PDA

View Full Version : How many DM's cheat?



Pages : [1] 2

Sarquion
2010-06-08, 01:54 PM
Hey i wanna know how often and how severely you guys fake a roll just so somthing happens or someone doesn't die. I try not to but sometime it is irritating when a potential threat to the party isn't at all cos i kept rolling 1's.

Eloi
2010-06-08, 01:56 PM
All the time, its necessary to keep the story going in an interesting direction, if you have to fudge a few rolls for the Greater Fun, so be it.

Caliphbubba
2010-06-08, 01:58 PM
All the time.

Adjusting things on the fly is part of being a good DM I think. The trick is to make it LOOK like everything was planned and to NOT change things just to screw over a well thought out plan or tactic on the PC's part.

Sarquion
2010-06-08, 02:01 PM
a well thought out plan or tactic .


that is all i try to get the Pc's to do :P makes every thing so much more interesting and thats my main reason why i fake the roll for their spot check just so they can see the barrels of oil and then the can realise that they have a lantern themselves :smalltongue:

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-08, 02:07 PM
I do it quite a bit, when it keeps things interesting. For example, if the players are looking forward to an epic conflict I'll do what I can within reason to keep it from ending anticlimactically on round 1, action 1.

I don't fudge too much though; I wouldn't be rolling dice in the first place if I weren't mostly willing to do what they said.

Prodan
2010-06-08, 02:10 PM
The DM does not cheat. :smalltongue:

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 02:12 PM
Ditto. I don't do it as much as most GM's, but I do fudge rolls from time to time.

A lot of players seem to really hate the idea, but I think a lot (not all) of those players either: 1. Haven't been in the GM's chair for any significant period of time. 2. Really don't consider ALL the players having fun to be the highest priority of the game.

That's why GM's don't talk about this facet of GM'ing much. When you openly admit to it, people look for it and resent it. They don't mind when they don't know though. Heck, even most GM manuals and sections support a little fudging to some extent.

The truth of the matter is that sometimes, the GM doesn't just slightly over or under-estimate the players, but does so so severely as to completely ruin the fun of the game. It'll happen to every GM, and at that point, you either decide to fudge things or not (based on whether you really think fun or honesty is more important). Even the most honest GM's will fudge a roll here or there though (albeit in some subconscious ways like being more lenient on what a cocked dice is or such).

Furthermore, keeping some characters from dying is sometimes not only a good idea, but one of manners. Some people work hard on their characters and do grow an attachment, and while death is a part of life, a good character really does deserve a good send-off if any. Some people may argue that the chance for that random goblin to kill you give suspense, but this is also usually in reference to D&D, a system where death is ridiculously not permanent. Kill off characters left and right in a system WITHOUT ressurection and raise dead and see how much the characters get into their characters (provided this isn't Paranoia XP).

Now, there's obviously an amount of moderation that has to be used, and you have to be careful to be fairly impartial with your fudging, and you DEFINITELY want to favor helping the players over hurting them, but the truth of the matter is that a bit of fudging really is harmless and does help the game sometimes. It's just a matter of knowing when to do it.

Consequently, at risk of my players finding this out, 95% of the rolls I fudge are when I have a stupidly lucky roll streak that would kill off over 50% of the party. I go ahead and roll with the bad rolls though. This weird kind of probability stuff happens all the time and can really be unfun for your players if your good luck streak as a GM screws everyone to a point where they never could win.

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 02:14 PM
I never fudge rolls. I do, however, occassionally warp reality to suit my needs. The frequency with which I do so is inversely proportional to the ammmount of time I've had to plan the session.

For example, sometimes I'll rearrange the city the PCs are in so that the guard barracks are within easy running distance of where ever they are. So when they do something illegal, they have less than a minute to run like hell or have a small army out to squish 'em.

