Dungeon/Game Master "Cheating."

[Tawmis]

This I bring up because Tyndmyr (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=46663) made a mention in their post. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7459784&postcount=96)

Now it begs the question - can DM's cheat? DM's are in essence "gods" of said world that they're game master of. Now the DM can of course, roll dice, the ogre he's rolling for, rolls a "1" behind that DM screen, and would technically fumble; but he (or she, mind you!) may want this encounter to be serious; and threatening! Especially if these are "sub bosses" that lead up to the big bad, monkey handed demon leader guy behind the ogres! You wouldn't want your ogres fumbling and making the fight impossible - so he (or she!) fudges the roll and says that the ogre's mace glances the fighter's platemail, rattling him, but doing little damage.

Is that cheating? The ogre should have (for those that go by the rule) fumbled their weapon possibly. But is it cheating if the DM fudges the roll to make the scene more intense? What becomes more important? The actual dice rolls or the intensity/story?

Naturally no one likes a DM who says, "A rock falls on you. You die."
"Do I get a saving's throw? A dex check?"
"No and no. You're dead."
That's not so much as cheating as it is bad DMing skills.

[Catch]

It's a question that has to be answered on a case-by-case basis. Does this decision improve or impair the game for the players?

If stepping outside the rules makes the game more fair, feasible and fun, it's fine.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes, DMs can cheat. No, it's not always a bad thing. Cheating in favour of the PCs because you screwed up is fine, but it's still cheating.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Depends on the DM and the group. I, for example, may build opponents and missions specifically aimed at the PCs, but I plan to roll the dice honestly and use as few Deus Ex Machinas as possible. The randomness of combat is part of the fun. PCs can die, and that makes the game better, because then the times they survive are all the sweeter. Other DMs may run it differently, because they view the story and the character development as the most important aspect of the game. For them, fudging the dice isn't cheating, it's helping the story. For me, it is cheating, because I'm detracting from the game.

And yes, that is a fine line dependent on way too many variables. All questions of morality for the omnipotent gods are. :smallwink:

[valadil]

Most GMs call it fudging. It's a fairly common practice. I'm of the opinion that it's okay, but you should let your group know if it's going to happen. In my games, story is more important than mechanics so I fudge dice when needed. My players all know this and if they don't like it they're welcome to leave the table.

[Alcopop]

Man, all the time. combat ends when it feels right for me, if the crit was 10 damage of dropping the dragon, the dragon drops anyway. (for example)
boss rolls nat one on will first round of combat? nope, but fourth round after some damage has been done that fort of 18 might suddenly be a fail. It's mainly so combat flows at a fun pace.

I have played sessions as a rule nazi before and find it's alot less fun for the players imho. It also makes things a lot more competative (dm vs. players). when i'm more interested in theatrics and fudge the occasional roll I find I get much more of a relaxed and happy vibe from my players. A bit of fudging here and there for effect is hardly a bad thing, in moderation of course.

[Oracle_Hunter]

"Fudging" the dice is certainly cheating, but it can be a necessary tool in the DM's toolbox - much like Schrodinger's Gun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitleocg6iflv079q) it can be used by DMs to make the game more fun for everyone.

That said, "fudging" in particular must be used only in dire emergencies and only to benefit the players.

It must be used only in dire emergencies because the dice are what keeps the game exciting - the uncaring uncertainty of the dice creates drama in "chancy" situations. The more you fudge, the less uncertainty there is in the game - and it won't be long until the players realize that, in certain situations, the outcome is already pre-determined.

This is bad enough if you use it to save PCs lives, but it is worse when you use it to thwart "lucky" PC action. Whether it is the round one Save Or Die or the critical that cuts down your future BBEG, as soon as you start fixing dice to help the monsters, you've committed the gravest form of railroading sin - the unwinable conflict.

IMHO, one fudges only when it is obvious the DM has screwed something up. Maybe he was lazy in building an encounter, or he misread a monster's abilities to make them too powerful - whatever it is, it isn't giving the PCs a fair-shake to overcome the challenge. Worse, it's a challenge that a reasonable PC would have gauged as doable; it kills immersion when players can no longer interpret game phenomenon in a consistent fashion.

[Volos]

The question of whether or not a DM cheats doesn't have a yes or no answer. There are two types of DMs...

The Judge: A Judge DM is one who wouldn't mind rolling his dice infront of the screen. He goes by the rules of the game, he is ruled by the dice, and he never cheats. Then again, if his orge minion who was only supposed to be a minor threat rolls triple 20s, then a PC is gonna die. That's just how it is.

The Guide: A Guide DM is one who is ruled by the story. He wouldn't roll infront of the players because there are rolls he needs to fudge to make the game more fun. Yes, the orge may or may not fumble on a natural '1', depending on if the players would have more fun killing the orge with their new magic weapons or if they would rather have a good laugh at the expense of the poor orge. Then again, he may decided that a triple 20s roll is only a normal crit so that the game doesn't turn into "D20 falls, everyone dies."

You are either one or the other, there is no inbetween. The Judge is always impartial, and the Guide will play to the story.

[ZeroNumerous]

The question of whether or not a DM cheats doesn't have a yes or no answer. There are two types of DMs...

...

You are either one or the other, there is no inbetween. The Judge is always impartial, and the Guide will play to the story.

I play with a story in mind, but if the dice kills one of my players then I change my story accordingly. I don't roll in front of my players, but I regularly fudge my player's dice("man, I rolled 1 success on 25 dice" "You did? I didn't see anything").

So what does that make me, oh lord of the land of black-and-white?

[Sir_Elderberry]

It's pretty much semantics. Yeah, DMs have Rule 0 authority that places them "above the rules". In that sense, they can't cheat as in "contradict the rules", at least in D&D. But most people will agree that "cheat" is a perfectly applicable term for "applying rule zero in the middle of the game" as opposed to houseruling.

Although I'd accept the use of the word "cheating" in this context, I think the question of whether this cheating is inherently bad is another thing. Certainly, DM fudging is not always good. I think I've been coddling players too much, and I need to remember that a near-TPK that only survived because the bard managed to crit with that last attack is way more memorable than "oh, yeah. That session. Where we killed orcs."

In the end, while DM "cheating" isn't immoral the way I'd describe player cheating, that doesn't mean that DM cheating is always justified or right.

[TheCountAlucard]

I don't roll in front of my players, but I regularly fudge my player's dice("man, I rolled 1 success on 25 dice" "You did? I didn't see anything").I've got a tendency toward that, too. I try and keep it down to once per player per session or less, though.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The question of whether or not a DM cheats doesn't have a yes or no answer. There are two types of DMs...

[...]

You are either one or the other, there is no inbetween. The Judge is always impartial, and the Guide will play to the story.

While fudging or not is a fairly black and white issue, it can be useful to further split the Guide category by degree. A Guide plays to the story, yes, but there's a huge difference between "Well, darn, the PCs all just rolled natural 1s on their saves against the BBEG's max-damage fireball, there's gonna be a TPK, so let's drop the damage a bit to leave them in the single digits" and "Hmm, I think I want this guy to last for 4 rounds, so I'll just have him die when I think he should die and have him make his saves and have enough HP until then." I'm definitely a Judge, one of the DMs in my usual group is the former type of Guide, and one is of the latter type, and the differences in playstyle among the three of us are drastic even though on the Judge/Guide issue they're the same.

[Raum]

Now it begs the question - can DM's cheat? To be blunt, yes. Where the line is drawn differs based on specific system, group, and game but there is almost always a line. Even freeform groups expect some conventions to be followed.


DM's are in essence "gods" of said world that they're game master of.Heh, yeah...Kipling's 'Little Tin Gods' more often than not. :smallwink:


Now the DM can of course, roll dice, the ogre he's rolling for, rolls a "1" behind that DM screen, and would technically fumble; but he (or she, mind you!) may want this encounter to be serious; and threatening! <snip> - so he (or she!) fudges the roll and says that the ogre's mace glances the fighter's platemail, rattling him, but doing little damage.This is perhaps the most common justification...and the most reprehensible. A good DM sets up threatening scenes by description and doesn't need to rely on die rolls - or 'fudged' die rolls.


Is that cheating? The ogre should have (for those that go by the rule) fumbled their weapon possibly. But is it cheating if the DM fudges the roll to make the scene more intense? As mentioned initially, it depends on the system, game, and group. Some groups allow DMs more leeway than others.


What becomes more important? The actual dice rolls or the intensity/story?This is the other justification in contention for most reprehensible. Mostly because it's not entirely honest. What most DMs mean is they want to tell their (the DM's) story while ignoring input from chance or players. Their preconceived idea of what the story 'should' be is imposed on the group.

The potential number of stories to be created is near infinite. Most are better stories without Mary Sue characters...whether PC or NPC.

[PhoenixRivers]

Can DM's cheat? Yes.

Cheating is simply, not following the rules. D&D allows GM's to set, alter, or change the rules as they see fit, so in that respect, it's not cheating.

However, when the players and the DM have an understood expectation of conduct, and that is violated, then you are cheating, within a social framework.

