the point of playing out the hostage situation if no one wanted any chance of losing?

And even if it was a campaign-ending moment where a major character got killed... isn't that pretty dramatic? What's wrong with a story that doesn't end happily? It obviously had a big impact on the group, and isn't that worth something?



			
				Lurker37 said:
			
		

> So yes, I am in favour of a mechanic that grants players a limited ability to overrule the dice.



I agree that it's a simple way to "patch" games to make them more story-centric.


----------



## buzz (Jan 14, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> The thing is, deciding the stakes and consequences of a die roll is the GM's job anyway.



Depends on the game. There is no stakes-setting in D&D as-written, and most consequences are outlined in the rules. E.g., failing a save vs a given spell is always going to have the effect given in the spell's description. Failing a Jump check means the PC doesn't clear the distance (or can make a Ref check to grab the ledge if they fail by 5 or less), and then the existing terrain dictates what occurs after that.

Expanding a die roll's scope beyond the task level in D&D is changing the rules.


----------



## marune (Jan 14, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> I agree that it's a simple way to "patch" games to make them more story-centric.




"patch" is too nice to describe Illusionism/Participationism


----------



## Raloc (Jan 14, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Rule 0 is as stupid in D&D than in Monopoly.
> 
> Of course you can change any damn game if all the people around the table agree to it, don't need to write it down anywhere.
> 
> You only need to remember that this "changed game" hasn't been tested and that the average player doesn't have the knowlege & experience of the original designer -> YMMV.



Never the less, it's in the rules, so claiming it's "cheating" is simply false.

Also, I don't use the CR system, since it's largely crappy anyway, and thus have no problems using other advancement/treasure/etc. rules without issue.  My players have fun in my games, and haven't complained, so I must be doing something right (and I've *never* had anyone accuse me of cheating by using DM powers to rule on something...never).

If you have an abusive DM, s/he is going to be unfun to play with regardless of the rules.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 14, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> That said, if your group wasn't looking to deal with the consequences of failure, I'm not sure why failure was on the table in the first place. What was the point of playing out the hostage situation if no one wanted any chance of losing?




That was a great analysis to the issue. Why have the stake in a resolution that would destroy the game.

Either the resolution result is an illusion (the DM basically has it so they really cant fail in which case why roll dice at all) or the result is disastrous.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 14, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Well, first, I think this is more an indictment of the RPG in question than fudging/not-fudging. Your group had certain expectations that were not shared by the rule system (possibly due to a bait-and-switch on the part of the RPG, which is pretty common).
> 
> That said, if your group wasn't looking to deal with the consequences of failure, I'm not sure why failure was on the table in the first place. What was the point of playing out the hostage situation if no one wanted any chance of losing?
> 
> And even if it was a campaign-ending moment where a major character got killed... isn't that pretty dramatic? What's wrong with a story that doesn't end happily? It obviously had a big impact on the group, and isn't that worth something?




I don´t know this situation, and I also think that the situation seemed badly prepared... by DM and by the players... (if they had lost initiative they would have even less chances)

why not using magic/diplomatics etc to calm him down, or surprise etc... but it wasn´t what the players and the DM were expecting and so he should have used rule zero.

If other players feel only victory when some of their PCs were killed, then of course the DM should not fudge... so he uses rule zero to use the rules as written: it is your game, its up to you that players have fun.

And there is never a system which has all rules always fitting for your group, so you have to use the best available... and buzz, i am still on your side...

as to unhappy endings: my players sometimes do such strange (from DM point of view) things that it doesn´t need particularly bad luck for a TPK, but without bad luck on top of dubious actions on the PCs behalf, PC deaths should be rather rare...
... I know some groups (mostly with DMs used to shadowrun) which need new chars every session.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 14, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> That said, if your group wasn't looking to deal with the consequences of failure, I'm not sure why failure was on the table in the first place. What was the point of playing out the hostage situation if no one wanted any chance of losing?




I agree with buzz, but...

If your goal for play is to feel as though your characters were in a Star Wars story or something like that, what do you do?  The Millenium Falcon is not going to be blown up by TIE fighters as it leaves the Death Star.  So what do we do in that fight?  Does the DM handwave it?  Is it played out freeform, without dice or any consequences?

I don't think you could get away without rolling.  The PCs are being shot at, they are in a fight, you need to roll the dice!

I think mook rules - PCs can't be killed, yet they are still "in combat" - would work.  Or powerful Action Points.  