Or another time, I had a door open backwards so that the unconscious (or dead, I can't remember) body of a PC couldn't inhibit some mooks' ability to escape and get help.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-08, 02:16 PM
It depends. I readily admit to fudging die rolls for dramatic purposes in minor fights, but once we hit a big, important battle…

I roll in the open. It’s not just to be honest, but its to add a real sense of terror to the battle. I also break out what’s becoming a legendary tool in my group…the Black Die. Notable for rolling above 10 natural 20s in a single battle. It is responsible for the death of two PCs out of a total of three PC deaths so far. My players are rapidly learning that my games are lethal, and they are learning that the dice fall as they fall.

valadil
2010-06-08, 02:20 PM
I used to fudge rolls. Threw out the screen a couple sessions ago and I haven't looked back.

The problem with fudging was that I was normalizing the dice. Enemies weren't allowed to crit 3 times in a row. Nor were they allowed to fail spectacularly. Not fudging allows more stuff to happen in my game.

It's also a function of the group I'm with. The two previous games I'd run were with a group who didn't believe in character death. They'd even fudge away knocking a character into negatives. When I GMed for them I felt the need to fudge. The current group wants a challenge and they don't take it personally if the dice hate them.

Sarquion
2010-06-08, 02:21 PM
I remember i had a really bad DM once and he couldn't take it when rolls didn't go his way or when he realised that the PC's had a spell which ruined his plans and so he'd just go well this happens and then all us PC's at once went but how? he said DM makes the rules or DM says so and we were like ... so i try not to unless obviously it would ruin the fun for the PC's

Hendel
2010-06-08, 02:23 PM
Hey i wanna know how often and how severely you guys fake a roll just so somthing happens or someone doesn't die. I try not to but sometime it is irritating when a potential threat to the party isn't at all cos i kept rolling 1's.

DM's never cheat, they just keep the world moving at a pace that meets their needs!

gbprime
2010-06-08, 02:26 PM
It's not cheating, its impromptu game balance. :smallcool:

A good DM will not be obvious about it, and never uses the same rule twice. Contingent spells, was just a simulacrum not the real bad guy, spll to force a PC to reroll, devotion-feat-for-a-sudden-AC-boost... And on the other end, if the PC's are getting their asses kicked, make the BBEG arbitrarily fumble to give an attack of opportunity to a PC, make the BBEG leave the battle to his minions and depart, make the BBEG fail to activate some ability.

Caliphbubba
2010-06-08, 02:29 PM
I remember i had a really bad DM once and he couldn't take it when rolls didn't go his way or when he realised that the PC's had a spell which ruined his plans and so he'd just go well this happens and then all us PC's at once went but how? he said DM makes the rules or DM says so and we were like ... so i try not to unless obviously it would ruin the fun for the PC's

Yeah, that kind of cheating infuriates me. If I fudge things, I fudge then in the PC's favor as far as dice rolls. When that starts to happen I look to it as being a precedent for house rulings, and find ways to use them to my advantage later. I once had a DM change how an Item functioned 5 different times, because I kept saying "Fine, then I'll use it this way, which you said I could do last time, but this time screws your idiot NPCs over".

There are other ways to "cheat" than with die rolls for NPCs/Monsters.

Quietus
2010-06-08, 02:30 PM
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Enemies have only as much HP as is dramatically appropriate. Small random encounters won't cause death just 'cause that orc scored a lucky crit. I see my games as being similar to movies, and aim to make everything as fun and awesome as I can. Having your character die because I rolled a 20 when he encountered a basic orc scouting party is not fun. Having someone neuter a fight I"ve been building the entire campaign toward with a single "finger of death" is not fun.

There are exceptions, of course. If I give out an item that freezes a target solid, and the party uses it right off the bat on the BBEG... yeah, that's a big thing, and it's gonna make an awesome story if they pull that off. Stuff like that I will roll in the open, because the suspense is worth the risk. But things they have been murdering mooks with left and right, shouldn't be able to one-shot the big bag, 'cause that's just plain not fun.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-08, 02:33 PM
Often times I may overestimate what the party can handle or maybe their luck so I fudge a roll here.


