What happens when you think everything is a level-appropriate encounter

[Koo Rehtorb]

A) I screwed up the CR/XP budget maths and made an encounter way too strong for my players. In which case, I'll probably lop some HP off the monster(s), have it miss some attacks it should have hit, and "roll low" on damage sometimes. (By the time its obvious that the enemies are too OP, its generally too late to change their AC without the players noticing.) I don't have a problem with player death or TPKs if they happen during a genuinely balanced encounter or my players were being dumbasses, but I'm not going to let my own ****-ups kill a player or a campaign.

B) The fight is just dragging on forever and both the players and I are going to blow our brains out if it doesn't end soon. In that scenario, all I can really do is artificially reduce the enemy's HP. Sadly, the one edition where I found myself having to do this all the time - 4E - also made it the hardest to hide from the players, thanks to the Bloodied mechanic.

So... question. In cases like this, particularly the second one, why not just be honest with them instead?

[kyoryu]

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.

But why is it the GM's job to "save" the PCs?

It is if the PCs have little or no control on what they'll be fighting. Otherwise, it's kinda not.

[Dragonexx]

A lot of the stuff in this thread seems to be written under the (frankly ridiculous assumption) that the players and DM are on the same wavelength. Due to people believing in conservation of detail, if you draw attention to something, they might assume minor fluff is actually important. Here's some quotes from another thread on this.

Also, even good GM's aren't perfect at communicating exactly what's important. Six people round a table are going to have six different reads on a situation, with different supporting assumptions... even the "invisible bridge" one could just be a guy assuming the description would've been different if the wizard were flying.

Like I always raise an eyebrow when GM's are all "I described a scene and all four of my group focused on the wrong details, man, they are so dumb because I am so good at describing things".

The reason for this is quite simple. Players and GMs aren't aren't necessarily thinking the same way. And since the world exists entirely as imagination and words, there are a lot of sensory cues that can't be conveyed by the GM and a lot of details about his actions that can't be conveyed by the player.

Realistically, the guy who assumes "invisible bridge" wouldn't just run across it. He'd walk up to the edge and test it with his foot, to see if it feels solid. And it wouldn't because its not there. No need for the GM to reverse time. But those aren't details that the player is going to remember to convey. If he thinks about them at all he'll assume that they're part of the action.

And, of course, there are dozens of sense details that would tell the player that there is no bridge, but the GM probably won't mention them, because they're extraneous and difficult to remember.

Likewise, the player can derive information from the GM's description that the GM did not intend to convey if the GM decides to use flowery prose rather than a simple list of facts.

More closer to the discussion: This is why you need to talk with the group before hand and lay down the base assumptions of the game. You'll find players less likely to attack things out of the blue if you tell them at the beginning that not all encounters will solvable with combat.

[Asha Leu]

So... question. In cases like this, particularly the second one, why not just be honest with them instead?

Good question. In my opinion, that cheapens the experience and breaks immersion far more than fudging some rolls and HP ever would.

[Jay R]

So... question. In cases like this, particularly the second one, why not just be honest with them instead?

Nobody's being dishonest. Honesty isn't revealing everything; it's being truthful in everything you say. For instance, while my first name is Jay, I haven't told you my last name. Similarly, you haven't revealed your name at all. That's not dishonesty; it's reticence.

The question you mean to ask is why not be transparent? And the answer is that the DM's job is to tell players everything about the world that their players know, and nothing else.

If you trust the DM, then he or she has no need to give you that sort of detail. If you don't, then it wouldn't help.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Nobody's being dishonest. Honesty isn't revealing everything; it's being truthful in everything you say.

Not at all, a lie by omission is certainly a thing. If you roll the dice and announce that something happens there is a built in expectation that this thing happens because of the number that you rolled on the dice, and not because you felt like it.

The question you mean to ask is why not be transparent? And the answer is that the DM's job is to tell players everything about the world that their players know, and nothing else.

I disagree, but this is getting into a separate subject.

If you trust the DM, then he or she has no need to give you that sort of detail. If you don't, then it wouldn't help.

Trust is not a binary switch. I generally trust that GMs are not psychopaths out to make everyone have a bad time because they enjoy it. That doesn't mean I generally trust their instincts in everything they do.

