What' the most common ethical lapse one finds when examining Dungeon Masters?

What' the most common ethical lapse one finds when examining Dungeon Masters?

Same as with everyone else in a roleplaying game group, not playing for everyones mutual entertainment.

Tough call between

>DM's pretending to know everything about a subject they're completely ignorant of.

and

>DM's pushing their own ideas of morality/politics/world views into the weave of their game world and punishing the players for not playing along with their pet causes.

>Same as with everyone else in a roleplaying game group, not showing up prepared or on time consistently to actually play the fucking game.

imho, fudging dice rolls to save PCs
consider The Phantom Menace, when Darth Maul comes out of nowhere to slay Qui-Gon. that was unexpected and awesomely unlikely, which gave a lot of dramatic weight to that scene
sometimes the goblin moon's arrow should bring down the fighter who has otherwise been wading through mobs
it is unethical to shield PC's from fates like these, they should have a healthy fear of the dice

Obviously a rampant god complex.

That's cool if you wana play a dark high-stakes game, but sometimes when you wana just hang out and kill some goblins with friends over beer and pretzels, it's not exactly fun to have an edgelord drama tryhard trying to froce the campaign to be that thing he really should have just written a book about instead. If everyone's having fun and a TPK comes up because of a shitty dice roll, yeah, it's OK to fudge it a little. Not everyone wants to be Qui-Gon and get fucked right on out of a story they were otherwise doing well in and enjoying, and a DM's first responsibility is to make sure everyone has fun.

>it is unethical to let players have fun in a game

>Not having players taken prisoner instead when they're defeated so they can keep playing the characters they put alot of time and effort in.

Roleplaying games aren't a movie, you mong. The interactive nature means you're doing alot more than just throwing "drama" at you players, you're basically taking away their means of participating in a participation-based activity.

I love how in topics like this, without fail, there's always one of those "That Guys" the topic is about who uniornically doesn't understand he's the That Guy or why.

>b-but i put a lot of time and effort into muh charactwee!1
>hey man, i just wanted to have le ebbin gud timez, think i'll check out another group:-/
>grimedge darklord guy that ruins fun lol
man it is so easy to trigger you plebbit faggots. think about it this way: you are selling your players short by not building them up and trusting them enough to be able to navigate dangerous situations and come up with novel solutions to difficult scenarios
that's fine if you want to rub your dicks together and high five each other as you swamp cum, but some of us want a challenge and have faith in each other to figure it out

There are no ethical lapses in GM'ing. there are lapses in judgement, and there are lapses in good social interaction, but there are are no ethics in gaming.

Agreed to an extent.

I usually play MnM, which allows players to reroll a guaranteed improved resistance and such check proved they have a limited meta-resource, so I usually don't have to do the dice fudging.

STOP HAVING FUN GUISE! ONLY MY SUPER HARDCORE WAY IS RIGHT! IT'S THE FAULT OF YOUR REDDIT FAGS THAT I DON'T HAVE A GAME OR PLAYERS! In before asspulled claims otherwise :^)

They create dungeons

Too bad 90% of the That Guys who try to present their reasoning like this are also the kind of faggots who will have a DMPC one shot a player to death for not licking their boots or drop them into a lava lake without warning and then jerk off about how the players wern't "good enough" to figure out a way around it.

Then you belong in a different group from those people. That's what they're saying. You'd be That Guy if you tried to make things like you like at the expense of the rest of the groups enjoyment. They'd be That Guy if they did the same in a game where the rest of the group wanted what you want.

I say that as someone who agrees with your preference of dangerous games.

not fudging dice rolls =/= grimdark tryhard edgelord ultra badwrongfun
is this really such a hard concept to gradl?
is the average Veeky Forums player really so delicate?
you remind me of the cunt who wanted to play the Michelen star chef bard and sperged out about any criticism otherwise

It isn't even bait and it triggers all the shitty GMs so effortlessly.