So if your players expect a Rule of Cool game, expect the awesome to be OK, even if it's not rules.

If they want mostly RAW, with common sense fixes, and that's what's agreed on? Then going outside of that boundary is cheating.

[randomhero00]

No, IMO it is impossible for DMs to cheat. To be a horrible entertainer/storyteller? Yes. Cheat? No. I personally see no problem in fudging rules for story purposes. The problems can come when they abuse it socially or don't give the players the story they want. But I still wouldn't consider that cheating, just a bad DM.

[Tyndmyr]

The question of whether or not a DM cheats doesn't have a yes or no answer. There are two types of DMs...

The Judge: A Judge DM is one who wouldn't mind rolling his dice infront of the screen. He goes by the rules of the game, he is ruled by the dice, and he never cheats. Then again, if his orge minion who was only supposed to be a minor threat rolls triple 20s, then a PC is gonna die. That's just how it is.

The Guide: A Guide DM is one who is ruled by the story. He wouldn't roll infront of the players because there are rolls he needs to fudge to make the game more fun. Yes, the orge may or may not fumble on a natural '1', depending on if the players would have more fun killing the orge with their new magic weapons or if they would rather have a good laugh at the expense of the poor orge. Then again, he may decided that a triple 20s roll is only a normal crit so that the game doesn't turn into "D20 falls, everyone dies."

You are either one or the other, there is no inbetween. The Judge is always impartial, and the Guide will play to the story.

I agree that these two archtypes exist, but I think there's a huge grey area between them that a great many DMs fall into.

That said, triple 20s IS just a normal crit for a judge, that being the rules and such.



Cheating is possible, but I wouldn't go so far as to link cheating inextricably with being a bad DM. Yes, it can be used to be a bad DM, but it's quite possible to also be a terrible DM within the rules. Rule 0 really should be "Don't be a jerk".

[PhoenixRivers]

No, IMO it is impossible for DMs to cheat. To be a horrible entertainer/storyteller? Yes. Cheat? No. I personally see no problem in fudging rules for story purposes. The problems can come when they abuse it socially or don't give the players the story they want. But I still wouldn't consider that cheating, just a bad DM.

If a DM says that he's going to follow one set of rules, but in practice, doesn't do so, he's violating his word. Cheating.

For example: The players and the DM, prior to the game, agree that dice shouldn't be fudged.

Later, the DM is working a preliminary meeting with a concealed BBEG, and a party member casts a Black Tentacles. They didn't see the BBEG, but were engaging something else. The DM rolls the grapple check, gets a 1. Thinking that's a stupid thing to happen, he treats it as a "Pass".

The DM just cheated. Not because he fudged. Because he violated his word to the players.

[Xzeno]

Can the DM cheat? No. The DMG, an official core rulebook, explicitly states that DMs cannot cheat. As it has been pointed out, cheating is breaking the rules. These rules are set up so that the DM cannot break them.

Now, more to the point: I don't fudge roles in the PCs favor except at low levels. If I don't want a certain result to come up, I try to not make it possible.

Of course, this means that characters can die from an unlucky streak. My solution: Don't fix it if it ain't broke. They're adventurers: They didn't take the job because they were afraid to die.

I do occasionally cheat in the favor of important NPCs (mostly villains) to keep them alive as the plot demands.
"But Xzeno, wouldn't cheating so that a villain lived when the PCs would have killed him be railroading, lame, bad storytelling, ect.?"
No, my nagging self doubt, it wouldn't. Or rather, it's fairly excusable. As DMs, we do this all the time. The villains contrived escape is exactly the same as cheating. A secret passage? A magic item you gave the villain so that he could escape? The same as making him succeed a fort save that he would have otherwise failed and died. Both exist only because we want or need the villain for our plot.

[Tyndmyr]

Agreed Phoenix. The rules will vary from table to table according to what accepted gameplay is, but every table has some set of rules, no matter how implicit, or how broad. If in your group, it's understood that the DM can and will fudge dice rolls, players will not view that as cheating unless it feels terribly biased.

Desirability of fudging die rolls is a slightly separate, but also interesting topic, though.

Some groups may view drastically inappropriate ECL encounters as a DM cheating. Some may view them as reflecting a realistic world. It doesn't matter what your groups precise viewpoint is, but whatever your rules are, be consistent, obey the generally accepted practices of your group, and avoid frequent or unilateral changes to the rules.

[Fawsto]

Why would someone with absolute power over a given scenario cheat about it? It is just so counter-productive.

It is, though, aconcept rather difficult to grasp that a DM must use his "powers" over the gaming table so everyone goes happy with the game.

A DM cheating... Well, he is quite a little bit away from grasping the concept of Game Master as a whole.

[drengnikrafe]

I had a DM who fudged every roll until we called him out on it... for the third time. No, I'm not kidding. I started to wonder why he even bothered rolling. It wasn't a big problem for the bad luck stuff, but the more rules he broke, the more it annoyed me.

So, in the name of fun, fudging dice rolls can be a good thing. In the name of having a power trip, it's about the farthest you can get from fun.

[Tyndmyr]

Can the DM cheat? No. The DMG, an official core rulebook, explicitly states that DMs cannot cheat. As it has been pointed out, cheating is breaking the rules. These rules are set up so that the DM cannot break them.

Please cite page number.

Note that while the adjudicating section itself says that you can overrule rules, it gives definite rules for doing so, including "if you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the game".

Clearly, it's possible to cheat.


I do occasionally cheat in the favor of important NPCs (mostly villains) to keep them alive as the plot demands.
"But Xzeno, wouldn't cheating so that a villain lived when the PCs would have killed him be railroading, lame, bad storytelling, ect.?"
No, my nagging self doubt, it wouldn't. Or rather, it's fairly excusable. As DMs, we do this all the time. The villains contrived escape is exactly the same as cheating. A secret passage? A magic item you gave the villain so that he could escape? The same as making him succeed a fort save that he would have otherwise failed and died. Both exist only because we want or need the villain for our plot.

An escape plan is not the same as cheating rolls on a SoD. Plans can fail. That secret passage can be found and disabled by the players, that magic item can be stolen, countered, broken, or what have you.

This is a form of railroading, and it's one your players typically won't like if they discover it. In my experience, players are pretty good at discovering such things, and at a minimum, they'll notice that the BBEGs always make their saves when it's convenient. Even if the players are too polite to make an issue of this, it tends to be distracting, and lead to metagamey thinking in player tactics.

[PhoenixRivers]

Please cite page number.I believe it's either page 17 or 21.

"You are the final arbiter of everything that happens. Period."

Means that your rulings are final, even above book rules. Ruling that specific rules apply to players only? Then they do.

[grautry]

Is that cheating? The ogre should have (for those that go by the rule) fumbled their weapon possibly. But is it cheating if the DM fudges the roll to make the scene more intense? What becomes more important? The actual dice rolls or the intensity/story?

Frankly?

It might make the scene more interesting if you fudge the rolls but it's really unlikely.

Take two situations: one, where the PC's kill the BBEG instantaneously because they got lucky on that one roll(say, vorpal weapon). Bam! Story-shattering event, the enemies scatter, the players emerge victorious.

Situation two, the fight against the BBEG is challenging because you fudged the rolls in his favour and prevented the vorpal weapon from working. The rest of the fight was a fun, interesting, challenging encounter.

A year from that session, which situation do you think they'd remember? Or, let me put it in another way, which situation do you think they'd remember as being completely awesome?

The fun in not fudging dice is that they create unprecedented, unique situations that no one could've planned for. And that makes them memorable. And fun.

If you want to have the possibility of 'dice-fudging' without taking away from the fun of the game then simply establish it as an in-universe mechanic. Give PC's/important NPC's some variant of Action Points, dice rerolls or something. Don't arbitrarily change the rules in the middle of the game 'just because'.

[Tyndmyr]

I believe it's either page 17 or 21.

"You are the final arbiter of everything that happens. Period."

Means that your rulings are final, even above book rules. Ruling that specific rules apply to players only? Then they do.

Not on page 17 or 21. Page 18 does have a section entitled "DM Cheating and player perceptions". You may be thinking of that. It includes the phrase "The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes.", which is the unfortunate bit that routinely gets held up as supporting rule 0.

People routinely ignore the three paragraphs of caveats and restrictions following that, though. They also tend to ignore the idea that cheating is a word with social implications as well as rule-based ones, and thus, can be used to mean significantly different things depending on context.


It's also worth noting that the Adjudicating section contains yet more cautions and restrictions on how you should handle rule changes. The idea that this applies to anything more drastic than house rules has no support within this text.

[Tokiko Mima]

I've always considered it a silent agreement between players and DM. You're a DM in order to make the game fun for everyone. If something happens that will or is making the game not fun, then as the DM you have the responsibility to do something about that. That's why you have Rule Zero power in the first place; the rules can't judge when something is good or bad for the RPG experience for the players, they only model the game system itself irregardless of meatspace.