I fully believe that a GM can, and usually does, break the rules of the game with all of the best possible intentions of making everyone involved have more fun. I disagree that it has the results they are looking for, especially in the long term.

[TheCountAlucard]

Not at all, a lie by omission is certainly a thing.

Sure, if you're intentionally leaving pertinent information out for the sake of spinning a story differently. I doubt they'll have you brought up on perjury charges for only describing the robbery you witnessed and not giving your entire life story, though.

[Jay R]

Not at all, a lie by omission is certainly a thing.

But this isn't a lie by omission. You can only make it seem like one by denying a truth about a game, assuming that everybody agrees with you, and assuming the game rules have been magically changed in everybody else's minds to match your personal preference.

If you roll the dice and announce that something happens there is a built in expectation that this thing happens because of the number that you rolled on the dice, and not because you felt like it.

I have never done anything to give my players the expectation that I change the rules.

I run the game by the rules - the entire set of rules, including the rule that says that the DM, not the ruleset, makes the final decision.

You keep trying to act like leaving that rule out is playing by the rules, and that using the rules as written is "cheating" and "a bunch of absolutely terrible GM advice that have done a lot of harm to the hobby as a whole" and "lying by mission". But that's not true. It's the actual game.

You don't want to play the actual game as written, and that's fine. But that doesn't justify accusations of dishonesty, lying, and cheating against people who play the complete game.

We're playing the actual game, as written.

We aren't cheating.

We aren't lying by omission.

We are playing the complete game, honestly.

I disagree, but this is getting into a separate subject.

No, it's the exact same subject. You asked why not tell them what the DM does in private. I gave the answer.

Trust is not a binary switch. I generally trust that GMs are not psychopaths out to make everyone have a bad time because they enjoy it. That doesn't mean I generally trust their instincts in everything they do.

No, it's not a binary switch, and there are lots of judgment calls involved. But accusing people of lying by omission and cheating because they play the game correctly when you want to play it by a home rule is not anywhere close to those judgment calls. It's refusing to trust at all.

Certainly, I watch DMs, and there is one I've played with that I will never play with again. And there are a couple who do some things I dislike, but I will still play with them.

But a minimum level of trust is needed for the game to work. And accusing people of cheating when you know that they are following the rules does not meet that level.

I fully believe that a GM can, and usually does, break the rules of the game with all of the best possible intentions of making everyone involved have more fun. I disagree that it has the results they are looking for, especially in the long term.

If you had said that it hasn't had those results in the situations you've seen, then that would have been a valid observation (of a limited data set). And I'd probably agree. There are certainly DMs who aren't very good.

But the games I've run, and most of the games I've played, are outside of your experience. Having a negative opinion of them is distrust.

And for the record, getting the plastic spiders off the table when I saw somebody's pathological reaction had the exact result I intended, both that day and in the long term.

[Koo Rehtorb]

But this isn't a lie by omission. You can only make it seem like one by denying a truth about a game, assuming that everybody agrees with you, and assuming the game rules have been magically changed in everybody else's minds to match your personal preference.

To be fair, I will try to word this slightly less harshly on D&D players in this regard because it is technically part of the rulebook. That doesn't make it not an awful idea that makes individual games in specific and the hobby in general worse for it, but at least D&D players share blame for this with the rulebook.

The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.

No, it's the exact same subject. You asked why not tell them what the DM does in private. I gave the answer.

Okay, if you want to get into this derail, I disagree that it's the GM's job to tell players everything their characters know and nothing more. That's one particular form of "immersion" gameplay, and I don't personally find it valuable. It's certainly a valid way to play, but it's far from the only way to play.

No, it's not a binary switch, and there are lots of judgment calls involved. But accusing people of lying by omission and cheating because they play the game correctly when you want to play it by a home rule is not anywhere close to those judgment calls. It's refusing to trust at all.

Refusing to remove that rule is a point of data that suggests they have poor judgement about certain things in and of itself, in my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying. Which, again, is far from entirely their fault. It's unfortunate that early versions of D&D trained people with some poor advice and it got incorporated into the hobby's genetics. Gygax has much to answer for.