"Rule 0' declarations used not as a tool to move something along or tweak something that's just plain stupid (like D&D fall damage), but a misnomer of the "Golden Rule" to gain the moral high ground for arbitrary and unjustified rule changes.

>Moving the goalpoasts this hard.

user pls.

Clearly those "shitty GMs" are doing something right, since they seem to be what the majority of players want. Have you considered that maybe some people just get more out of telling a fun story with friends than they do out of throwing sets of numbers into a meatgrinder to see which ones survive?

Then again, asking That Guys who don't even realize they're That Guys to have any awareness of other people is asking for a miracle.

In my experience it has been them telling players how their characters feel and even going as far as to tell the players how their characters react.

Lethality should be based on the type of campaign you are running which should be discussed before the campaign has even begun.

I agree with you that fudging dice is a bad idea but I don't think you really articulate why. The problem with fudging the dice is that it introduces the GMs personal bias into the game where the dice were meant to fairly arbitrate and if you consistently fudge dice you may as well be play freeform since the only things that happen are what you allow rather than the dice.

You don't have to fudge the dice to reduce lethality and besides why would you play a game with death mechanics if that was what you wanted?

I mean, yeah, I can agree with that. Still, the meatgrinder DMs never really DO discuss this with the players. They kill off half the party within the first 3 sessions then wonder why everyone quits. I've seen it more times than I can count in online games, and IRL I know exactly which of the people at the LGS have the "DM vs Player" mentality and always seem to be in the same boat of short-lived games that die quickly because nobody likes having to make a new character sheet every session.

ugh, did I get any pleb on me from reading these posts? someone check the back of my shirt

You're moving the goalposts (again). Most DM's who fudge dice only do so when the player is making smart decisions and still getting fucked in the ass by bad luck. It's not plot-armor. It's a way to tweak the story so that a run of bad luck doesn't completely dismantle it.

>Clearly those "shitty GMs" are doing something right, since they seem to be what the majority of players want.

Vocal minority =/= majority. Since when are you the voice of whichever RP community exactly?

>Have you considered that maybe some people just get more out of telling a fun story with friends than they do out of throwing sets of numbers into a meatgrinder to see which ones survive?

Have you considered that you can sit together in a circle taking turns giving inputs on what your team story telling exercise will go like and get exactly what you're looking for without ever touching a pair of dice? Have you maybe considered having an arbitrary chance of failure (or in many cases of dice fudging, predetermined) makes some people uninvested in a game? Or how some people can actually deal with the "death" of a piece of paper on a name and carry on like functional adults to make a new one and make more excellent memories? Or how maybe it makes system mastery irrelevant and ultimately does harm to RPs in general?

Then again, asking Those GMs who don't even realize they're Those GMs to have any awareness of other people is asking for a miracle.

A good DM doesn't have a characters life hang on a single or even a couple rolls. It's on the players to bail if thing go south and if that sounds to harsh to you, you should play a game without death mechanics

>>Lots a (you)

Ask your players if they want you to fudge or play straight. If you do the opposite, you're a cocksucker. Doesn't matter what Veeky Forums thinks if if your players don't have a say in it.

I agree with you, but I did articulate my reason why: dramatic weight. The players have a reasonable idea of the odds and have to make potentially fatal decisions at times along the way. However, your reasoning is also an excellent example of when and why dice fudging goes wrong.

the counter argument is that if a player is not having good luck with the dice, the player is shrewd enough to extricate themselves from the situation

this post tbqh senpai. love the strawman brigade: That Guy, edgelord, badwrongfun. with no comprehension of what those things actually are. heavens help me if I should pretend die in a dice simulator

That's fair, a good group should have had a discussion before the campaign even starts about what they are looking for and make sure everyone wants the same thing. I've definitely had fun high lethality games but also had unfun ones, it's all about matching expectations. A "DM vs player" mentality is certainly an issue since there is not really anything a player can do in game against a DM with that mentality if the DM doesn't want to let them.