In order to preserve dramatic tension however, you should not tell the players when you break the rules. If they know that you'll break the rules whenever they get in trouble, then there won't be any disadvantage to taking big risks. As long as you 'keep it secret' (Of course if they understand a DM's role, they already know you're doing this!) then they won't know if that miraculous miss/hit was dumb luck, or if it was the DM trying to keep the story progressing. That little bit of doubt as to when exactly you 'cheat' is really all you need.

So no, I don't think the DM can 'cheat' in a system with Rule Zero, and I think some level of what you might consider 'cheating' is necessary for the DM in most (but not all!) campaigns.

[Mastikator]

I don't think a DM can cheat, mostly because they are a greater authority than the rules. The rules are there to serve the game experience, and not the other way around.

[Xzeno]

Please cite page number.

Page 18.



This is a form of railroading, and it's one your players typically won't like if they discover it. In my experience, players are pretty good at discovering such things, and at a minimum, they'll notice that the BBEGs always make their saves when it's convenient. Even if the players are too polite to make an issue of this, it tends to be distracting, and lead to metagamey thinking in player tactics. Railroading? Yep. Agreed. Very hackish. All I'm saying is that escape plans are usually equally hackish in their purpose and implementation.

I'm not saying a bad guy should make a save when convenient. That's hacking badly. More importantly, that would violate my "try to make situations you find unacceptable impossible" idea. Finger of Death? Death Ward (I think that's how that works). This is like cheating in that they are both used only because I don't want the death of the villain to be a possible outcome in which ever situation. If a PC casts Finger o' Death and it fails, it is the same whether it was "cheating" or a spell. One has an in character justification, but both are used for the same purpose.

Don't get me wrong: The DM shouldn't cheat often. Not ever, if he can help it. But if he can't... if he failed to think of an (in character and villainous) contingency plan... if the only other option is allowing the players to absolutely wreck his game plan... he can cheat! Unless he agreed with the players that he wouldn't do so. Then he shouldn't cheat, ever.

[Curmudgeon]

Cheating isn't good. That's why I roll the dice out in the open for all the players to see, and everybody lives with the consequences.

That doesn't mean there aren't options. I've got the freedom to decide that the reinforcement group had something better to do when the players are rolling really poorly. Bad things happen, and an enemy getting a couple of back-to-back critical hits could mean a PC death. But I try to keep things challenging rather than deadly for the most part. Plus reinforcements are just the way things usually work. How often do you find all of a big group of enemies in armor and ready to fight? More often than not it'll be an advance party if out in the field, or a small guard contingent if at base. Should the battle go on long enough the main infantry, or troops sleeping in barracks, can join the fray.

That said, if the PCs all decide to go skinny-dipping in a shark-infested inlet, I'm not going to have those sharks suddenly lose their appetites. I roll those dice out in the open, too. Stupid PC tricks = lunchtime! :smalleek:

[PhoenixRivers]

Not on page 17 or 21. Page 18 does have a section entitled "DM Cheating and player perceptions". You may be thinking of that. It includes the phrase "The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes.", which is the unfortunate bit that routinely gets held up as supporting rule 0.


No, the page may not be memorized, but the quote is. It's at the beginning chapters. Left page, top, first couple sentences. It does state that your word is the final one, no exceptions.

I once had to refer a player to it twice a session for an entire campaign when he attempted to repeatedly sidetrack the adventure mid combat with rules challenges and alternate interpretations. I listen to a few, but I don't want each player's turn taking 15 minutes due to rules lookups, when 90% of them don't support the guy in the first place.

[Tyndmyr]

Railroading? Yep. Agreed. Very hackish. All I'm saying is that escape plans are usually equally hackish in their purpose and implementation.

I'm not saying a bad guy should make a save when convenient. That's hacking badly. More importantly, that would violate my "try to make situations you find unacceptable impossible" idea. Finger of Death? Death Ward (I think that's how that works). This is like cheating in that they are both used only because I don't want the death of the villain to be a possible outcome in which ever situation. If a PC casts Finger o' Death and it fails, it is the same whether it was "cheating" or a spell. One has an in character justification, but both are used for the same purpose.

Depends on how you do it. Me, I write up a list of what buffs a character will typically have up on them pre-battle, in the event they are expecting it. If caught by surprise, I reduce the buffs accordingly unless the character has a way to routinely persist buffs, etc(and most wont).

So the guy knows Death Ward and is bright enough to cast it before trying to kill off a party solo. That's just fine.

If, on the other hand, the wizard casts a SoD on round 1, and you suddenly decide that you need to keep him alive, and say "Uuuh, he's got death ward!", then yes, that's quite hackish.


Don't get me wrong: The DM shouldn't cheat often. Not ever, if he can help it. But if he can't... if he failed to think of an (in character and villainous) contingency plan... if the only other option is allowing the players to absolutely wreck his game plan... he can cheat! Unless he agreed with the players that he wouldn't do so. Then he shouldn't cheat, ever.

That's valid...however, I would argue that a superior option would be to simply avoid cheating ever. First off, avoid making plots that depend heavily on the players exact actions. Any plotline that depends on a villain escaping after fighting with the player, for example, has a risk of failure. Expect players to attempt to kill and loot the bejezus out of anything available, most of the time. The rest of the time, they'll act randomly. If you find a plotline becoming dependant on precise orders of events, certain player actions, etc with great frequency, you're probably in need of rethinking your plot. Not every story makes a good RPG plot.

Secondly, if a story arc does end prematurely, have something else ready to go. Nothing is completely predictable, you can always miss something. Some people are great at improv, and can come up with this on the spot. For those that aren't, keep backup material on hand. After all, it's unlikely that the BBEG is the *only* threat in existence than the PCs might face.

[Tyndmyr]

No, the page may not be memorized, but the quote is. It's at the beginning chapters. Left page, top, first couple sentences. It does state that your word is the final one, no exceptions.

18 upper left does state "You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period."

So...you're the arbiter. That line is followed by six paragraphs describing exactly how you should arbitrate. I don't see how you could take this as a completely open ended "I can do no wrong" sort of statement.

[PhoenixRivers]

18 upper left does state "You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period."

So...you're the arbiter. That line is followed by six paragraphs describing exactly how you should arbitrate. I don't see how you could take this as a completely open ended "I can do no wrong" sort of statement.

Because one says what IS.

One states how you should use it.

It's much like saying: "Magnolia St is a busy road. You should look both ways before crossing it."

Can you cross without looking? Yes. It's not forbidden, just unwise.

That's because "should" isn't a mandate. It's an advisement.

Whereas the "you're the arbiter.." line? That does pretty much flat out say that if you and someone else at the table disagree over what's allowed? You're right.

If there's an appeal? See the "Period".

[Tawmis]

Of course, this means that characters can die from an unlucky streak. My solution: Don't fix it if it ain't broke. They're adventurers: They didn't take the job because they were afraid to die.

I do occasionally cheat in the favor of important NPCs (mostly villains) to keep them alive as the plot demands.

"But Xzeno, wouldn't cheating so that a villain lived when the PCs would have killed him be railroading, lame, bad storytelling, ect.?"

No, my nagging self doubt, it wouldn't. Or rather, it's fairly excusable. As DMs, we do this all the time. The villains contrived escape is exactly the same as cheating. A secret passage? A magic item you gave the villain so that he could escape? The same as making him succeed a fort save that he would have otherwise failed and died. Both exist only because we want or need the villain for our plot.

Ah, but see - THIS is exactly where I was going to head with this topic eventually!

So you're saying - if the players get some bad rolls, they die. You said: Of course, this means that characters can die from an unlucky streak. My solution: Don't fix it if it ain't broke. They're adventurers: They didn't take the job because they were afraid to die.

But by the same token you said:

I do occasionally cheat in the favor of important NPCs (mostly villains) to keep them alive as the plot demands.

Now if players are bound to the rule of bad rolls = death, why is your main villain also not bound by the same rules? Shouldn't bad rolls from the villain also mean that he too should die?

I myself, am a "Storytelling DM" (or Guide DM, as I think someone called it previously in this thread). My "major villains" often make last minute escapes with threats of revenge against the would be heroes; just as, sometimes, the would be heroes, who are knocked to -15 Hit Points, just sit at 0 Hit Points instead (and pray and hope that someone survives to bandage them and stabilize them!)

But I am quick to punish dumb behavior from characters. For example, in one of the campaigns, the rogue was often sneaking around the combat and getting to treasure chests first, popping the locks, looting the treasure, then joining the fight - then equally dividing a... portion of the treasure with the party. One of the characters caught on to this (a warrior) and continued to try to get to the chest before the rogue. And did so; several times. Now this behavior was endangering the party (since their warrior was becoming obsessed with getting treasure before finishing off the foes) and was also dampening the fun of the rogue (who often had to check for traps, roll, pick locks, roll, roll for treasure type, etc). So I began trapping some of the chests that the warrior was going for. After several shots of poison, electricity, fire, the warrior caught on that the warrior should focus on being a warrior, and let the rogue focus on being a rogue.

[Lioness]

Oh, our DM cheats all of the time. Blatantly. He doesn't need a DM screen, but we adhere pretty strictly to rule 1 (we houserules rule 0 as 'The DM's girlfriend is always right' so 'The DM is always right got moved up a slot')

For instance, we are in combat. It's the monster's turn, and he wants it to actually hit us.