But in the absence of these things, you'll need Rule 0.


----------



## buzz (Jan 14, 2008)

Raloc said:
			
		

> Never the less, it's in the rules, so claiming it's "cheating" is simply false.



I said it above, but Rule 0/"Golden Rule", IIRC, doesn't actually appear in the 3.5 rules. DMG p.18 does sort of point in that direction, though.


----------



## buzz (Jan 14, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> But in the absence of these things, you'll need Rule 0.



The ideal situation would, in your SW example, be a SW RPG where the Falcon getting destroyed simply isn't an option, as that jibes with the SW "genre." 

Unfortunately, a lot of publishers, designers, and even fans assume that, since it's an RPG, it needs to have rules for combat where PCs can die, or tactical movement, or armor piercing attacks, or economics, etc. Simultaneously, you get this basic assumption that ignoring the rules is part-and-parcel of using them, because _of course_ they are never going to produce the results you want with any consistency. I.e., you're playing a game that purports to be Star Wars but still allows PCs to die from random die rolls, which of course makes no sense.

This is precisely why I'm so into wacky indie games and mechanics akin to Action Points in more popular games, as they aim to challenge this very notion. I.e., how about we ditch/subvert the standard design method and make a game that does what it advertises without fudging.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 14, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> The ideal situation would, in your SW example, be a SW RPG where the Falcon getting destroyed simply isn't an option, as that jibes with the SW "genre."
> 
> Unfortunately, a lot of publishers, designers, and even fans assume that, since it's an RPG, it needs to have rules for combat where PCs can die, or tactical movement, or armor piercing attacks, or economics, etc. Simultaneously, you get this basic assumption that ignoring the rules is part-and-parcel of using them, because _of course_ they are never going to produce the results you want with any consistency. I.e., you're playing a game that purports to be Star Wars but still allows PCs to die from random die rolls, which of course makes no sense.
> 
> This is precisely why I'm so into wacky indie games and mechanics akin to Action Points in more popular games, as they aim to challenge this very notion. I.e., how about we ditch/subvert the standard design method and make a game that does what it advertises without fudging.




Another great post and i agree fully. 

If you don't want PC death to be an option, then the game rules should be such that it is not an option. 

If it is important for PC death to be an option (to say create a form of tension) then 'cheating' when it happens to ameliorate this  result makes it all become an illusion.

I tend to really like indie games as they do a nice job of having the mechanics match the mode and style of play.

What I tend to see a lot is the 'illusion of the threat of death' which really doesn't fool anyone involved. 

You see a lot of DMs say "PCs should not die insignificant or meaningless death..against mooks for instance"

In this case either never set up battles between PCs and mooks (if it is a meaningless death then it is a meaningless victory generally speaking) or have rules that state "PCs cannot die because of mooks" or have some form of mechanic (eg action points, PC scene control) that allow a player  to completely negate a meaningless death.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jan 14, 2008)

Raloc said:
			
		

> Never the less, it's in the rules, so claiming it's "cheating" is simply false.



It really does depend on how you define cheating. Players may _feel_ cheated if a DM changes the game in a certain way.

As I see it, the action point mechanic is one way to help players have the control over the game that the DM would normally have to change the otherwise random outcomes of the game. This helps player feel less cheated, either by the dice, the rules, the circumstance or themselves.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jan 14, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, a lot of publishers, designers, and even fans assume that, since it's an RPG, it needs to have rules for combat where PCs can die, or tactical movement, or armor piercing attacks, or economics, etc. Simultaneously, you get this basic assumption that ignoring the rules is part-and-parcel of using them, because _of course_ they are never going to produce the results you want with any consistency. I.e., you're playing a game that purports to be Star Wars but still allows PCs to die from random die rolls, which of course makes no sense.
> 
> This is precisely why I'm so into wacky indie games and mechanics akin to Action Points in more popular games, as they aim to challenge this very notion. I.e., how about we ditch/subvert the standard design method and make a game that does what it advertises without fudging.



Excellently well put.

It also reminds me of the Harlequin adventure for Shadowrun. I believe the authors don't give a rules description of Harlequin for the explicit purpose of preventing the PCs from fighting and killing him.


----------



## Rel (Jan 14, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If your goal for play is to feel as though your characters were in a Star Wars story or something like that, what do you do?  The Millenium Falcon is not going to be blown up by TIE fighters as it leaves the Death Star.  So what do we do in that fight?  Does the DM handwave it?  Is it played out freeform, without dice or any consequences?