>super hardcore
>implying
Is it really a game if you cannot lose? In my experience, character death only adds to the fun and generally creates lasting memories. If the players have nothing to lose it's too easy to just zone out and drift from one session to the next without any fear of anything actually happening to them, and no need to pay attention. If you fudge dice rolls for the sake of smooth gameplay, do you also railroad them along your super-special-unique storyline and deny any actual player agency? Wouldn't want things getting off-track and coming to an awkward standstill! Wouldn't be able to handle that! This style of play only works with the most bored and uninteresting players so I guess you've found a really appreciative group.

(OP)
Not using clean tools when you begin to dissect them and then lying about it.
Expect a call from the review board.

probably piracy

Fudging happens usually because whatever the system they're running is more swingy than the group actually wants.

>Laughs about people getting triggered
>Proceeds to post the most immature post, including mocking what everyone was saying.

Man, I know this is Veeky Forums, but you may want to look in a mirror, buddy.

On a related note, has anyone just ever...considered the following?

>1 - On some systems, fudging is ok, on others it's not.

So, an Evangelion game for example. It doesn't really make much sense for someone who isn't playing a manufactured child to be regenerated, nor does it make sense to pull out a new Eva pilot from nowhere. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but in a VERY heavily narrative driven game, it'd certainly be difficult.

On the opposite end, who gives a shit if you're playing Call of Cthulu? You should have made your character knowing you were going to die.

>2 - There can be alternatives to death.

So, using Evangelion for example, how about losing a limb? Or a horrifying experience that warp's the player's mind? Something that still lets them pilot, but gives them long-reaching, powerful consequences.

There's a lot more interesting failure-states than just death, and I'm not saying it can't be used well, I've made noble sacrifices before. However, it should be used to further the story, not as a bookend.

That's just my opinion, though.

Minimizing risks is done by the choices the players make, not by fucking with the dice.

If the player got himself in a situation where a Goblin could've killed him, he fucked up.

Here

I should've added that, but this guy is right on the money. If the players are fucking idiots, there should be consequences.

>What' the most common ethical lapse in DMs

Being white and male. That demographic has enough power as it is, there's no reason to give them more power in a mere entertainment product. We have the power to say "no" to any more cis white male DMs.

>We have the power to say "no"
Actually, since we make up around 98% of the DM demographic, you don't have a choice. You'll lap up whatever we give you and say "thank you sir" ;^)

See how oppressive the patriarchy is? No choices in the matter, just "do what the white men tell you."

I can't wait till you're all replaced with turkey basters.

"Look How Clever I Am" Design.

Puzzles and traps that subvert the players' understanding of the game world as a logical place, or that rely on giving the players misleading or incomplete information. Tomb of Horrors gets a pass because it doesn't pretend to be something else, but it's full of this kind of thing. Original Tomb of Horrors outside the tournament/power-player context would be a dick move.

The players rely on you to create a world that is at least internally logical, and to communicate accurate information about it to them. If you call the monster a troll, it's a troll. Don't make it weak to cold instead of fire. If it's weak to something different, call it something else or just describe it instead of naming it.

A lot of GMs try to be clever by subverting expectations, but when you're the sole source of information about the world, giving them bad information makes you a dick, not clever.

That Guy in his habitat

"This thread has been going to well for my liking." - said /pol/

Tbf your example isn’t very good. A troll could have some weird connection to a fire elemental or something so that it isn’t weak against fire. Now just making that up on the fly is bullshit but having it as a special monster with some foreshadowing is cool and fun.

achkshually, my habitat is my nice oak table in my nice warm kitchen with good food and drink and friends who can utilise critical thinking skills while also having a fun time. a big part of the game is beats and rests after all
me coming to 4chins to school brainlets is more of a public service really
rememeber, to utilise the "rule of cool", you'd have to be cool to begin with

>Implying you play games

this seems to be the favorite canned response of autismos who don't game themselves. a shower might help change this for you

user, what you are talking about is subverting players' knowledge of tropes to prevent metagaming, not for it's own sake.

If someone doesn't like a critical system or how one of the mechanics works, just change it. This is what it means to be a GM.