*rolls d20*
'Oh, that sucked'
*roll again*
'That's better! Sable, does a 17 hit you?'

Sable: (Smug look) nope.
DM: drat

Or he'll hit us. I'll use Sable as an example again, because she's a wizard and has really low hit points (34 at 9th level)

*DM rolls*
'Does...27 hit?'
Sable: Uhhh...yeah. (only by a lot)
DM: Oh, this'll be good.
*rolls dice*
*panicked look*
DM: uhh...exactly how much health do you have left...?
Sable: :S 19
DM: Umm...well. It was going to do about 35 damage, but I'm feeling nice and I don't really want you to die, so it does 27 (which puts me on -8)
Sable: *sigh of relief*

Unless we've been endangered by our own stupidity, in which case he holds nothing back.

But yeah, he's shameless about fudging rolls. He even fudges our rolls.

We roll, we get 1s and 2s.
'Oh come on, you can do better than that.'
*reaches over and nudges one of the dice*
see?

[Tyndmyr]

Because one says what IS.

One states how you should use it.

It's much like saying: "Magnolia St is a busy road. You should look both ways before crossing it."

Can you cross without looking? Yes. It's not forbidden, just unwise.

That's because "should" isn't a mandate. It's an advisement.

Whereas the "you're the arbiter.." line? That does pretty much flat out say that if you and someone else at the table disagree over what's allowed? You're right.

If there's an appeal? See the "Period".

An overwhelming amount of stuff directed at the DM includes use of words like "Should", and "Should not". A certain amount of house ruling is expected, and DMs have wide latitude in many areas, such as encounter and campaign design.

However, certain sections, such as the Adjudicating section I mentioned, give a list of instructions on what to do. By their nature, they have some open endedness, yes, but nothing about them says they are optional.



Just because someone adjudicates something does not free him from the rules, any more than a Judge may override rules willy-nilly in the courtroom. Yes, he may often decide exactly how those rules are applied, and this does contain a great deal of power...but it's not limitless.

[BobVosh]

When I DM I follow a rule from paranoia. Only roll the dice if you don't know how you want it to go. Your BBEG fails horribly? Oh no, your PCs just looked heroic for utterly trouncing him.

Cheating should never be done about the dice. Sometimes it is easier to build NPCs with cheating so you don't have to find out exactly how to justify something. Use this with care, or you will upset players.

Also never, ever screw a player over for plot. You should have an answer to get around it. The BBEGs dragon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDragon) takes over, they raise him, next story arc rears it head, etc. Saying "no, I don't want you to" is a great way to piss off a player. A plotline that is epic is great, but it is a story if the players can't change it. It is a game if both PCs and DMs lead it to being amazing.

Cheating is normally the sign of an unimaginative DM in my experience. We still joke about how one DM has cheated so obviously we knew when he did it. We had a combat, until halfway through he pulls out a screen. He then amazingly rolls 3 20s in a row, which is evidently an autokill. At least it was then.

Anyway, to summarize: DMs can cheat. DMs shouldn't cheat. Same with players.

[PhoenixRivers]

An overwhelming amount of stuff directed at the DM includes use of words like "Should", and "Should not". A certain amount of house ruling is expected, and DMs have wide latitude in many areas, such as encounter and campaign design.

However, certain sections, such as the Adjudicating section I mentioned, give a list of instructions on what to do. By their nature, they have some open endedness, yes, but nothing about them says they are optional.



Just because someone adjudicates something does not free him from the rules, any more than a Judge may override rules willy-nilly in the courtroom. Yes, he may often decide exactly how those rules are applied, and this does contain a great deal of power...but it's not limitless.

Actually, a judge may. He risks consequences for doing so (such as loss of his job), but he may.

In the same regard, a DM may choose to arbitrate however he/she sees fit. That DM must abide by the consequences of doing so, including possibly losing his position because his players don't come back.

The DM may interpret everything after the topmost 2 lines as "too open ended to effectively apply" and disregard it. That is a ruling. A bad one, IMO, but I'm merely stating what's allowed, not what's wise.

[FerhagoRosewood]

I'm reminded of a situation where the party, third level, faced off against a Young Dragon (with a template I homebrewed, but was approved by the players). It was designed as a boss battle, and certainly was.

The fight, after all were at full health, resulted in each hitting below 0 at least once. One even hit -9 before he was healed by the Cleric... who dropped to -1 for doing so. To say it was intense would be an understatement. So in my horror, the Paladin (healed by the Cleric) rises to do damage... but STILL not enough to kill it.

During this fight I was heavily worried that I gave the thing too much health. I personally rolled each one and added them together, giving it 20 more than the standard in the end (and without a con score to add to it).

Anyways, I made the Dragon try to flee for his life. Openly. My party saw through this and one said, "No. He's smart enough to know that doing so would expose himself more. He would stay and fight. What happens happens." The others agreed. Then the person that said that to me had their character killed by the Dragon.

At the very last moment, the Ranger/Swordsage pulled himself out of the negatives with a stabilization check. And killed the Dragon. Then fell down into the negatives. Leaving the Paladin to heal the Cleric & the Ranger/Swordsage while the Sorcerer/Fighter/Barbarian passed on for good (there's little to no rez in my world).

Did I go too hard on them, making the monster? Not really, because it was only three levels above them. It was universally attributed to bad rolls by the party. The Cleric never hit once, for example.

But at least it let me know that the party wants me to be a "judge", no matter how much of a "guide" I am.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, a judge may. He risks consequences for doing so (such as loss of his job), but he may.

In the same regard, a DM may choose to arbitrate however he/she sees fit. That DM must abide by the consequences of doing so, including possibly losing his position because his players don't come back.

The DM may interpret everything after the topmost 2 lines as "too open ended to effectively apply" and disregard it. That is a ruling. A bad one, IMO, but I'm merely stating what's allowed, not what's wise.

May...yes. But legally, he may not. It's a violation of the rules.

Likewise, players and DMs certainly CAN violate rules. That doesn't make it acceptable, or within the rules to do so. The entire point of rule 0 is that it's somehow justified by the rules...never mind that the phrase "rule 0" never actually occurs, and getting any support for it requires cherry picking a couple sentences out of context.

[PhoenixRivers]

May...yes. But legally, he may not. It's a violation of the rules.

Likewise, players and DMs certainly CAN violate rules. That doesn't make it acceptable, or within the rules to do so. The entire point of rule 0 is that it's somehow justified by the rules...never mind that the phrase "rule 0" never actually occurs, and getting any support for it requires cherry picking a couple sentences out of context.

In your opinion.

Frankly, when the DM can do the following:

Make rules.
Change Rules.
Remove Rules.

And all three are RAW legal?

What this means is that the DM can alter any rule that disagrees with what he wants.

See? A standard judge (of most any flavor) just follows the rules. A DM can write them. Therein lies the difference.

[Optimystik]

If a DM says that he's going to follow one set of rules, but in practice, doesn't do so, he's violating his word. Cheating.

For example: The players and the DM, prior to the game, agree that dice shouldn't be fudged.

Later, the DM is working a preliminary meeting with a concealed BBEG, and a party member casts a Black Tentacles. They didn't see the BBEG, but were engaging something else. The DM rolls the grapple check, gets a 1. Thinking that's a stupid thing to happen, he treats it as a "Pass".

The DM just cheated. Not because he fudged. Because he violated his word to the players.

This summed up my stance on the issue quite well. If you're a "play it as it falls" kind of DM, you need to plan for what happens if doing so derails your carefully crafted story lattice.

[Tyndmyr]

In your opinion.

Frankly, when the DM can do the following:

Make rules.
Change Rules.
Remove Rules.

And all three are RAW legal?

Technically, additions to the game are legal, as are rule changes. There is no mention of removing rules. Now yes, you can effectively remove certain rules by changes, but what Im getting at here is that how you can do those is specified. It's not completely open ended.

In fact, almost the entirety of those sections is devoted to limiting those options.

It's pretty clear that WOTC didn't expect to be able to completely ban house rules...they didn't try for that. They tried to limit them by making the existing system as comprehensive as possible, and providing guidance on what sort of house rules are appropriate. Obviously, they couldn't make an exhaustive list of every possibility, but the intent in these sections is quite clear.


What this means is that the DM can alter any rule that disagrees with what he wants.

See? A standard judge (of most any flavor) just follows the rules. A DM can write them. Therein lies the difference.

Given that interpretation and precedent have legal standing in a great many systems, including those used by the US, this isn't true. Judges can indeed change the system of law with their decisions...but they can only do so in specific, limited ways.

[dsmiles]

For them, fudging the dice isn't cheating, it's helping the story.
And yes, that is a fine line dependent on way too many variables. All questions of morality for the omnipotent gods are. :smallwink:

This. However, my monsters will always fumble on a 1, but not necessarily crit on a 20 (or whatever their crit range is). It's all in the name of the story. If the character that the monster crits on needs to live a little longer to advance the story, he/she might just end up unconscious at 0 HP instead of dead at -12 HP (or whatever overkill the monster happened to do). And, yes, it is a very fine line to walk. If the character has had way too many "coincidences" that left him/her at 0 HP, it may be time to advance the story by letting them die. But, all said, characters die, crap happens.