The way I tend to run games the Millenium Falcon COULD be blown up by TIE fighters.  It's just exceedingly unlikely that it will.  There are tons of ways to mitigate that sort of thing if you're a creative GM with a decent group of players.

If the ship is faster then chances are it'll only be subject to a few attacks before the PC's have the option to flee (and this is totally within the genre - almost the only thing the Millenium Falcon DOES is flee!).  If it has better armor and shields then the PC's should have a good chance to know if they are in trouble.  If the PC's ship blows up a bunch of TIE fighters then it's plausible that the remaining ones will be called back to the Death Star.  Maybe the bad guys did that because they've planted a homing device on the Millenium Falcon.  If things go really bad then maybe the PC's get tractor beamed back on board the Death Star.  Maybe the ship has escape pods they can use.

There are just tons and tons of ways to get out of this kind of trap.  And if they don't...well our group would probably have a big laugh about it and start rolling up new characters.

That said, one type of game mechanic that I have come to really like is some kind of action point that can be spent to make a "dramatic edit".  Basically the players can rewrite the reality of the game world by spending these points, provided that they spend enough of them and get the GM's approval.  If you've got a group of players that are creative then this can be the ultimate "get out of jail free card" that is a ton of fun to use.

The way I implemented this in my last campaign (Warhammer FRP/Pirates of the Carribean) was that they could spend Fortune Points to do dramatic edits.  A player could spend a single point and say something like, "While we're fighting on the deck of the ship, the enemy pirate steps in a bucket and is at a penalty to all attack rolls until he gets it off his foot!"  They could spend three points and say something like, "The wind shifts and the mizzen boom sweeps across the quarterdeck!  Everybody up there has to make an Agility Test or be swept overboard!"  And the group of players could collectively spend like ten of them to say, "Just as the enemy ship is about to bring their full broadside to bear on us, they hit an uncharted reef!  They are stuck until they can make a bunch of Sailing Tests to get the ship off the reef (thus giving us time to escape!)."

I found that to be a lot more gratifying than just being able to add 1d6 onto a d20 roll.  And it gives the players more flexibility in how they can save themselves if the you-know-what hits the fan.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 14, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> That said, one type of game mechanic that I have come to really like is some kind of action point that can be spent to make a "dramatic edit".  Basically the players can rewrite the reality of the game world by spending these points, provided that they spend enough of them and get the GM's approval.  If you've got a group of players that are creative then this can be the ultimate "get out of jail free card" that is a ton of fun to use.
> 
> The way I implemented this in my last campaign (Warhammer FRP/Pirates of the Carribean) was that they could spend Fortune Points to do dramatic edits.  A player could spend a single point and say something like, "While we're fighting on the deck of the ship, the enemy pirate steps in a bucket and is at a penalty to all attack rolls until he gets it off his foot!"  They could spend three points and say something like, "The wind shifts and the mizzen boom sweeps across the quarterdeck!  Everybody up there has to make an Agility Test or be swept overboard!"  And the group of players could collectively spend like ten of them to say, "Just as the enemy ship is about to bring their full broadside to bear on us, they hit an uncharted reef!  They are stuck until they can make a bunch of Sailing Tests to get the ship off the reef (thus giving us time to escape!)."
> 
> I found that to be a lot more gratifying than just being able to add 1d6 onto a d20 roll.  And it gives the players more flexibility in how they can save themselves if the you-know-what hits the fan.




I think drama points that allow control of the narrative like what you described are a great idea. 

Actually I had thought that they might also be a possible way to balance characters as well (weaker characters get more drama points or while more powerful characters get fewer).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 14, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> I think drama points that allow control of the narrative like what you described are a great idea.




Adventure! had a "Dramatic Editing" system which allowed players to alter plot details as long as they didn't directly contradict anything already stated. You could even get around death if your played your cards right.


----------



## marune (Jan 15, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Actually I had thought that they might also be a possible way to balance characters as well (weaker characters get more drama points or while more powerful characters get fewer).




What kind of balance are you talking about here ?


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 15, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> What kind of balance are you talking about here ?




Well say historically wizards have been more powerful than fighters. Which basically means that they have the ability to impact the narrative to a greater extent than fighters.

One option is to make magic riskier more difficult to use, weaker etc.

Another option is to make the fighter more powerful and have greater impact outside of combat (feats, abilities etc.).