[hifidelity2]

To be fair, I will try to word this slightly less harshly on D&D players in this regard because it is technically part of the rulebook. That doesn't make it not an awful idea that makes individual games in specific and the hobby in general worse for it, but at least D&D players share blame for this with the rulebook.

The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.

Actually I would say lots of games with referees allow this - but in the rules its called a judgement call
In many ball sports a "foul" by player A on Player B can be accidental or deliberate. In a percentage of those it will not be clear cut which it was so the referee is allowed to "use his judgement" as to the type and so the penalty that will follow from his decision

As a DM I have the right to use my judgement on how to interpret the rules (or die).

[Koo Rehtorb]

Actually I would say lots of games with referees allow this - but in the rules its called a judgement call
In many ball sports a "foul" by player A on Player B can be accidental or deliberate. In a percentage of those it will not be clear cut which it was so the referee is allowed to "use his judgement" as to the type and so the penalty that will follow from his decision

As a DM I have the right to use my judgement on how to interpret the rules (or die).

Interpretation of results is distinct from ignoring results.

It's one thing to make a decision for the game based on a result that's unclear in the rules, or not covered by the rules at all. It's quite another thing to say "This natural 1 I just rolled was actually a 20, so you get crit."

[kyoryu]

Actually I would say lots of games with referees allow this - but in the rules its called a judgement call
In many ball sports a "foul" by player A on Player B can be accidental or deliberate. In a percentage of those it will not be clear cut which it was so the referee is allowed to "use his judgement" as to the type and so the penalty that will follow from his decision

Yeah, I play hockey. There's a number of *clear* situations where rules apply (high sticking, offsides), but a number where it's up to referee interpretation (goalie interference, even some aspects of icing). The idea that you can get rid of human judgement in a complex game seems rather sketchy.

Most boardgames are far less complex, and so can do it.

[hifidelity2]

Interpretation of results is distinct from ignoring results.

It's one thing to make a decision for the game based on a result that's unclear in the rules, or not covered by the rules at all. It's quite another thing to say "This natural 1 I just rolled was actually a 20, so you get crit."

But the reason I maybe fudging the rolls is because as the DM I made a judgment call on the difficulty of the encounter and got it wrong so I am using my judgement to correct that error

Party X is fighting monster Y
Despite Party X planning and approaching the combat correctly they are getting themselves soundly beaten
I can
1. Kill the party
2. Stop the combat - tell them I made a mistake, substitute Monster Y with Monster Z and restart the combat
3. Fudge a few die

Some DMs will do 1.
Most I know will do 3.
I have done 2 when running a new system for the 1st time but all the players were also new and we had accepted that there maybe a need for things to be a bit disjointed until we had a better grasp of the system

[kyoryu]

But the reason I maybe fudging the rolls is because as the DM I made a judgment call on the difficulty of the encounter and got it wrong so I am using my judgement to correct that error

Party X is fighting monster Y
Despite Party X planning and approaching the combat correctly they are getting themselves soundly beaten
I can
1. Kill the party
2. Stop the combat - tell them I made a mistake, substitute Monster Y with Monster Z and restart the combat
3. Fudge a few die

Some DMs will do 1.
Most I know will do 3.
I have done 2 when running a new system for the 1st time but all the players were also new and we had accepted that there maybe a need for things to be a bit disjointed until we had a better grasp of the system

If the party chose to engage the creature, and it was a bad choice, and they die, what's wrong with that?

But, also, where's option 4)

4. The party runs away

I mean, really, that should be a thing, no matter how lethal or not you want your game to be.

[Cozzer]

It's not that simple, though. If the game is mostly made from winnable challenge, and suddenly a challenge is unwinnable without proper foreshadowing or telegraphing, it won't feel realistic. It will just feel like the GM is bullying you.

I mean, it's one thing if the party attacks the Tarrasque and discovers they can't win even with proper planning. It's another thing if the party attacks a group of goblins, undistinguishable from the other 100 groups of goblins they've already defeated, and discovers they can't win because the DM decided to try the "goblin variant #4" he found on the Internet and didn't realize they were overpowered until the fight was already started.

