Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 11, 2022, 04:43:30 PM
A GM also is the primary conduit of information for the players. Whether describing a country, or creating a map, or a handout. If the players learn that every time the GM is willing to "fudge" results in favor of the PCs, then information like "You have heard rumors of the Tomb of Horrors being a very dangerous place, no one has ever come back!" does not impart any useful information. The Tomb is only as dangerous as the GM is willing to enforce.

This is where I say some of the responsibility is on the players. I won't try to push them somewhere that's going to kill them instantly, but it's also on them to be smart enough to not try to go to those places, either.

I don't go out of my way to kill players, but if they're suicidal, there's not much I can do.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 11, 2022, 04:50:07 PM

Quote from: Omega on December 11, 2022, 03:53:35 PMThe system and the DM should be fair otherwise its a worthless meatgrinder system.

...But even then there are usually, but not always, ways to mitigate this or at the very least usually an option to run away, hide, whatever.

This sparked an interesting train of thought (to me at least) about what it means for a game to be "fair".

In the classic definition, a contest is "fair" if, after all factors are accounted for, each side seems as likely to win as the other does, and betting on it would be a straight 1-1, 50%-50% gamble. But if you assume that an RPG session is "fair" by the criterion that after everything that happens shakes down, each individual PC has a 50-50 chance of being alive at the end, then a truly "fair" RPG would actually have a much higher character mortality rate than, in practice, most gamers seem to want -- only one in eight PCs would make it past their third session.

The logical implication is that in practice, most games are actually quite un- fair in the players' favour, or at least they wind up getting played that way.

This is only true if every situation boils down to a single coin toss. That's not quite the same thing as being fair.

RPGs are "fair" more in the sense that a skill challenge is fair. It's fair as long as everyone participating has the same opportunity to succeed without external influence.

Back in the day I would cheat from time to time to let the players live. They never knew I was doing it which is key. And during a boss fight I rolled in front of them to ensure they knew death was a real possibility.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 11, 2022, 04:50:07 PM
Now this can in principle be answered by the objection: "Sometimes the realistic representation of the inevitable consequences of a stupid or foolhardy player choice requires exactly this kind of ruthlessness," and that's true. But the key there is that while you can't prevent a player making a stupid choice, and shouldn't spare him the consequences of it or it will only encourage further such behaviour, you can at least offer every option for a character to not have to make an uninformed choice.

Or, at least, make sure they're aware that they're working on unknowns. "How many guards are inside the temple?", "Hard to say, friend. They come and go through those tunnels."

Overall I like your attempt to delineate the principle of "fan of your PCs as they get the spotlight, mostly sane with planning NPCs as they'd want to live and win too, but blind like justice when the wheel of fortune is asked." 

I expect many pages and fine mill grinding of terms, but the effort is useful for others to read for posterity. Carry on!

My only concern as a GM is making the game the best it can be by using any means necessary fair or foul.

There is no such thing as "fair". There is only the capacity for the GM to express the game setting with the mechanics they're using faithfully.

Cheating won't cure stupid playing. I'm pretty rock solid on the settings I run, or at the very least, *how* those settings should be expressed mechanically. If I get a player that cheats at my table, it's *inevitable* they will cheat themselves into a no-win situation. *INEVITABLE*. This has less to do with the system, than it has to do with me enforcing my own setting conceits.

What a good GM wants to establish is consistency. I'm not playing against my players and their PC's. I'm trying to be a fan of theirs. But I'm also trying my best to express my setting through the rules with every shred of consistency to establish the known parameters of the world as I can. Rules, laws, customs, taxes, living conditions, social issues (in setting), secrets, intrigues, blah blah blah - all of it.

I don't *have* to create situations to expressly fuck over my PC's. As mentioned upthread by @jhkim, I have NPC's with their own goals, and their own blindspots and their own manias and misconstrued ideas that can suck the PC's into ever deepening the scope of the sandbox. The PC's will drive the dance, but every now and then the rhythm shifts and the tune changes. Being a good GM is like being a good DJ, and your game moves organically. Your job is to be consistent and stick to your setting's conceits. The players are perfectly free to feel it's unfair when bad things happen. Welcome to the sandbox, you'll occasionally get sand in your eyes, kid.