Another option would be to give a larger amount of dramatic points to the fighter (actually to the player but amounts to the same thing).  This would allow characters to have different levels of power but still similar ability to impact the narrative (the ability to impact the narrative relatively equally).

Example (be wary, my examples always basically stink).

A wizard wanting to know something could cast a divination (say clairvoyance or whatever) spell to find out what treasure lies inside the temple. A fighter could use a dramatic point to say that he knows this old hermit at the end of town that he once rescued that used to be a servant in the temple and once snuck into the treasure room and knows whats in there.

Basically use dramatic points to even the playing field. The fighter is still quite a death dealer in one-on-one combat (his shtick) but now has the ability to affect the narrative outside of his specialty.

Say a wizard could basically beat the fighter in a fight, well with some dramatic points the fighter could equalize the scenario (they are fighting on what once was holy ground and magic is far less effective).

Requires a different approach to gaming in some ways (classically defined meta-gaming is no longer a bad thing as it is party of the game)

I am sure someone else could come up with much better examples and mechanics for this.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 15, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Expanding a die roll's scope beyond the task level in D&D is changing the rules.




Nah, the rules not only allow for, but expect, nay, demand some good ol' human discretion.


----------



## buzz (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Nah, the rules not only allow for, but expect, nay, demand some good ol' human discretion.



It's got nothing to do with issues of human discretion. Nowhere in the text is there any mention of declaring intent, setting stakes, and resolving said intent. D&D task resolution is intent-agnostic. If you are adding these elements and expanding the scope of resolution to include them, you are drifting/house-ruling. There is no _expectation_ built into the game that you will do this; if there were, the rules would explicitly work in this manner. On the contrary, the rules assume that you are _not_ doing this, i.e., that you are playing the game as-written. It's the only assumption that is safe for the text to make.

Honestly, it drives me batty how ingrained has become the idea that "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule" is this inherent technique that applies to all RPGs by default, no matter what the actual text says. As I mention upthread, _this is simply a byproduct of the fact that so many RPGs just plain don't do what they advertise, and thus ignoring their mechanics is typically the only way to get an enjoyable play experience out of them._

A likewise pervasive, frustrating assumption is that there's some immutable body of GM techniques that RPGs supposedly assume we "just know" despite never once mentioning them in their text.

I don't mean to seem like I'm jumping on you, Prof. I'm just trying to say "human discretion" does not necessitate "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule". I've ditched the latter from my gaming vocabulary entirely, and I can tell you, my enjoyment of the hobby has increased dramatically as a result.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 15, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> _this is simply a byproduct of the fact that so many RPGs just plain don't do what they advertise, and thus ignoring their mechanics is typically the only way to get an enjoyable play experience out of them._




See, I'll never be able to understand this philosophy. I find games that give me leeway on things very liberating. I like the "GM's Choice" part of a table. In fact, I like it so much, I'd rather have a list of some examples to get me going and no table in the first place. Not only have I found that rigid rulesets meant to "cover all situations" inevitably fail at that task, but it strips all the fun out of a game. I like it when players come up with something new, or when I have an idea I can't represent mechanically but want to introduce anyway. 

Perhaps most importantly, I like putting the mechanics aside when I don't feel they'd add anything to the game. Like skipping a battle- D&D rules, if strictly adhered to, wouldn't allow that. Players might get unlucky! They might use up some of their precious resources! And so on. Note that skipping some battles, or ignoring the mechanics sometimes, or whatever, is a far cry from doing this all the time. When I want a fight, I'll use the rules for a fight...

Just talking about stakes and die rolls. "I stab the barbarian" is one thing, we have damage rules. 

But "I try to deal a mortal wound to the barbarian- but not enough to kill him outright" is another. There the player is trying to set a cap on how much damage he'll do; enough to bring down but not enough to kill. How do you resolve that? As far as I know, the rules say nothing about it, but it seems like a reasonable enough request to me, so I'd wave my hands and "poof!" an arbitrary, whimsical ruling would cover it. Probably add to the barbarians AC as a result of the PC holding back from every possible strike, or something. 



> I don't mean to seem like I'm jumping on you, Prof. I'm just trying to say "human discretion" does not necessitate "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule". I've ditched the latter from my gaming vocabulary entirely, and I can tell you, my enjoyment of the hobby has increased dramatically as a result.