For a choice to be "a bad choice", it needs to have been an informed choice. If some enemies turn up to be too strong without any way for the party to realize it before the fight, telling them "well you should have known some challenges are unwinnable" will not make the session better.

Letting them run away can work in some cases, but by the point the GM realizes he has misjudged the fight the situation is usually bad enough that it's not really viable.

[awa]

the problem with running is its often suicide and attempting to run when maybe you could have won could change it from a victory to a death.

Now im only speaking about 3rd edition here but many foes are faster than at least 1 pc between speed penalties for armor, small size penalties or the many many monster who have a speed of 40+. With attacks of opportunity for a free hit running can be a really bad option. Combined with the fact that many dms wont tell you how many hp a foe has you often dont have a good idea of how bad off you are. Once the first pc goes unconscious it really gets rough because now if they run some one is guaranteed to die.

Pcs also dont always get the opportunity to decide if they are going to fight, a lot of monster have good stealth and combined with the range penalties can fairly reliable get off a charge from stealth.

[Jay R]

...I believe I am right about this and other people are wrong. I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere.

And this is the core of our disagreement. You believe that you have the wisdom and experience to know what is right for all groups everywhere.

I have no such belief. I've only been gaming for 41 years, and only with groups in about six different cities. How could I possibly know what would and would not work for groups of people I don't know?

I only know that playing with the rules as written has worked for games I've seen, starting more than forty years ago.

Maybe the rules as written don't work for your group, and so you have to take out the rule about the DM having the final authority at all times. I wouldn't know, and have no right to an opinion in any case.

But you can't possibly know if playing the complete game is right for my group.

To be fair, I will try to word this slightly less harshly on D&D players in this regard because it is technically part of the rulebook. That doesn't make it not an awful idea that makes individual games in specific and the hobby in general worse for it, but at least D&D players share blame for this with the rulebook.

Of course it doesn't. What makes it "not an awful idea" is that thousands of DMs have run great games by using that rule well to enhance the experience.

I'm sorry that poor use of this rule has made your individual games worse, but it has made the games I've played in better when used correctly.

The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.

A. No, it's not ignoring the rules. It just isn't. This is part of the rules.
It's not ignoring the rules.
It's not cheating.
It's not dishonest.
We are never going to communicate while you hold onto this false belief.

B. I think all of us who support this rule agree with you that "if they want to" is a horrible idea. It's a judgment call, and should only happen if there is a clear, specific need for it. I certainly don't think I can do so if I want to. I will only use that DM rule rarely, when it is specifically needed.

C. I think our disconnect starts with this difference; your belief that the DM playing the game vs. my belief that the DM is a referee, not playing but in charge of the game. You are acting like the DM is cheating when he continues to make design decisions all the way through. I think that's his job.

Okay, if you want to get into this derail, I disagree that it's the GM's job to tell players everything their characters know and nothing more. That's one particular form of "immersion" gameplay, and I don't personally find it valuable. It's certainly a valid way to play, but it's far from the only way to play.

Fine. But once you accept that it is a valid way to play, then your contention that playing that way is not honest has been disproven - at least for some games, including all the games I run.

Refusing to remove that rule is a point of data that suggests they have poor judgement about certain things in and of itself, in my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying. Which, again, is far from entirely their fault. It's unfortunate that early versions of D&D trained people with some poor advice and it got incorporated into the hobby's genetics. Gygax has much to answer for.

Maybe it only suggests that Koo Rethorb's way of playing is "a valid way to play, but it's far from the only way to play."

Or if not, what a shame that they have such "poor judgment" that for over forty years they have run successful, enjoyable games by using the rules correctly and well, and have brought their players lots of joy in ways that Koo Rethorb doesn't like.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Of course it doesn't. What makes it "not an awful idea" is that thousands of DMs have run great games by using that rule well to enhance the experience.

I think this is the thrust of most of your post so I'm going to respond to this and hope I'm not leaving anything important out.

You can have a great time with bad rules and you can have a bad time with great rules. The group involved is more important than the ruleset. Of course a group of great players who get along well are going to be able to have a ton of fun with a bad game, I've done it myself plenty of times.