Quote from: tenbones on December 12, 2022, 09:43:59 AM
There is no such thing as "fair". There is only the capacity for the GM to express the game setting with the mechanics they're using faithfully.

If you look at how original D&D worked with their dungeons, this IMO is fair. The top levels were the easiest and things got more dangerous (and lucrative) as the players went deeper. This effectively gave the players control over how hard the game was. They could stay high up fighting weaker monsters and finding smaller treasure or venture deeper for higher rewards.

So, giving the players the ability to choose whether or not to venture into more dangerous places would make the game fair and also a bit more playable. It might require the players interview the guards or a local huntsman to find accurate information, but that information should be available somehow.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 10, 2022, 07:55:41 PM
This is a post I was reluctant to make, but Eric Diaz (shout-out) persuaded me in another thread that the topic had value, so here it is. Long post ahead:

Around here, and in other old-school spaces, a lot of people talk about how role-playing games aren't meant to be fair. I agree up to a point, but it's more complicated than that. Yes, a role-playing game is not supposed to be a videogame. Yes, things like perfectly balanced encounters and cheating to save the players ruin the sense of immersion and world simulation. However, it is still a game, and the GM does have immense power. That power comes with an obligation to not misuse it.

I think everyone basically agrees that the GM has an obligation to be even-handed in their treatment of the players, but my own philosophy is that the obligation goes a bit beyond that. As overarching principles, there are two that I believe are important:

1) The game world need not be fair, but the metagame should be.
2) The world must play by the same rules as the players.

In more practical terms, here are some of the rules I try and hold myself to:

NPCs are played as if they were PCs: This doesn't just mean that NPCs will do whatever they possibly can to preserve their own lives. It also means that they adhere to the same limitations as PCs. This is particularly important in a game like D&D which includes a lot of resource management. So if the dungeon is full of illusions and magically locked doors, the NPC wizard has used up those spell slots when the PCs encounter him. The wizard also will not have only prepared combat spells. Unless he knew the PCs were coming, he prepared whatever spells he would expect to use in a normal day. If he has a single-use spell or item, he will only use it in a desperate situation, because he doesn't know if he might need it later. This rule can be fudged a bit in the case of games that include "mob" or "goon" type enemies, but ranked/leveled NPCs, "wild cards" etc. should always behave this way.

Dungeons are never designed just to be dungeons: Except where that are in-universe justifications for it, no environment in the game world should exist just to be a challenge for the players. Ruins, palaces, castles, and even monster lairs should all be designed based on what their in-world function was before the players went there. Traps and obstacles should be conceived in a way that they wouldn't unduly inconvenience the dungeon's occupants. Monsters and NPCs should have a reason to be in the dungeon, and are always doing something. They are never just standing around in a small room, waiting for some heroes to walk in.

What is on paper is permanent: Once a session starts, I try to avoid altering enemy numbers, statistics or positions. I do not spawn enemies out of nowhere, or delete them when the players aren't looking. If my notes say "3d6 bandits", I roll the 3d6 once and that's how many bandits there are. I never fudge dice, and I only retcon things in order to correct my own mistakes as a GM. I will retcon a fatal injury if it occurred because I misapplied the rules, but not if it occurred because the dice went against the player. I will re-stat a monster mid-session only if it is a monster I created, and it turned out stronger/weaker than it should be in the context of the game world. 

If the PCs would have to roll for something, the NPCs do too: If an NPC is tracking the party, they have to roll a tracking check. If two NPCs are going to fight in the PC's absence, I try and find time to run that combat between sessions. If I can't, I at least assign a probability to who will win and roll some dice. 

Do not lie to your players: The GM's descriptions are the game world, and they have to be accurate. You may say "it looks like..." or "you see", but if you say "this thing is here", it has to be. NPCs can lie to the players all they want, but when talking out of character, the GM has to be true to his word. This applies doubly when talking about the meta-game. If a player wants to do something and you say "we'll have some downtime next session, and you can do it then", you had better have that downtime next session. 

Players must be given appropriate opportunities to respond to NPC behavior: Descriptions of NPC actions should be broken down to the smallest reasonable subdivisions, so that players can react to them in real time.  This is a bit abstract, but maybe best illustrated by example: I've had multiple GMs pull the old "the guards come and arrest you" gambit, when that sentence encompasses a long string of individual actions, all of which the players have numerous possible responses to. I think a lot of GMs violate this rule unconsciously, out of a sincere desire to keep up the pace of the game, but I regard it as one of the most egregious forms of railroading in the hobby.