That's fair enough, but I can safely say you'd drive me screaming away from your game. Do you ever introduce new monsters? Plot device spells, entities or artifacts? 

Take your average peasant girl gifted with a divine vision, who must be protected against Ye Olde Foule Culte. Are there rules for that? No, not really, it's just a plot device...


----------



## Fenes (Jan 15, 2008)

I have to once again point out that by the RAW, death is a time and money sink in D&D, not something permanent.

In order to make death mean something, you have to fudge the rules - by the rules, death is (apart from TPKs) just a forced period of inactivity until your character gets raised or resurrected.

If death in your campaign is permanent, then you are already fudging the rules. By the book, D&D death is easy to recover from.


----------



## marune (Jan 15, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I have to once again point out that by the RAW, death is a time and money sink in D&D, not something permanent.
> 
> In order to make death mean something, you have to fudge the rules - by the rules, death is (apart from TPKs) just a forced period of inactivity until your character gets raised or resurrected.
> 
> If death in your campaign is permanent, then you are already fudging the rules. By the book, D&D death is easy to recover from.




Death is easy to recover from because it's easy to die too in D&D.

I suppose 4E will change that a bit, but not drastically, something along : not so easy to recover, but less likely to die.

Both are fine for D&D IMHO even if I prefer RPGs where the decision (to die) lie in the hands of the player.


----------



## Raloc (Jan 15, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> I said it above, but Rule 0/"Golden Rule", IIRC, doesn't actually appear in the 3.5 rules. DMG p.18 does sort of point in that direction, though.



I guess you're right.  I seem to remember it definitely appearing in 2e at the least.  In any case, most people I play with started in 2e and understand the reasoning and have no problem with it.

I suppose some people might feel cheated if the DM were making judgements that they felt were arbitrary or unfair.  Action points seem like a good way to remedy this (though personally I feel they should be more focused on the wacky outside the box solutions that mostly aren't accounted for by the rules, than simple dice bolstering).


----------



## buzz (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> See, I'll never be able to understand this philosophy. I find games that give me leeway on things very liberating. I like the "GM's Choice" part of a table. In fact, I like it so much, I'd rather have a list of some examples to get me going and no table in the first place. Not only have I found that rigid rulesets meant to "cover all situations" inevitably fail at that task, but it strips all the fun out of a game. I like it when players come up with something new, or when I have an idea I can't represent mechanically but want to introduce anyway.



What I'm talking about doesn't preclude this, though.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Perhaps most importantly, I like putting the mechanics aside when I don't feel they'd add anything to the game. Like skipping a battle- D&D rules, if strictly adhered to, wouldn't allow that.



Well, are you talking about avoiding a battle, or declaring an outcome without playing it out?

One of the things that I love about games like _Burning Wheel_ and _The Shadow of yesterday_ is that the level of mechanical detail you use is proportional to the importance of a conflict. If there's no conflict, you don't need to go to the system at all. If it's basic, you use a simple roll. If it''s important, you break out the multi-step, detailed mechanics.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But "I try to deal a mortal wound to the barbarian- but not enough to kill him outright" is another. There the player is trying to set a cap on how much damage he'll do; enough to bring down but not enough to kill. How do you resolve that?



Nonlethal damage. 



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> That's fair enough, but I can safely say you'd drive me screaming away from your game. Do you ever introduce new monsters? Plot device spells, entities or artifacts?
> 
> Take your average peasant girl gifted with a divine vision, who must be protected against Ye Olde Foule Culte. Are there rules for that? No, not really, it's just a plot device...



Of course I do stuff like this (though easy on the plot devices).

We may be talking past each other. When I talk about "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule", I'm not talking about the GM being creative; I'm talking about stuff like this:

GM: "Okay, roll a d20."
Player: "What am I rolling? A skill check?"
GM: "No, just roll a d20, and don't roll a 1."
Player: "What happens if I roll a 1?"
GM: "Something bad."

or...

GM: "The wounded peasant manages to get out some dying words, he says..."
Player: "Wait. I'm a cleric; why can't I just heal him? Then he can tell us everything."
GM: "You're, uh, not able to get off your spell in time."
Player: "But, it's just a standard action!"
GM: "Too bad."

or the kind of stuff mentioned in the first post of this other thread.