Skillful application of a bad rule is going to produce much better results than clumsy application of a bad rule. That doesn't make it not a bad rule.

Fine. But once you accept that it is a valid way to play, then your contention that playing that way is not honest has been disproven - at least for some games, including all the games I run.

Immersion gameplay has nothing to do with fudging dice results. It's the difference between... I don't know... when the party is making their way through the Forbidden Woods the GM describing the creature slowly stalking them through the forest to raise tension without the PCs having any knowledge of it yet.

[Jay R]

You skipped the entire argument by simply maintaining that it's a bad rule.

Then by assuming that you are right and I am wrong, you "proved" that you are right and I am wrong. This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.

In fact, I have seen this rule used well to enhance the game.

The entire concept is absurd. Imagine playing any other game in the world where one of the rules is "Someone can ignore the rules if they want to". It's a grownup version of Calvinball.

All right. I will imagine the same approach in other situations.

1. I teach college algebra and statistics. When I design the tests, I am trying to be completely fair. I write them based on what they know (or what they are supposed to know), so that they have a fair chance to make good grades if they've learned the material.

Similarly, when I design an encounter, I am trying to be fair. I write it based on what they can do (or should be able to do), to make a fun, challenging adventure that they should be able to overcome, or avoid, or escape, or survive losing. [Not that they will - only that it's possible. I think the threat of PC death has to be real. But being attacked by undead they cannot hit or turn or escape is no fun, and a horrible encounter.]

Every once in a great while, I see that a test question is much harder than I intended, and I eliminate it from the grading, or grade it differently. Similarly, every once in a great while, I see that an aspect of an encounter is very different from the intent, and I change it or its effects. But If I do either more than once or twice a year, then my design of tests or encounters is wrong. I shouldn't keep adjusting in the middle of the test or encounter, but learn to design better encounters or tests.

And in fact, after adjusting a few tests and a few encounters, I think I've gotten much better at designing both.

The crucial fact is this: My job as a teacher includes designing a reasonable test. My job as a DM includes designing a reasonable encounter. But I’m not perfect, and make mistakes in design. So it’s still my job to make the test/encounter reasonable even while I’m grading/running it.

You are acting as if there’s a set time, before the test/encounter begins, after which I cannot change it, even if I realize that it was designed badly. This is simply untrue. I will not intentionally give an unfair test, even if I discover that it is unfair during the test.

And for the same reasons, it’s still my job to make the encounter a good one even while I’m running it.

Other examples:

2. In the Boy Scouts, our Scoutmaster designed a compass course at home for us to follow at camp. When we got to the campsite, he discovered that it would have made us cross a fence onto somebody else’s land. So he changed the compass course – after we started it and found out - so it would be legal.

3. My GPS sometimes changes the directions it gives me in the middle of the drive, after an accident slowed down traffic on the main road.This is a feature, not a bug. The GPS is not cheating, ignoring the rules, or dishonest. It's just changing the encounter it gives me to enhance my experience. [And it's very similar to leading me away from the results of somebody rolling a "1".]

One final real-world example of the same sort of judgment call:

4. When I was a boy, I had some James Bond toys, and when the new James Bond movie Thunderball came out, I wanted to go see it. My parents originally said, “No”. [At that age, I had no idea that their disapproval was because the movie had a sex scene.] But eventually, they not only agreed, but came along with me.

Then, at one point, Mom turned to me and said, “Jay, it looks like there won’t be any action for a while. Let’s go get some popcorn.” So we did.

It was years later when I saw Thunderball again that I realized that Mom has simply taken me out of the theater for the scene they didn’t want me to see. I lost nothing by it - I liked popcorn, and I was too young to enjoy the sex scene.

I believe that it was a wonderful example of parenting – giving me what I wanted (the action movie) while changing the situation in the middle for their own unstated purposes. They showed excellent judgment, and enhanced my experience by changing the rules without telling me.

If somebody had established a flat rule for parenting, like "Don't tell your son that he can see a movie and then change the rules in the middle so he can't see all of it," than their action would have violated that rule. That rule is a good one in many circumstances, just as your change to the D&D rules is a good idea in many circumstances.