[Optimystik]

Given that interpretation and precedent have legal standing in a great many systems, including those used by the US, this isn't true. Judges can indeed change the system of law with their decisions...but they can only do so in specific, limited ways.

Actually, a judge can rule any way he pleases, regardless of precedent. The problem is that if precedent is against him, his ruling will generally be overturned on appeal - and at the highest levels (Supreme Court) such rulings will negatively impact his chances of being re-appointed, or in drastic cases even being allowed to serve out his entire term.

A DM faces none of those risks. There is no appeals process, and no formal process for either election or recusal. The players have but one option - leaving his table, individually or as a group.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, a judge can rule any way he pleases, regardless of precedent. The problem is that if precedent is against him, his ruling will generally be overturned on appeal - and at the highest levels (Supreme Court) such rulings will negatively impact his chances of being re-appointed, or in drastic cases even being allowed to serve out his entire term.

A DM faces none of those risks. There is no appeals process, and no formal process for either election or recusal. The players have but one option - leaving his table, individually or as a group.

The two systems are not perfectly identical, of course, but the ideas behind them are the same. In fact, I'd argue that "not being allowed to serve out his entire term" is roughly analogous to the players leaving as a group. Both are obviously worst case scenarios, though, and a good judge/DM should never attempt to push things to such an extreme.

[PhoenixRivers]

Technically, additions to the game are legal, as are rule changes. There is no mention of removing rules. Now yes, you can effectively remove certain rules by changes, but what Im getting at here is that how you can do those is specified. It's not completely open ended.

In fact, almost the entirety of those sections is devoted to limiting those options.

It's pretty clear that WOTC didn't expect to be able to completely ban house rules...they didn't try for that. They tried to limit them by making the existing system as comprehensive as possible, and providing guidance on what sort of house rules are appropriate. Obviously, they couldn't make an exhaustive list of every possibility, but the intent in these sections is quite clear.
Removing rules? Create one that counteracts it, and claim that DM rules are primary source. How you do it is specified in non-concrete terms that must be interpreted. By the DM. Who, incidentally, is the one deciding how to do it.

Nobody here is arguing that it's not a bad idea to change things willy-nilly. It is. Nobody's arguing that arbitrary changes are good. They're not. But if the only thing you have to go on is interpretation? And the DM is the sole interpretation at the table? Then your interpretation is only good so long as the DM agrees with it. If the DM views that two sentences out-of-context are the primary driving force, and the rest of it is fluff? Then he rules it that way, and moves on. And if that's his style, then it is. If it works, great. If not, players will find someone else.

The remainder of your post veers towards areas I'd personally prefer to avoid. If you'd care to make your analogy along the lines of private (commercial) sector arbitration, I'd be more willing to discuss.

[Tyndmyr]

Removing rules? Create one that counteracts it, and claim that DM rules are primary source. How you do it is specified in non-concrete terms that must be interpreted. By the DM. Who, incidentally, is the one deciding how to do it.

Nobody here is arguing that it's not a bad idea to change things willy-nilly. It is. Nobody's arguing that arbitrary changes are good. They're not. But if the only thing you have to go on is interpretation? And the DM is the sole interpretation at the table? Then your interpretation is only good so long as the DM agrees with it. If the DM views that two sentences out-of-context are the primary driving force, and the rest of it is fluff? Then he rules it that way, and moves on. And if that's his style, then it is. If it works, great. If not, players will find someone else.

Yes, you can do that. You can do anything. But if it's breaking the rules, it is cheating.

Creating new rules or changing existing rules have rules on how it should be done.

Arbitrating differences have rules on how it should be done.

Neither of these have precedence over other rules in that same section, such as the bit entitled "Working with Players", and the very text within those sections, if you read them in whole, instead of cherry picking, explicitly describes the need to work with the players.


What many people are trying to do is argue for a specific interpretation of a very limited subset of the rules, allowing them to change the rules to make it legal to change the rules. You've got to start with the rules in the book in whole, not in part, if you want to claim your actions are legal.

[Optimystik]

Creating new rules or changing existing rules have rules on how it should be done.

So change THOSE rules. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I see where you're coming from. Ultimately, as long as the DM and players agree ahead of time on what's changing, there should be no problem making any changes you all see fit.

[icefractal]

I think there's a big difference between making houserules (which are announced when the game starts, or at least at the start of a session) and just changing stuff on the fly. I don't think anyone would think it was cheating if a DM said "I don't like important people dying from one failed save, so anyone important (PCs, BBEGs, major NPCs) gets a reroll each session."

But if everyone had been previously playing by the normal rules, and then the DM, after rolling a '1' for the BBEG, declared that it didn't count and rerolled it ... that might raise some complaints.

[PhoenixRivers]

Yes, you can do that. You can do anything. But if it's breaking the rules, it is cheating.

Creating new rules or changing existing rules have rules on how it should be done.

Arbitrating differences have rules on how it should be done.

Neither of these have precedence over other rules in that same section, such as the bit entitled "Working with Players", and the very text within those sections, if you read them in whole, instead of cherry picking, explicitly describes the need to work with the players.


What many people are trying to do is argue for a specific interpretation of a very limited subset of the rules, allowing them to change the rules to make it legal to change the rules. You've got to start with the rules in the book in whole, not in part, if you want to claim your actions are legal.

As far as RAW goes, the core rules flat out state that the DM can't cheat. Really. They do. Which is why my argument is based more on player obligation and the more general definition of cheating.

Thus, any argument that supports a contrary position is directly contradicted by the RAW.

So we have:

Rules stating DM can't cheat.
You stating DM can cheat.

Per your original statement:

But if it's breaking the rules, it is cheating.
Is then your stance cheating?

[Zeta Kai]

From my perspective, if you caught the DM cheating, then he has already lost. It's perfectly fine for the DM to bend or break the rules for the sake of the players' fun, but it's gauche to let them know that he has done so in a specific instance. It's like stage magic: everybody knows that it's all just smoke & mirrors, but the guy on stage can't just tell you that, because that spoils the fun.

[dsmiles]

From my perspective, if you caught the DM cheating, then he has already lost. It's perfectly fine for the DM to bend or break the rules for the sake of the players' fun, but it's gauche to let them know that he has done so in a specific instance. It's like stage magic: everybody knows that it's all just smoke & mirrors, but the guy on stage can't just tell you that, because that spoils the fun.

This is exactly why we have DM screens:
"I am the great and powerful Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

We can pull off our stage magic (saving characters' lives, keeping the BBEG alive for just one more round for drama, etc) without anyone ever knowing what's going on "behind the curtain."

[Megaduck]

You know on the entire rules no rules debate I've decided that there are two rules in D&D.

1. The DM's job is to create a fun and entertaining gaming experience.

2. The DM may ignore Rule Books, Die Rolls, or even Logic in the pursuit of Rule 1.

In my opinion, what's in the Players Guide, the DMG and all the other books are simply suggestions. I approach problems with the question 'Will my players Enjoy this?' if the answer is no then I don't care what some books says, I'm not going to do it.

So, I think the only way for a DM to cheat is to actively try to make an unpleasant or non-entertaining game.


*Edit*
I have to agree with Zeta Kai and dsmiles. The game is much more fun when you don't know that the DM saved your character by changing the BBEG's double critical into a simple hit.

[Zeta Kai]

You know on the entire rules no rules debate I've decided that there are two rules in D&D.

1. The DM's job is to create a fun and entertaining gaming experience.

2. The DM may ignore Rule Books, Die Rolls, or even Logic in the pursuit of Rule 1.

That, my friend, is my DMG, distilled to its purest essence. That's all you need. Well, that & Rule #0.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Well, that & Rule #0.

Didn't we just have a large argument over Rule 0? It's fine as is, partisan.







:P

[Tyndmyr]

So change THOSE rules. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I see where you're coming from. Ultimately, as long as the DM and players agree ahead of time on what's changing, there should be no problem making any changes you all see fit.

Pretty much. =) So long as you have the players on board, and keep your house rules consistant and balanced(well, some rough semblance of balance anyhow), you're golden as far as the DMG rules regarding changing rules are concerned. The end goal is a fun, happy game everyone's enjoying. House rules to that end are fine, and merely need to be thought out a bit.

Using Rule 0 as some sort of RAW reason why the DM should get his way over the objections of his player group is something else entirely, and I tend to get this vibe at times. Sure, the DM has plenty of power...but it's only there to make the game work, not to power trip on.

[Nanan]

As a DM I do/have cheated quite a few times and I have quite a few house rules that I use to override core rules. Why do I cheat? well its mostly to keep players from dying when fate just reams them.

Yep that 9th level rogue npc that you pissed off earlier just got a 20 on his sneak attack and rolled a confirmation and oh look 6 sixes on the dmg and a 5 on his +3 Rapier of Wounding and his +4 Str bonus, which adds up to your level 6 cleric ass just took 96 damage, I have had this happen with no intent on killing the cleric in the first round of combat so I reduce it to half damage, cleric lives for the day.