I.e., I'm talking about, during play, when it's obviously a situation where a rule should apply, or where there are no rules, or a rule is being used inconsistently and the GM is deliberately manipulating things to get the outcome they want, regardless of what the text says. "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule" says that this is good GM'ing, because the GM is doing what is "good for the story". I'm saying that this is horsepucky.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 15, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> I.e., I'm talking about, during play, when it's obviously a situation where a rule should apply, or where there are no rules, or a rule is being used inconsistently and the GM is deliberately manipulating things to get the outcome they want, regardless of what the text says. "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule" says that this is good GM'ing, because the GM is doing what is "good for the story". I'm saying that this is horsepucky.




Of course that is horsepucky. And no, rule 0 does not say that! At all!

This cultural attitude is so frustrating when I encounter it. Fiat=/=GM abuse. It's only abusive when employed abusively. 

Let me give you another example. Wild Talents game, I have a psychic overloaded with Telepathy hard dice. He's picked up the psychic results of an ongoing magical assault. Now, normally psychic powers don't really interact with magic very well, but the player asked about tracking back the source of the magical attack. I figured it was outside the bounds of Telepathy if adhered to strictly, but thought it would be a good way for them to discover the source of the ritual. So I said he could do it, but with his hard dice downgraded to regular dice and therefore requiring a roll.

This particular situation is not covered by the rules. My adjudication of it actually _contradicts_ the rules if one considers them rigid, though not so if one considers the Telepathy power description to have a 9th Amendment. And yet I don't consider it abusive at all.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Of course that is horsepucky. And no, rule 0 does not say that! At all!
> 
> This cultural attitude is so frustrating when I encounter it. Fiat=/=GM abuse. It's only abusive when employed abusively.
> 
> ...




Prof,

I dont think you and Buzz are arguing about the same thing necessarily.  

Your rules are more like variations to the setting. Normally one cant detect magic with psi, but with some hard work in your world they can....that is really a setting-type of issues (as the 'physics' of the world work differently here) Mostly what you are talking about are minor cosmetic differences in some aspect of how the world and the characters interact

Buzz is talking about how games don't have rules that align with the type of game that it supposedly was designed to run. 

A game about heroism should have rules that prevent the characters from dying in insignificant conflicts. 
Many (maybe the vast majority) DMs don't want characters to die in wandering monster encounters but D&D does not have rules that prevent this and has no mechanics that differentiate a random encounter from a planned or important encounter.



> Like skipping a battle- D&D rules, if strictly adhered to, wouldn't allow that. Players might get unlucky! They might use up some of their precious resources! And so on. Note that skipping some battles, or ignoring the mechanics sometimes, or whatever, is a far cry from doing this all the time. When I want a fight, I'll use the rules for a fight...




You mentioned the above. If this is an important facet in playing (being able to skip unimportant or uninteresting battles) why doesn't the game have rules that allow the players to choose when to granularize and when not to. TSOY particularly has good rules for this but BW and Sorcerer do as well.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 15, 2008)

Well, let's look at an example.

The players are fighting an Orc army. By this point the only Orcs who can challenge them are the exceptional ones; the generals, the champions, the Orcish assassins, whatever.

Your random grunt on guard duty has a statistically insignificant chance of victory against the PCs. But because those grunts still exist, the PCs naturally still encounter them. Say they're raiding some camp guarded by said grunt. Now, if I were a strict rules-come-first type, I'd actually play out the battle. But since I'm not, I'd just handwave the PCs a victory. It's set dressing, not an important part of the story.

Way back when a puny Orc posed a threat, then it'd be a fight. Now that it's just part of the world for verisimilitude's sake, why bother?


----------



## marune (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Now, if I were a strict rules-come-first type, I'd actually play out the battle. But since I'm not, I'd just handwave the PCs a victory. It's set dressing, not an important part of the story.




In D&D yes, but in some RPG, skiping out mooks fight is going "strickly by the rules".

For example, in _Burning Wheel_, it would be considered cheating to throw the dices if there is no conflict* !


*DM and players agree on what should happen in the shared imagined space.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Well, let's look at an example.
> 
> The players are fighting an Orc army. By this point the only Orcs who can challenge them are the exceptional ones; the generals, the champions, the Orcish assassins, whatever.
> 
> ...




That is fine to do. 

What we are saying is that some games have rules that say "no conflict" (which is what is happening above) then just say Yes (basically the PCs get their way). These allow you to play the game without having to "break" the rules.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 15, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> That is fine to do.
> 
> What we are saying is that some games have rules that say "no conflict" (which is what is happening above) then just say Yes (basically the PCs get their way). These allow you to play the game without having to "break" the rules.