But what Mom and Dad did that time was far superior.

[awa]

that last example is almost a perfect real world example. If they had been honest (aka not omitting the reason) you likely would have been wanting to know what you missed and had less fun than never knowing there was anything to miss at all.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You skipped the entire argument by simply maintaining that it's a bad rule.

Then by assuming that you are right and I am wrong, you "proved" that you are right and I am wrong.

I'm not trying to prove that you're wrong. Proving that you're wrong is fairly impossible. I'm asserting that you could be wrong, and I believe you that you are, in my subjective opinion as a fallible human being and not the God Emperor of Tabletop Roleplaying.

Every once in a great while, I see that a test question is much harder than I intended, and I eliminate it from the grading, or grade it differently. Similarly, every once in a great while, I see that an aspect of an encounter is very different from the intent, and I change it or its effects. But If I do either more than once or twice a year, then my design of tests or encounters is wrong. I shouldn't keep adjusting in the middle of the test or encounter, but learn to design better encounters or tests.

When grading the test and handing it back do you put a note on it that mentions the question was harder than intended and so was changed/excluded? When going over the test with the class do you mention that fact? I don't know how you teach, exactly, but if you're doing something other than pretending the test was perfect while stealth changing the results then it's not analogous.

2. In the Boy Scouts, our Scoutmaster designed a compass course at home for us to follow at camp. When we got to the campsite, he discovered that it would have made us cross a fence onto somebody else’s land. So he changed the compass course – after we started it and found out - so it would be legal.

How do you know he changed the course? Presumably because he didn't alter the course on the sly while pretending the altered course was the first one all along.

3. My GPS sometimes changes the directions it gives me in the middle of the drive, after an accident slowed down traffic on the main road.This is a feature, not a bug. The GPS is not cheating, ignoring the rules, or dishonest. It's just changing the encounter it gives me to enhance my experience. [And it's very similar to leading me away from the results of somebody rolling a "1".]

I'm having a hard time with this one because I don't see it as being a relevant example at all.

4. When I was a boy, I had some James Bond toys, and when the new James Bond movie Thunderball came out, I wanted to go see it. My parents originally said, “No”. [At that age, I had no idea that their disapproval was because the movie had a sex scene.] But eventually, they not only agreed, but came along with me.

Then, at one point, Mom turned to me and said, “Jay, it looks like there won’t be any action for a while. Let’s go get some popcorn.” So we did.

It was years later when I saw Thunderball again that I realized that Mom has simply taken me out of the theater for the scene they didn’t want me to see. I lost nothing by it - I liked popcorn, and I was too young to enjoy the sex scene.

I believe that it was a wonderful example of parenting – giving me what I wanted (the action movie) while changing the situation in the middle for their own unstated purposes. They showed excellent judgment, and enhanced my experience by changing the rules without telling me.

If somebody had established a flat rule for parenting, like "Don't tell your son that he can see a movie and then change the rules in the middle so he can't see all of it," than their action would have violated that rule. That rule is a good one in many circumstances, just as your change to the D&D rules is a good idea in many circumstances.

But what Mom and Dad did that time was far superior.

I think this is the best example you've given.

Funnily enough, I've had a similar experience. My mom said "Okay we can go see this movie, but it has a sex scene in it so if I agree to take you then you have to cover your eyes when it happens." And I shrugged and agreed that it was fair and did so when she told me to. I don't see what purpose concealing that fact from you served and think it probably would have been better to have been honest with you instead.

Also, not a relevant note because it was just an analogy, but comparing GMing to parenting makes me super uncomfortable.

[Jay R]

Funnily enough, I've had a similar experience. My mom said "Okay we can go see this movie, but it has a sex scene in it so if I agree to take you then you have to cover your eyes when it happens." And I shrugged and agreed that it was fair and did so when she told me to. I don't see what purpose concealing that fact from you served and think it probably would have been better to have been honest with you instead.

I'll bite. How could it have been better?

It wouldn't have a better movie experience. I had a great time as it was.

It might have made it a worse experience, if I had been distracted by the thought of the scene I didn't get to see.