So Mr. Ranger, you are going to try to jump that 15 foot wide(250 deep) fisher in the ground, look at that you just rolled a 1 and only had a 5 in jump, well you land on a ledge 50 foot down and only take 22 falling damage.

[Tyndmyr]

Yep that 9th level rogue npc that you pissed off earlier just got a 20 on his sneak attack and rolled a confirmation and oh look 6 sixes on the dmg and a 5 on his +3 Rapier of Wounding and his +4 Str bonus, which adds up to your level 6 cleric ass just took 96 damage, I have had this happen with no intent on killing the cleric in the first round of combat so I reduce it to half damage, cleric lives for the day.

I don't state levels, but I do give indications of rough power and skill. Higher level npcs tend to have better positions, gear, etc.

Players learn pretty quick that unless they're playing at a pretty high level, they probably should be reasonably careful about who they piss off. Im fond of that effect.

Likewise, I know of no player in my group who would leap a 250ft deep chasm unless he was dead certain he couldn't fail.

[Tawmis]

In the end - it's up to the DM to entertain his players - whether dice fudging is done or not, I believe. I have, perhaps through great fortune, only been involved in fairly fun and entertaining games - and only had two bad encounters with DMs.

Once, one of the players had his brother DM - it was a Norse based game, where we worshiped the gods of Asgard. Well the DM was upset at his brother, had us attacked by a golden pig, that apparently belonged to Frey, who then got immediate revenge on us.

And the second time was when another DM locked us in a house with ... oh what are their names? The female floating head vampire things? Well at any rate, my wife, who played a mage/illusionist (2nd edition) - cast the spell sunlight - which in essence, has all the effects of the sun, and there is no savings throw. In two seconds, she defeated our big bosses. He was not amused. And he's a very, very, very experienced DM.

But then it's sometimes the most inexperienced of players, such as my wife, who pull off the most amazing things. She was a gnome Rogue/Illusionist; and during a battle with ogres (which had I think a -4 to hit her because of the size difference), she cast mirror image on herself (making it increasingly more difficult - can't remember the number) to hit her - and then slid on a ring of blinking and kept teleporting around the ogre. Essentially unless the ogre rolled a natural 20 he was not going to hit her.

I was floored, considering she was pretty new to D&D at the time she pulled this off.

Once again the DM was not amused, but we as (experienced players the rest of us) were like "Holy $#!+."

[LordZarth]

A lot of people have said "no, he can't, it's called fudging... but it's only for dire circumstances" or "yes the DM can cheat, but sometimes it's OK".

I totally disagree. The DM cannot cheat. He is the rules. Rule 1 is that the DM trumps every rule, which is a fancy way of saying he makes the rules. The DM's sole responsibility is to make the game enjoyable--as enjoyable as possible--for the players.

I myself use the rulebooks. I look for rules wherever I can in splatbooks. I roll the dice all the time. Sometimes, once in a while, I disregard what I've rolled. This is because, as we all know, the random element is a huge part of what makes the game fun: in general, sure, the PCs are going to be or are the heroes, but on a small scale, you don't know what's going to happen.

You don't need dice or rules for that. I am not DM Maximus Optimusque, and I have never met him, but if DM Maximus Optimusque existed, than he would come to the session with nothing but his clothes and it would still be the best session ever.

I'm not like that. I need notes, to remember my plans and track things. I need dice, because if I just decided the outcome of everything, that would not be as fun as rolling the dice for everything would be. But of course, theoretically, deciding the outcome of each thing you'd roll dice for could be better than rolling. As I said, I don't know the person who can do that. Most of us fall in the middle. I myself am not an amazingly skilled DM at all, but I do know that the game is better once in a while when I disregard the die's result.

[Delandel]

I sometimes cheat, but it depends on the situation. I don't think DMs should cheat to stroke their own ego. I disagree with DMs fudging rolls for their bad guys to make them more "threatening," because a threatening opponent can screw up sometimes too, and the players might actually enjoy beating such a strong opponent with relative ease, or even better, get cocky about it, which is a GREAT emotion for DMs to play with after to set them into a trap. I think in rare circumstances it's okay for DMs to cheat if they feel the players will enjoy the outcome more if they do. Cheat too much, however, and the players will doubt the validity of the system that they're using, and that's never a good thing.

On occasion I do cheat, however. For example, one battle a player was rolling terribly and feeling entirely useless, and I could see on his face that it made him a little upset. He casts a spell on a big brute with a low Will save to slow it down. The brute rolled really high and beat it. I ignored the roll and said the spell succeeded, which made the player happy that he was contributing. Cheating? Sure. Big deal? I didn't think so.

Something I'm on the fence on, however, is killing my players. I've never done it before and even when I knock someone unconscious and see the player bored and uninterested as the battle rages on, I feel horribly guilty. Recently I was running RHOD and one of the PCs got to really low HP while duking it out with Koth. The cleric player asked how the character was looking, and the player announced he was about to die. What Koth should've done the next round was lightning bolt him and another PC, most likely killing the wounded PC. I decided instead that Koth would glitterdust the wounded PC instead, due to this new knowledge. I could back it up IC'ly -- Koth was flying high up in the air, he couldn't see how wounded the PC was, and he was more concerned about neutralizing threats outright -- but the fact of the matter is that I didn't want to kill the PC and have the player be bored for the rest of the battle and until he got rez'd. Metagaming? Yes. Bad? Not sure.

[Xzeno]

Ah, but see - THIS is exactly where I was going to head with this topic eventually!

So you're saying - if the players get some bad rolls, they die. You said: Of course, this means that characters can die from an unlucky streak. My solution: Don't fix it if it ain't broke. They're adventurers: They didn't take the job because they were afraid to die.

But by the same token you said: [what I said]

Players have resurrection, bad guys don't. I did say I cheat for the players at low levels. I don't rez villains because I think it lame to bring back someone the PCs killed fair and square.


Depends on how you do it. Me, I write up a list of what buffs a character will typically have up on them pre-battle, in the event they are expecting it. If caught by surprise, I reduce the buffs accordingly unless the character has a way to routinely persist buffs, etc(and most wont).

So the guy knows Death Ward and is bright enough to cast it before trying to kill off a party solo. That's just fine.

If, on the other hand, the wizard casts a SoD on round 1, and you suddenly decide that you need to keep him alive, and say "Uuuh, he's got death ward!", then yes, that's quite hackish.

I keep thinking you're saying a wizard casts Start of Darkness. Anyway: I also write up buffs. If I forget one, I can and might decide that the villain has it anyway. I wouldn't give a villain with no way to access Death Ward the buff for no reason, however, just as I wouldn't have a villain without Death Ward fight a PC with Finger of Death.

Any plotline that depends on a villain escaping after fighting with the player, for example, has a risk of failure. This more or less encompasses my philosophy. A villain's plan will not succeed if it fails. That would be crap. But the villain may survive the affair.


If you find a plotline becoming dependant on precise orders of events, certain player actions, etc with great frequency, you're probably in need of rethinking your plot. Not every story makes a good RPG plot.

Secondly, if a story arc does end prematurely, have something else ready to go. Nothing is completely predictable, you can always miss something. Some people are great at improv, and can come up with this on the spot. For those that aren't, keep backup material on hand. After all, it's unlikely that the BBEG is the *only* threat in existence than the PCs might face.
I'm not a great DM, but I do pride myself on running an evolving plot that's affected by player actions. I'm fine with doing improv. I would rather not have a new super villain emerge half way through the plot. To prevent this, I try not to put the villains in situations where absaolute defeat is a realistic possibility (PCs rolling only twenties is not a realistic possibility). Yes, I would rather not cheat, but if I foul up somewhere along the way, I would be fine with a tiny bit of cheating in villains' favor. Just a bit, mind you, and I would try to learn a lesson from it.

For that exact reason, I don't heavily punish player stupidity. The player should learn a lesson with little in or out of character ramifications if at all possible.

[PhoenixRivers]

@Tyndmyr: p. 18, DMG.

Per this page, the DM is the final word on determining outcomes.

Also, per this page, the DM can't cheat.

It states that you're within you're rights to sway things to keep things running smoothly. It does not limit you to that, and also states, "what you say goes".

The permissive text in the section further puts the decision of whether to fudge, and more importantly, WHY to fudge, purely in the hands of the DM.

In fact, the only rule that that area really sets down for fudging is that you keep it a secret from players.

Also, DMG, page 6: "When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. This doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DM's know not to change or overturn a rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel (more on that later)."

Later text goes on to stress that consistency is required. However, provided that is a rule published in a rulebook (it is), the text shows that the DM has the right to change or even overturn the rule (stating that the mark of a good DM is using this authority wisely).

In other words, if you overturn willy-nilly, or change things up in a non-thought-out manner, the DMG is saying you're not a good DM. It is also saying you are not cheating, because you can't cheat. Why is this? Because every word that flows from the mouth of the DM is the most primary source possible. It overrides everything, within the framework of the game.