And what I am saying you can just "Say Yes" in any game, and you don't need some kooky indie system to do so, though those are often fun as well.


----------



## Raloc (Jan 15, 2008)

What I use Rule 0 for is much closer to what Prof. Phobos gave examples of, than to subvert the regular rules in place in a detrimental fashion (I may in fact subvert them from time to time in order to allow a player more freedom though*).

* - I said above I think action points should be used more for when a player has some off the wall idea for a maneuver or strategy that just isn't supported by the rules than for dice bolstering.  I think anyone that has DMed or played for any amount of time knows of a situation where a player comes up with a really great solution to a particular problem or encounter, but the rules for dealing with it just aren't there.  They don't have enough actions, don't have the items or abilities, etc.  In certain circumstances, I'll allow the player to roll some sort of appropriate check and let them complete such an action.  I don't, however, have them roll arbitrary dice for penalties unrelated to anything, or prevent them from doing something via fiat.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And what I am saying you can just "Say Yes" in any game, and you don't need some kooky indie system to do so, though those are often fun as well.




Sure you can.

But say it is a different situation.

Say you are playing a heroic game and  you don't want the PCs to die in anything less than a heroic fashion or situation.

D&D has no rules for this (and frankly is not the preferred system for this type of game but using it as an example).

The DM can always just say, you cant die in any encounter which i dont consider important, but then many of the mechanics of D&D (like resource use etc.) become somewhat irrelevant. 

Maybe you want a StarWars type game where the heroes dont ever die fleeing the DeathStar. Then the game should not have death in that type of scenario as an option mechanically.

If you want a 'heroic' type of game, the game should have rules that cater to this paradigm.

It is not so much that you cant GM-fiat anything and everything, but at what point are you really not playing the game anymore and it is just GM-fiat.

I think the point is, if people are constantly doing a certain thing that is not in the rules (or breaks the rules) rewrite the official rules to align with the way people play the game.


----------



## buzz (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And what I am saying you can just "Say Yes" in any game, and you don't need some kooky indie system to do so, though those are often fun as well.



Oh, you  certainly don't need a kooky indie RPG to do so. There are lots of bigger name RPGs that include some sort of nod to the idea, e.g., HERO's "don't roll unless the PC is under time pressure" and even d20's Take10/20 rules. It's unfortunate that a lot of these games don't canonize the concept, though, and even sometimes advise doing the opposite. 

I'm more talking about looking at to what you're saying yes (and no), and whether the rules are supporting those decisions or constantly at odds with them. The assumption I was questioning above is that rules by their very nature will get in one's way. I don't think they have to, and I've luckily had the chance to play a good number of games in which this is true, and I really enjoy it. Ditto bringing this attitude to games like D&D.


----------



## buzz (Jan 15, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And no, rule 0 does not say that! At all!



I guess it would depend on the wording of Rule 0 you're using. I'm basically assuming the version called the "Golden Rule" that you see in WoD products, and can see in similar form in the GM advice of games like HERO and GURPS, i.e., as far as the GM is concerned, the rules are just guidelines, can be ignored at any time by them, and they always have final say.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Fiat=/=GM abuse. It's only abusive when employed abusively.



Possibly, but the common advice (see above), all but insures abusive use of the privilege, IMO. I'd rather simply play a game where the technique wasn't (or at least mostly wasn't) necessary.


----------



## Raloc (Jan 15, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Possibly, but the common advice (see above), all but insures abusive use of the privilege, IMO. I'd rather simply play a game where the technique wasn't (or at least mostly wasn't) necessary.



That isn't my Rule 0.  I use it in the interpretation that the DM has authority to override the rules, _*where it benefits play*_.  Also, I really don't think that this has to do with Rule 0, so much as it has to do with being or not being an abusive DM (who would be unfun to play with regardless of Rule 0).  I don't really even think it's possible to construct an RPG that doesn't, at some point, need fiat by the arbiter.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 15, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> When I talk about "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule",




You are using the wrong term.



> I'm not talking about the GM being creative; I'm talking about stuff like this:




Yeah, that's usually called "GM Fiat"

"Rule 0" means the GM Decides what the game rules are.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 16, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I have to once again point out that by the RAW, death is a time and money sink in D&D, not something permanent.
> 
> In order to make death mean something, you have to fudge the rules - by the rules, death is (apart from TPKs) just a forced period of inactivity until your character gets raised or resurrected.
> 
> If death in your campaign is permanent, then you are already fudging the rules. By the book, D&D death is easy to recover from.