Having the conversation wouldn't have been better for me. I was interested in an adventure movie just then, not theories of parenting, and certainly not sex scenes.

It wouldn't have made me have more faith in my parent's judgment. My siblings and I think more highly of our parents' judgment than virtually anybody I've ever met. [In fact, even our spouses have the highest respect for our parents - an extremely rare phenomenon.]

The only possible change I can imagine it causing is the loss of the sense of delight I had years later, when I figured out what they had really done.

So, based on my actual knowledge of that situation and its affect on both the immediate situation and the long-term relationship, I have to conclude that your guess, made without knowing their frames of mind at the time, my frame of mind at the time, or the condition of the relationship between us, is probably wrong.

I mean, really. I'm bragging about how wonderful it was nearly a half century later, and you're trying to tell me that you know how it could have been better.

[Note: I'm not suggesting that your parents' approach was wrong, either. They knew you and your family and the situation. I don't. It would be absurd for me to have an opinion of that.]

You are trying to judge a situation you only know about from an extremely short description, from somebody whose point of view you are currently challenging, about people you've never met. Nonetheless, you believe that you can come up with a better understanding of it than all the people who lived through it and have vastly more information than you do about the situation, people, and family culture involved. That just seems unlikely.

Similarly, you are trying to judge D&D situations you know virtually nothing about. Nonetheless, you believe that you can come up with a better understanding of them than all the people who played through them and have vastly more information than you do about the situations, people, and gaming cultures involved. That seems equally unlikely.

You actually wrote, "I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere." Even with your repeated disclaimer, do you really believe that this can be read as a subjective opinion, rather than a pronouncement about all tabletop roleplaying?

Also, not a relevant note because it was just an analogy, but comparing GMing to parenting makes me super uncomfortable.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, and again, I think this gets back to our real difference.

I'm comparing a DM's judgment to the judgment of somebody indisputably in charge and with superior knowledge of the situation, whose job includes withholding information, and who is trying to make the best possible experience for the others involved. The analogy seems quite appropriate.

I have faith in my DMs - or I won't play. (And there's one DM I won't play with any more.)

Does this mean I think that they won't make mistakes? Not at all. It means I will play in good faith the game they offer in good faith, and trust that they will make choices as well as they can.

I know that Todd changed a result to save the life of one of my characters once. Within a month of that, his roommate killed another one in a different session. I've never bothered trying to compare the two situations to see if his judgment call was "right".

I don't and can't have all the information Todd had when he made the decision. So I cannot fairly judge his decision. Therefore I will not judge it at all.

By contrast, you think you can invent a single change in the D&D rules and state that it would be better for all games, for all people, in all situations. That still seems unlikely.

And I've still had over forty years of great RPG fun, brought by people I consider good to excellent DMs, even if you think they used "bad rules" from an "awful idea", and "suggesting poor judgment".

I have to take the judgment of all the people who played their games and have actual knowledge of them over your knowledge-free assessment of strangers.

[kyoryu]

A large part of it is what you see as the primary interaction of roleplaying games.

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation!"
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is the new situation!"

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my pieces like so in accordance with the rules!"
Player 2: "I move my pieces like so in accordance with the rules!"
Player 3: "I move my pieces like so in accordance with the rules!"

In the first case, the rules exist primarily as an assistance to the GM, but ultimately the result of the player doing the thing is the responsibility of the GM.

In the second case, the presumption is that the GM is mostly/primarily another player and is equally bound by the rules.

Few games are pure type 1 or type 2, but most lean one way or the other.

I'm personally not a fan of fudging in either case - for the Type 1 game, I think there's usually better ways to handle it, but sometimes things happen where fudging is the last tool left in the box that's useful in the situation. But in a Type 1 game, it's a lot more acceptable than a Type 2.

(and, yes, there's a Type 3)

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'll bite. How could it have been better?

From a purely practical standpoint, what if you hadn't bitten? What if you had decided that you weren't in the mood for popcorn, or you actually were interested in the boring downtime part of the movie and wanted to see it anyway, or if you decided that your mom could get the popcorn on her own and didn't require your presence to do so. Then suddenly there's the situation where there needs to be a discussion in the middle of a movie theater because you were working on false information.