[valadil]

Something I'm on the fence on, however, is killing my players. I've never done it before and even when I knock someone unconscious and see the player bored and uninterested as the battle rages on, I feel horribly guilty.

Same here. I even feel bad casting spells that use up a players turn. The best answer I've found is to let them play NPCs. Obviously this requires mature players who will handle the NPC as intended. I even do this out of combat, for solo RP and such.

[ZeroNumerous]

Players have resurrection, bad guys don't. I did say I cheat for the players at low levels. I don't rez villains because I think it lame to bring back someone the PCs killed fair and square.

...Uh, why? If he's an actual person(as opposed to a mindless villain) then he would have friends who like him. Likely friends whom are powerful and will want to revive him. Particularly if he's part of an evil organization of some sort. I like to bring back powerful villains, because it forces players to come up with a new strategy and doubles as a milestone marker for my players.

After all, if I revive the BBEG they killed at level 9, when it took the entire party working together to beat him and they still nearly died. Then they'll feel much more powerful when they beat him and his friends at level 11 or 12.

[Xzeno]

...Uh, why? If he's an actual person(as opposed to a mindless villain) then he would have friends who like him. Likely friends who are powerful and will want to revive him. Particularly if he's part of an evil organization of some sort. I like to bring back powerful villains, because it forces players to come up with a new strategy and doubles as a milestone marker for my players.

After all, if I revive the BBEG they killed at level 9, when it took the entire party working together to beat him and they still nearly died. Then they'll feel much more powerful when they beat him and his friends at level 11 or 12.

Who is the subject, whom is the object.

Once again, I failed to elaborate: My players think it's cheap when villains get rezzed, or at least they did in the last campaign I ran. Do what works for you, by all means.

[Doug Lampert]

This is exactly why we have DM screens:
"I am the great and powerful Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

We can pull off our stage magic (saving characters' lives, keeping the BBEG alive for just one more round for drama, etc) without anyone ever knowing what's going on "behind the curtain."

It's interesting. Almost everyone who's a player in a discussion of fudging will have stories about KNOWING that their DM was fudging. But DMs that fudge seem to think they can keep what happens on the other side of the screen a secret.

Weird how a secret that is so easy to keep is so often totally obvious. I don't use a DM screen, what's the point to having something that can ONLY reduce the tension in the game?

[Tyndmyr]

It's interesting. Almost everyone who's a player in a discussion of fudging will have stories about KNOWING that their DM was fudging. But DMs that fudge seem to think they can keep what happens on the other side of the screen a secret.

Weird how a secret that is so easy to keep is so often totally obvious. I don't use a DM screen, what's the point to having something that can ONLY reduce the tension in the game?

It's useful for rolls that are supposed to be a secret, but that's about it.

Yeah, people always tend to overrate their own abilities. It's a pretty well known bias. No doubt some players have missed some fudged rolls, and some DMs think they get away with far more than they do.

That said, DMs tend to have a fair amount of attention focused on them throughout the game. Games usually take place among groups of friends you know decently well. If there's any time I'm likely to catch someone out on something, it's someone I know well, who I'm currently paying attention to. The more the DM does it, the more likely they'll be caught at it.

And of course, the mere presence of a DM screen can lead to the assumption that it's happening...even if it isn't. Consider a player who rolls in such a way that you can't see his die generally. He may not be cheating at all, but the likelihood of suspicion is higher.

[ZeroNumerous]

Who is the subject, whom is the object.

Once again, I failed to elaborate: My players think it's cheap when villains get rezzed, or at least they did in the last campaign I ran. Do what works for you, by all means.

I feel that villains who are capable of resurrection only makes sense in a world where the players, who are merely powerful, can resurrect at will. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes.

In short: Please don't correct my English.

[Delandel]

Same here. I even feel bad casting spells that use up a players turn. The best answer I've found is to let them play NPCs. Obviously this requires mature players who will handle the NPC as intended. I even do this out of combat, for solo RP and such.

I'm a little harsher than that, but same wavelength. I don't mind wasting a PC's turn every once in a while with a debuff spell, but I'd rather not take the PC out of the entire battle. Instead, I only cast debuff spells that I know the party can dispell somehow, either due to their class or items I dropped for them previously. I like casting debuff spells to liven things up, but it's never my intention to make a player bored or feel useless.

I've never tried allowing a player to take up an NPC role until they can resume their own character. I think this is a pretty good idea if it comes down to it.

[Tyndmyr]

I'll use ressing, SoDs, and enchantments as a DM. But very, very rarely, and the players typically have some sort of warning. At a minimum, they have the ability to discover the information if they do any background investigation.

Not using any of those admittedly annoying spells tends to make players wonder why at some point. Use just enough to avoid this, and try to use ones that are least damaging. For example, Phantasmal Killer is rather unlikely to be terribly effective as a SoD, but it's enough to be scary to PCs.

Likewise, if you want to use enchantments, pair them up with illusions for a fun fight. If you use enchantments, either use them on someone who can be dispelled by someone else or use them midway through the fight, so it feels less like a player is wasting their time. Also, some players get a gleeful kick out of being told they must slaughter their teammates.

Ressing...avoid making it look like a plot device because the boss shouldn't have died. Foreshadowing helps here. Keep in mind that there are many ways to prevent ressing, too. Alternatively, have your players discover that someone will shortly try to res the last boss they killed. It's generally a good hook, since players are a fan of things they kill staying dead. If minions are saving their boss...do it realistically, don't use true rez. Make them go get the body. Heck, it's always amusing when players return to a room they cleared, and realized that a body's been replaced by drag marks.

I do generally avoid anything resulting in negative levels or other permanent character damage worse than death, though. No disjunction.

[Foryn Gilnith]

If the OP hadn't used the word "cheating", we could have avoided most of the useless semantic banter flying around the thread. :smallsigh:

[Tyndmyr]

But if we stopped arguing over semantics, all the DMPC threads would go away! :smalleek:

[DabblerWizard]

The Judge: A Judge DM is one who wouldn't mind rolling his dice infront of the screen. He goes by the rules of the game, he is ruled by the dice, and he never cheats. Then again, if his orge minion who was only supposed to be a minor threat rolls triple 20s, then a PC is gonna die. That's just how it is.

The Guide: A Guide DM is one who is ruled by the story. He wouldn't roll infront of the players because there are rolls he needs to fudge to make the game more fun. Yes, the orge may or may not fumble on a natural '1', depending on if the players would have more fun killing the orge with their new magic weapons or if they would rather have a good laugh at the expense of the poor orge. Then again, he may decided that a triple 20s roll is only a normal crit so that the game doesn't turn into "D20 falls, everyone dies."

You are either one or the other, there is no inbetween. The Judge is always impartial, and the Guide will play to the story.

I definitely act like a Judge, using your definition - for the most part. My players put a lot of time and effort into developing their characters, and my players would either (1) whine about having to re roll, or (2) just feel bad because their effort was essentially wasted.

I find ways for them to keep their characters instead of just crisply stating that death equals time for a new character.

One encounter ended up much more difficult than I had anticipated, and after a while it was clear to both me and the players that they wouldn't be able to defeat the NPCs. I had the NPCs take the players hostage instead of killing them. This act was an appropriate response given the NPCs overall motives, but it wasn't what I had planned.

I don't feel bad doing something like that. My players believed the scenario was pre-planned, and I was essentially adapting to the way the dice came out. Furthermore, I'm very much of the mind that, even if a situation escalates to combat, there's no reason that it has to end with one or both sides completely obliterated.

Using the 4e system, I often find that monsters have more hit points than is practical. After a few rounds, the outcome is sometimes a foregone conclusion. While I won't give a monster more HP to just make sure they win, I've definitely taken off HP to quicken their demise, without telling the players.

I don't consider this act problematic either.

Players don't expect these kinds of behaviors. Some of you might suggest it's disingenuous, but as far as cheating is concerned, I wouldn't attribute my behavior to that label.

In one sense, cheating involves breaking perceived or stated rules. One can break rules for malevolent or benevolent reasons. The former scenario is more morally questionable than the latter. I'm okay with benevolent-intended cheating.

For example, cheating so that you lose and a preschooler wins, is not a bad act, in my opinion.

[Livor]

As far as dice fudging goes, it's not something I'd like as a player, and it's not something I'd do as a GM.

If you're not prepared for a random result, you shouldn't be rolling for it. Simple as that, really.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

For those saying the DM cannot cheat: No. If the players expect the game to work a certain way, then the DM making the game work another way without telling them is cheating. Now, some groups enjoy the DM fudging in their favor, characters not dying to random encounters, and BBEGs not being one-shotted by a lucky Beguiler, and that's fine. Other groups view the world as a dangerous, risky place where they expect no leniency from the DM and want to have BBEGs that are just as mortal as the mooks. And that's fine, too. And if a DM makes his group think they'll be playing the dice as they fall and then fudges to keep someone alive, that DM is cheating. It's not about the rules, it's about the players.

[R. Shackleford]

Depends on the mood of the game.

If we're in jolly old RP mode, then I honestly don't even pay attention to the rolls as long as the group keeps the story going and aren't hogging the spotlight.