One common cheat is for a BBEG I may leave a few spell slots empty or a spell known empty just so they happen to have the right spell prepared for what the PC's throw at them.
I actually recall that bit of advice from the DMG

Vectner
2010-06-08, 02:33 PM
It's not cheating if the DM does it, that's the thing. What about players fudging rolls? We know when you do it, but we let it go because it's just a game and we are all having fun right?

What I find my self doing often is giving the bad guy extra HP's just so they last more than a round or two. It's so annoying to build up to a big fight and bam! they are down in the first half of the first round. Now if someone managed to do an epic crit or plane shift him or something that's different, but yeah, DM's try to make the game worth playing.

Ruinix
2010-06-08, 02:33 PM
NEVER EVER on a roll.

some times things happend for the sake of the story, but those times no roll is needed.

if i get too much 1, then a survivor (of the bad guys) call for backup or something.

if they die for stupidity is stupidity.

if they die cause i get to many natural 20, is part of the mechanic and the game. plus they should know how to handle such scenario.

that its. never cheat on a roll, is a lame resource, if u dont want to fail on a roll as DM, then dont roll.

pendell
2010-06-08, 02:37 PM
Depends on the kind of game you're trying to run.

Dice are brutal, callous, unforgiving things with no sense of drama.

If you're running a game to teach players how to function in an unforgiving environment -- as in tournament play -- then the dice rolls can't be fudged. There's no way to spare players from their mistakes or bad luck.

OTOH, if you're playing with people whose idea of fun is what you typically find in video games or action movies -- exciting escapes, thrilling stunts, reckless behavior -- in short, if this is a beer-n-pretzels game for fun -- then it's probably best to fudge a few die rolls than let the whole session go to Hades because your bard rolled a 4 on his hide check.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Thajocoth
2010-06-08, 02:44 PM
I cheated exactly once.

Character was unconscious. Enemy was insane and casting a close burst attack, hitting everyone. It did not make sense to exclude the unconscious player, but the attack would kill him if it hit.

I rolled a 13 on the die. "Natural 1." As I was saying it though, I heard one of the players say that I should roll this roll in the open. So after stating that I rolled a Natural 1, I asked, "Oh, that makes sense. Do you still want me to? I can re-roll it." I received a chorus of "No, that's ok" from the entire group.

Grommen
2010-06-08, 02:44 PM
I have a tendency to cheat in favor of my players more than I do for the bad guys. If a player calls me out on a die roll (either cause I stated the wrong number or he just thought I was cheating, I usaly manage to rules lawyer it in my favor, and make the situation worse for the person calling me out. Does not take long for everyone to figure out that you should not question god :smallwink:

I don't like when my epic BBEG's go down in a hurry and I've been known to errect a Plot Shield over them from time to time (not very often cause people get kinda irked).

Only acception to this is when I'm planning the game. I do know what every player is capable of (in a lot of cases I have character sheets), so I know their weaknesses, their strengths, etc. When I have smart bad guys they study the PC's. I make sure that they have defenses against the players, and can exploit the players weaknesses. Not every time, again this just tends to anger everyone.

O and Lastly "He has a +1 cause I said so" is a valid spell in my campaigns. :smallbiggrin: If someone makes me look up a good reason why I'll find something even worse to plague them with.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 02:46 PM
"If the DM does it, that means that it is not cheating." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8)

Your job as the DM is to make the game fun. The game rules are less important than the overall goal of fun. Therefore if the rules get in the way of fun, then they can be ignored. For example, if you roll an absurdly lucky crit that kills a brand new player 10 minutes into a session, unless you're sure that the new player would like to invest in rerolling or spending time waiting for a rezz, it might be a better idea to forego killing them.. for now.