From a theoretical standpoint, because it's deceptive, and honesty is a good thing to engage in in general.

Discussing other people's parenting is an uncomfortable subject and I'd like to avoid doing so further unless you really want to continue along with this topic.

You actually wrote, "I'm not saying it's right for me and my group, I'm saying it's right for all groups everywhere." Even with your repeated disclaimer, do you really believe that this can be read as a subjective opinion, rather than a pronouncement about all tabletop roleplaying?

It is a pronouncement about all tabletop roleplaying. I'm just including the possibility that I may be wrong in my pronouncement.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, and again, I think this gets back to our real difference.

I agree. I think this disagreement about roleplaying stems from a broader disagreement about the world in general.

I'm comparing a DM's judgment to the judgment of somebody indisputably in charge and with superior knowledge of the situation, whose job includes withholding information, and who is trying to make the best possible experience for the others involved. The analogy seems quite appropriate.

Yeah, I disagree with half all of this. The GM is not in charge of the group and it is not the GM's job to ensure that everyone has the best possible experience (that's everyone's job).

[Jay R]

Yeah, I disagree with half all of this. The GM is not in charge of the group and it is not the GM's job to ensure that everyone has the best possible experience (that's everyone's job).

Ok. Then we're just playing different games.

So the real disagreement is that I think you should play your game, and I should play my game. But you think you should play your game and I should play your game.

That doesn't bother me at all, and doesn't affect me at all. Differences of opinion are fine. Feel free to believe that your approach is "right for all groups everywhere," and that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of D&D players, including the authors, are just wrong.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That doesn't bother me at all, and doesn't affect me at all. Differences of opinion are fine. Feel free to believe that your approach is "right for all groups everywhere," and that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of D&D players, including the authors, are just wrong.

As I do with a great many things large groups of humans choose to do in the world. Fortunately tabletop roleplaying isn't particularly serious.

[Gizmogidget]

On the original OP comment I think the encounter could have easily been solved.

So a player makes a check and deduces that this guy won the tournament, neato but does that actually mean anything?

I mean if every other jouster is just a CR 1/8 guard it isn't impressive, but if this dude is going up against 11th level opponents or what have you then it means different things.

I would have said something along the lines of

"Yeah, the knight won the jousting tournament. He hit the other dude so hard that his lance turned to dust and spontaneously combusted in the air"

This I think is a much better indicator of the power of the knight.

This is just my two cents though, and I think others have probably said it.

[ArcanaGuy]

Worth noting: King's Joust. Lowbies and no-namers need not apply. Also, it was found by someone rolling, essentially, their "Know Famous People" skill. This danger was clearly laid out.

Let me share an example from my own past. I was running a sandbox game - the players were given a map and a booklet full of pertinent facts about the kingdom. The players were all level 1.

One player said "Let's go to the swamps of Doom!" He got the other players interested in doing this, too.

I said, "The one where no one who enters comes out alive?"

"Yeah! Let's find out why!"

"Look. We could do that. You will die. That is way out of your range. I would rather just roll up new characters now if the current ones are so dead set on suicide."

It was an hour's argument that he felt by the time they got there the group would be level 3 and able to take care of themselves. I insisted I did not want to waste my time on something so stupid.

In the end, he relented, but never forgave me for "railroading" like that. And nofun was had at all.

The same player was responsible for several other moments of TPK. And his response afterwards was always the same. "I dunno. I just didn't feel like the adult red dragon was a threat." ( to their 3 lvl 5 players.)

This story sounds exactly the same, except that the GM let him commit suicide instead of ruining the session arguing.

Some players are too impressed with themselves and will not take a hint.

[Pex]

Player responsibility: Don't be an idiot with the mentality of "I attack! What do I see?" The gameworld has flavor text. Play in the world, not against it.

DM responsibility: Don't be a tyrant by creating scenarios for the purpose of "teaching the players a lesson how dare they think they're all that. I'm the DM. I'll show them true power and that they're insignificant compared to the various denizens in MY world!"

[Beelzebubba]

You can also save the PCs by fudging a die roll. It's a rule in the books.

Why should he?