This is not an exhaustive list, nor are any of the above points without specific exceptions. I also won't claim to perfectly follow  any of these rules in all cases. However, I think since there are a lot of experienced GMs here, putting together a list of principles or best practices (beyond the standard DM advice given everywhere else) strikes me as a worthwhile endeavor.

What would you all add, what would you remove?

Thanks for the shout-out!

This is a great post, I'm glad you wrote it.

I agree with pretty much everything, I think, nothing to remove... I'll add something if I can think of it.

One note:

"Dungeons are never designed just to be dungeons"

I agree 100%, but man, are these hard to find! Most dungeons have kobolds, skeletons and giant bats in succession for no apparent reason. I've come to hate that.

The GM's only obligation I think is to run a game that's enjoyable. Some people like hardcore simulationist games, some are more into fruity improvisational theater, and if your players have an expectation of the game based on how you sold it to them, then you're doing your job if you give them what they signed up for. If some amateur thespian wanders into an old school D&D game and is annoyed he doesn't get to do soliloquies at the drop of a hat, that is his problem, not the GM's. However, if the GM sold the guy on the game based on their dressing in full costume during sessions and lots of in-character dialogue, then the player has a legitimate beef.

As far as "fair" goes, I understand what the OP is saying, and I agree with a lot of it to some extent, but I do NOT think it is unfair to lie to players about what they see or experience whatsoever. The average person walking into a room full of hidden vipers would fail to notice them 99% of the time, and may never know they even existed unless attacked. Adventurers are arguably more observant than most people, but is it lying to tell the players they don't see snakes when they enter the room? One example given was the GM obfuscating his description in such a way as to imply some "sleeping" knights were actually stone. Why feel bad about this? Why should the players think they were cheated? Did their characters closely examine the knights or just do a cursory glance around the room? I dunno, giving 100% accurate information implies the PCs are all Sherlock Holmes, incapable of missing the most minute of clues. I say fuck 'em and do whatever you can to maintain an air of mystery and intrigue. Lie, cheat, and steal to make the game engaging. If you want to fudge die rolls to keep characters alive, not an issue with me, but you should at least have them beat up, captured, and put in chains, made part of a slave labor camp. If they're so stupid as to keep getting into scraps they rightfully should lose, humiliating them is sometimes better than killing them outright. And it might actually help some of them make better decisions in the long run.

That said, "fair" exists no where ever, especially not where death is concerned. The players should just be happy if you're using non-loaded dice.

Quote from: Brad on December 12, 2022, 08:37:23 PMAs far as "fair" goes, I understand what the OP is saying, and I agree with a lot of it to some extent, but I do NOT think it is unfair to lie to players about what they see or experience whatsoever. The average person walking into a room full of hidden vipers would fail to notice them 99% of the time, and may never know they even existed unless attacked. Adventurers are arguably more observant than most people, but is it lying to tell the players they don't see snakes when they enter the room? One example given was the GM obfuscating his description in such a way as to imply some "sleeping" knights were actually stone. Why feel bad about this? Why should the players think they were cheated? Did their characters closely examine the knights or just do a cursory glance around the room? I dunno, giving 100% accurate information implies the PCs are all Sherlock Holmes, incapable of missing the most minute of clues. I say fuck 'em and do whatever you can to maintain an air of mystery and intrigue. Lie, cheat, and steal to make the game engaging. If you want to fudge die rolls to keep characters alive, not an issue with me, but you should at least have them beat up, captured, and put in chains, made part of a slave labor camp. If they're so stupid as to keep getting into scraps they rightfully should lose, humiliating them is sometimes better than killing them outright. And it might actually help some of them make better decisions in the long run.

This is where I keep my players relevant perception/spot/etc scores behind the shield. Any time the players enter a room, even if it's literally an empty broom closet, the dice roll. This lets me leave "do the players spot the vipers" a little bit up to fate, and a little bit up to the players (in that they they have some control over the stats I'm using to roll against).

Although it does bring me to one of the bigger "bad GM" gripes I have - GMs who demand players specify every minute detail or else they spring very stupid "gotchas" on them. The "you never said you were looking at the floor, so you fall in the obvious open pit" type GMs. 