This is not always true.  Death can very easily be permanent in D&D.  It depends on the campaign.  In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, for example, there were no town clerics to cast raise dead.  Thus, any death below 9th level was permanent.  Also, depending on the state of the corpse, Raise Dead may be off the table anyways, making coming back from the dead much more difficult.

Take the Savage Tide Adventure Path as another example.  In many of the modules, there's nowhere for the PC's to gain access to raise dead magics.  From 5th to about 9th level, any PC death will almost certainly be permanent.  Even after 9th, depending on where the PC's choose to go, death can very easily be permanent due to a lack of spell components, even assuming they can locate a cleric.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it can really depend on the campaign.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 16, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This is not always true.  Death can very easily be permanent in D&D.  It depends on the campaign.  In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, for example, there were no town clerics to cast raise dead.  Thus, any death below 9th level was permanent.  Also, depending on the state of the corpse, Raise Dead may be off the table anyways, making coming back from the dead much more difficult.
> 
> Take the Savage Tide Adventure Path as another example.  In many of the modules, there's nowhere for the PC's to gain access to raise dead magics.  From 5th to about 9th level, any PC death will almost certainly be permanent.  Even after 9th, depending on where the PC's choose to go, death can very easily be permanent due to a lack of spell components, even assuming they can locate a cleric.
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it can really depend on the campaign.




Of course it varies. In my own campaign, Raise Dead does not exist. I am just tired of the way some people claim that playing a game where PCs won't die unless the players want them to is "bending the rules" or "not playing as it should be played" yet ignore that by making death permanent they are doing the same.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Jan 18, 2008)

Damn, I hope I get to teach my RPG study class next year, because this thread is gold! Gold, I tell's ya!

From my perspective, the game and its acceptable rules and behaviour are a social construct by the gamers. This means that how much Gm Fiat and how much the GM gets to set the rules for particular circumstances is constructed by the group. However, this construction is not usually done through an explicit democratic process and even when that is involved, it is not usually completely democratic. The written rules form a kind of objective appeal that in some cases gives them more weight than they should have. This is why buzz's points are important to remember even though any GM can work around the rules. (This is the case even though I agree with many of the points of buzz's interlocutors.)

In the example of D&D, the rules are agnostic to intent, yet few games as they are played are agnostic to intent. Thus some mechanism to address intent is often required to guide the game according to the intent of the narrative, if not simply player desire for the narrative.

I see GM Fiat, Rule 0, action point mechanics, self-controlled healing reserves (Second Wind), and player cheating as ways to address these needs.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 18, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Damn, I hope I get to teach my RPG study class next year, because this thread is gold! Gold, I tell's ya!
> 
> From my perspective, the game and its acceptable rules and behaviour are a social construct by the gamers. This means that how much Gm Fiat and how much the GM gets to set the rules for particular circumstances is constructed by the group. However, this construction is not usually done through an explicit democratic process and even when that is involved, it is not usually completely democratic. The written rules form a kind of objective appeal that in some cases gives them more weight than they should have. This is why buzz's points are important to remember even though any GM can work around the rules. (This is the case even though I agree with many of the points of buzz's interlocutors.)
> 
> ...




That was really one of the major points of the development of conflict resolution (vs task resolution), that intent was critically important.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> Of course it varies. In my own campaign, Raise Dead does not exist. I am just tired of the way some people claim that playing a game where PCs won't die unless the players want them to is "bending the rules" or "not playing as it should be played" yet ignore that by making death permanent they are doing the same.




No, they're not actually.  There is NOTHING in the rules that state that raise dead should be easily available.  The closest you get is the demographics tables which say that you should be able to find a high enough level cleric in a town of a certain size or larger.  That's it.

The actual application of those rules is entirely up to the DM.  If you're playing a campaign of wandering in the wilderness, nothing in the rules forces you to put towns within easy reach for raise dead.

However, the rules do specifically state that when you hit -10 hp, you die.  Any attack which reduces your hp's that far kills the PC.  If you institute a rule that takes death off the table, you are bending the rules.  Or, houseruling anyway.  You are deliberately changing an existing rule.  Now, the "not playing as it should be played" is a wrongbadfun sort of thing and is just wrong.

That I do agree with.


----------