However, when it becomes clear that we're playing DM vs. PCs, then I play it strictly by the books, so that when they do die, it was legit. At those points, it almost becomes a game of M:tG.

[PhoenixRivers]

For those saying the DM cannot cheat: No. If the players expect the game to work a certain way, then the DM making the game work another way without telling them is cheating. Now, some groups enjoy the DM fudging in their favor, characters not dying to random encounters, and BBEGs not being one-shotted by a lucky Beguiler, and that's fine. Other groups view the world as a dangerous, risky place where they expect no leniency from the DM and want to have BBEGs that are just as mortal as the mooks. And that's fine, too. And if a DM makes his group think they'll be playing the dice as they fall and then fudges to keep someone alive, that DM is cheating. It's not about the rules, it's about the players.

From an ethical standpoint, this is absolutely correct.

From a mechanical standpoint, this is 100% wrong. The rules actually recommend AGAINST letting players know you fudge(DMG, p18). From a mechanical standpoint, the DM cannot cheat. If he does something, then that is the rules. If later actions contradict that? Then he changed the rules. Now, many won't like playing a game where the rules are as stable as jello, so this can have a negative impact on him keeping his game.

[aboyd]

Other groups view the world as a dangerous, risky place where they expect no leniency from the DM and want to have BBEGs that are just as mortal as the mooks. And that's fine, too. And if a DM makes his group think they'll be playing the dice as they fall and then fudges to keep someone alive, that DM is cheating.
The rules say the DM is the final arbiter and cannot cheat. So if the players do not handle the DM that way, they are cheating because they are not adhering to the rules of the book.

Yes, the DMG has set it up so that players accusing the DM of cheating are in fact cheating themselves. The DMG is built to defy players who call the DM a cheater. This is how D&D is constructed. D&D (3.5 edition, at least) clearly does not want to attract gamers who feel that arguing with the DM is viable.

D&D is weighted in favor of the DM, deliberately. It's manufactured that way.

Now, we may all hate it, but then we don't hate DMs for breaking rules, we hate D&D itself for giving DMs control of the rules.


You’re the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period.


The DM really can’t cheat. You’re the umpire, and what you say goes.


When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game.


You’re in charge. This is not being in charge as in telling everyone what to do. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens.

[PhoenixRivers]

Not at all. I don't dislike a system that gives people authority. I dislike people in a position of power that abuse it.

The blame always goes with those who are doing the wrong.

[aboyd]

OK, very well, agreed. Let me rephrase my statement. It is very difficult to successfully put forward an argument that DMs are "cheaters" if the rule book itself says DMs are not cheaters. So if we want to cling to the notion that DMs are cheaters, we must concede that we ourselves are cheaters for going against rules that expressly permit such behavior. And thus, we have a problem with the rules that we must acknowledge and resolve.

Do we dislike abusive DMs? Of course, everyone does. But in D&D, cheating does not equal abuse. And if we think it does, then we are not playing D&D. We are playing a house-ruled fantasy game. Because D&D itself is fine with DMs fudging stuff.

That doesn't mean the DMG is right, and even if it is, that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as abuse. The DMG makes it clear that abusive DMs will lose players. But the DMG defines that not as someone who fudges rolls, but as someone who runs things so badly that the players mutiny.

So I am not arguing in favor of abusive DMs. I'm merely suggesting that if we wish to call DMs cheaters and we wish to say that fudging is crappy, don't use the DMG to back up our arguments (which will fail, as the DMG ain't on that side of the argument). Instead, say the truth about what you feel -- the DMG sucks, the DMG can go to hell with its stupid rules, and we're playing a different game. Because that's an argument that is very hard to dismantle. I can dispute a misinterpretation of the DMG. I cannot dispute the state of someone's heart.

[mikej]

I think every DM has fudged ( cheated ) in game before. I've done it and had others admit later on doing it. It's harmless unless the DM make's a habit of it.

[BobVosh]

I think every DM has fudged ( cheated ) in game before. I've done it and had others admit later on doing it. It's harmless unless the DM make's a habit of it.

Mechanus will be sending you visitors soon!

RAW: DMs can't cheat.
RAI: DMs can't cheat.
Ignoring RAW and being people in a social setting (RAP I guess): DMs can cheat. (except in Paranoia, that isn't cheating.)

Any time you go against the established rules for your group it should be considered cheating. Sometimes this is fine, especially if it is just flavor. Cheating in nonPvP type games is fine, and expected. Cheating in any major way, or a way that annoys your PCs is wrong.

[mikej]

Mechanus will be sending you visitors soon!

ooh, goodie!

[LibraryOgre]

DMs cannot cheat. The world is at their discretion. Participation in that world is at the discretion of the players, though. A DM who regularly changes the world in ways his players don't like will find himself without players.

[Tyndmyr]

No. Im not against the idea of a DM. For a great many things, it makes sense. And to be an effective DM, you do need power.

All those quotes of yours, though, are taken out of context. Each one is in a section describing both the powers of a DM and the limitations on those powers. Yes, he is the arbiter. There are specific rules for how things should be arbitrated.

The "you can't cheat" is in a section referring to fudging die rolls occasionally and so forth for the purpose of improving the game.

The "you can change rules" is itself subject to rules on how this should be done. Consider this like metamagic. Its powerful, and lets you change the rules of game, but not in any arbitrary way you desire.


Most importantly, every one of those sections emphasizes the need for a DM to cooperate with his players for the end pursuit of a fun game. That is the purpose for which they exist. If you are using them as justification to overrule your players whenever they disagree with you, you are wrong.

[aboyd]

No. Im not against the idea of a DM. For a great many things, it makes sense. And to be an effective DM, you do need power.

All those quotes of yours, though, are taken out of context. Each one is in a section describing both the powers of a DM and the limitations on those powers. Yes, he is the arbiter. There are specific rules for how things should be arbitrated.
No. I've read the entire page. I see nothing there that overrules the quotes I wrote. Please quote something to back up your assertion.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Tyndmyr provided quotes on page 1 and page 2. Given the way that argument ended, I doubt this one will be productive.

[Tyndmyr]

Pretty much.

Call it cheating, call it something else....but it's still pretty clear that there are wrong ways to go about these things.

[aboyd]

Tyndmyr provided quotes on page 1 and page 2. Given the way that argument ended, I doubt this one will be productive.
Uh, no? I just reread every one of Tyndmyr's posts on page 1 & 2, and there are no quote blocks from the DMG. Just quote blocks for other people. There are a couple of lines or phrases with quote marks around them in Tyndmyr's responses, but none of them are the sentences or paragraphs in the DMG that directly overturn the quotes I made.

[aboyd]

Call it cheating, call it something else....but it's still pretty clear that there are wrong ways to go about these things.
Of course. Nobody is arguing that. I'm arguing that the DMG does not support a claim that the DMG is anti-cheating. The DMG is anti-jerk. The DMG is not anti-cheating, and even embraces fudging as a productive method to solve some problems.

[Foryn Gilnith]

In your opinion, none of them overturn the quotes. In tyndmyr's opinion, some of them do overturn the quotes. Looking at this thread's history and the internet in general, your opinions won't change.

This is a pointless semantic argument, you're both interpreting the DMG text to fit your own perceptions, and I'm horrible at trolling.

[Tyndmyr]

I fear this is going to devolve into a semantic argument over what cheating consists of.

The DMG has rules for DMs. They are, of necessity, different than the rules for players, and very broad and permissive. They are still rules, and some things are explicitly listed as bad.

Is it possible for a DM to so flagrantly violate the rules for DMs that any player who doesn't eat paste will call him a cheater? Yes.

Is this standard anything like what the standard for a player cheating is? No.

[aboyd]

In your opinion, none of them overturn the quotes. In tyndmyr's opinion, some of them do overturn the quotes. Looking at this thread's history and the internet in general, your opinions won't change.
It's not an opinion that the quotes don't exist. There are no quote blocks from the DMG in those posts. Therefore your assertion is factually incorrect. That's not an opinion.

Stating that cars exist is not an opinion. It's a fact. They do. Stating that cars suck is an opinion. We are in the "do cars exist" level of discussion right now. We're not yet to a place where we can state feelings about them.

I can't have any opinion about quote blocks that do not exist. There is nothing there for me to have an opinion about. For all I know, if the DMG were quoted, I would find my original assertion to be wrong. But I cannot tell, as nothing has been quoted for me to decide upon.

[Tyndmyr]

I referenced specific rules in specific subsections on specific pages.

I'm not going to type in the several consecutive pages in their entirity for you because it would probably break copyright, and more importantly, bore me to tears.

I'll presume that if you feel qualified to discuss the rules on DMing, you have access to a DMG.

[aboyd]

Very well. I saw nothing there that curtailed the quotes I provided. Thanks.

[Tyndmyr]

Curtailed? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

In any case, your argument was very similar to several already presented. Same quotes even. I suggest you review the earlier discussion and go from there with a specific objection.

[aboyd]

I suggest you review the earlier discussion and go from there with a specific objection.
I think I've reached my conclusion. Thanks.