Quote from: Bruwulf on December 12, 2022, 08:58:16 PMThis is where I keep my players relevant perception/spot/etc scores behind the shield. Any time the players enter a room, even if it's literally an empty broom closet, the dice roll. This lets me leave "do the players spot the vipers" a little bit up to fate, and a little bit up to the players (in that they they have some control over the stats I'm using to roll against).

Although it does bring me to one of the bigger "bad GM" gripes I have - GMs who demand players specify every minute detail or else they spring very stupid "gotchas" on them. The "you never said you were looking at the floor, so you fall in the obvious open pit" type GMs.

Those "passive" perception rolls are one of the few modern gaming concepts I think are very useful. It allows a competent PC to see/hear/feel/whatever something that wasn't explicitly stated, and the GM can just roll it secretly whenever appropriately.

You're right about those jackass GMs though...at some point telling the GM every single thing the PC does in explicit detail becomes booooooring and repetitive. Oh, you forgot to tell me you were breathing? You die of asphyxiation! I've seen that level of stupidity and it's beyond obnoxious. I think there can be a happy medium, and even PCs that fail passive perception rolls can find things if they're explicit about what they're looking for. I think the issue here is when players ONLY roll dice and don't even explain what they're doing. That's just as boring to me.

Quote from: Brad on December 12, 2022, 09:07:11 PM
Those "passive" perception rolls are one of the few modern gaming concepts I think are very useful. It allows a competent PC to see/hear/feel/whatever something that wasn't explicitly stated, and the GM can just roll it secretly whenever appropriately.

You're right about those jackass GMs though...at some point telling the GM every single thing the PC does in explicit detail becomes booooooring and repetitive. Oh, you forgot to tell me you were breathing? You die of asphyxiation! I've seen that level of stupidity and it's beyond obnoxious. I think there can be a happy medium, and even PCs that fail passive perception rolls can find things if they're explicit about what they're looking for. I think the issue here is when players ONLY roll dice and don't even explain what they're doing. That's just as boring to me.

We frequently have characters that aren't all that talented when it comes to things like perception.  So part of the way the world treats them is that I describe sudden situations to make them look worse than they are, not easier.  Every now and then, I panic them enough that they react, and even more rare, sometimes I get them to risk a resource that's difficult to recover. 

The players really enjoy this.  I suppose some groups would consider it cheap thrills, like a C-grade horror movie thing.  You thought it was a giant octopus about to kill the party in the underground pool they just slid into, when really it's a carved octopus on the roof with gems for eyes that looked real for a few seconds in the bad lighting.  Especially when it's nothing big but there are some lizard men waiting on the other side that aren't amused that you just dropped into their temple.

When I lie to the party, that's just another opportunity to interact with the world and discover the truth.  Or not, if running seems like a good idea at the time.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 12, 2022, 09:36:26 PM
We frequently have characters that aren't all that talented when it comes to things like perception.  So part of the way the world treats them is that I describe sudden situations to make them look worse than they are, not easier.  Every now and then, I panic them enough that they react, and even more rare, sometimes I get them to risk a resource that's difficult to recover. 

The players really enjoy this.  I suppose some groups would consider it cheap thrills, like a C-grade horror movie thing.  You thought it was a giant octopus about to kill the party in the underground pool they just slid into, when really it's a carved octopus on the roof with gems for eyes that looked real for a few seconds in the bad lighting.  Especially when it's nothing big but there are some lizard men waiting on the other side that aren't amused that you just dropped into their temple.

When I lie to the party, that's just another opportunity to interact with the world and discover the truth.  Or not, if running seems like a good idea at the time.

So you're the writer for Scooby-Doo? This is a cool idea...

To me, the relevant fairness is about consistently delivering the agreed upon experience and not playing favorites. Descripotions always imply "you see" not is irrevocably true. You see a car but you do not see the contents of the trunk until you open it and you do not need to roll to hot wire it if you say you check the visor for keys and they are in fact there. As for roll fudgery, so long as it is not against the players beyond the boss gets to live for one more action, I have no issue with it. It would not scale to have GM controlled characters managed to the same minutia as PCs at which point they might get formal rules for pulling damage or cinematic deaths. My only problem is retcons; once you declare something it should be permanent unless a mistake is caught early enough.