Don't call attention to this, though.. on the surface it seems unfair that you're breaking something that the players are expected to abide by. It makes sense but only from a larger perspective. However it remains a rather fourth wall breaking thing to plainly announce. You should probably never tell your players when you "cheated," and only do so in a way that they cannot discover you doing it. This is why rolling behind the screen is a good thing.

Ernir
2010-06-08, 02:46 PM
I cheat in the name of drama.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 02:48 PM
Banjo feels that being a DM is like being a deity, this means you can do what ever you like as the DM, however people won't want to continue gaming with you if your entire game is fudged rolls. Banjo occasionally fudges rolls, almost always in favor of his players(because sometimes they aren't very bright) but occasionally Banjo has to fudge rolls in favor of NPC's or monsters in favor of story progression.

All in all Banjo feels that "fudging rolls" should only be done sparingly but staying true to the roll all the time is not as important as having fun and progressing your story.

Nero24200
2010-06-08, 02:53 PM
I don't like to "cheat" or fudge rolls. If I'm going to pull punches, then what's the point of even using the dice? Why use any element of chance at all?

I don't need to spend money on rulebooks if I'm just going to sit down with some friends and write a story. The "game" element is, to me, an importent part of the game, and I don't like cheating, even if I'm the DM.

Totally Guy
2010-06-08, 02:58 PM
No. The players are my friends. I'm not going to cheat them. Not out of winning, not out of losing.

I'm shocked that so many people do.

Nohwl
2010-06-08, 03:03 PM
i roll in the open. if i happen to misread an attack bonus or something and it benefits the pc's, it stays like that for the encounter. if it hurts the pc's it gets changed and i tell them.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 03:05 PM
I don't like to "cheat" or fudge rolls. If I'm going to pull punches, then what's the point of even using the dice? Why use any element of chance at all?

It's for the illusion of fairness. Even going strictly by the dice rolls, it's easy to for a DM to railroad whatever he wants to happen into happening. You could be the most uber Batman Wizard imaginable, but if the DM starts laying down 'null-magic' zones almost everywhere, that ranger/monk might end up actually contributing more than you do. To paraphrase a famous smuggler, "Nice stats and good rolls are no match for the plot on your side, kid."

Having the dice makes the game seem fair, and hooks the players into getting invested with the DM's story, while still giving the DM free range to tell the story they want. There are diceless systems of course, but they require a more open minded approach to how much you control your character, and most players (in my experience) like the dice so they can feel like they control the story somewhat.

Edit: On reflection, it does depend on the story you are telling. If you're in a sandbox type game where the players generate the plot on the fly, it makes little sense to fudge rolls or "cheat" in most cases. So I guess it also depends on stylistic concerns as well.

Ruinix
2010-06-08, 03:10 PM
let me ask for all those who love to cheat their rolls in the name of what ever.....


if u can't allow to fail a roll why to roll ?

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 03:18 PM
let me ask for all those who love to cheat their rolls in the name of what ever.....

if u can't allow to fail a roll why to roll ?

Because players like to feel like they're in control. Having dice rolled gives them that feeling. Most of the time the dice do determine the outcomes, but when it's important to everyone having fun sometimes it's the DM's call as to what the dice should say. That's part of being a DM.

You roll anyway because you don't want the players to feel like they have no control. They need that illusion.

Ruinix
2010-06-08, 03:20 PM
It's for the illusion of fairness. Even going strictly by the dice rolls, it's easy to for a DM to railroad whatever he wants to happen into happening. You could be the most uber Batman Wizard imaginable, but if the DM starts laying down 'null-magic' zones almost everywhere, that ranger/monk might end up actually contributing more than you do. To paraphrase a famous smuggler, "Nice stats and good rolls are no match for the plot on your side, kid."

Having the dice makes the game seem fair, and hooks the players into getting invested with the DM's story, while still giving the DM free range to tell the story they want. There are diceless systems of course, but they require a more open minded approach to how much you control your character, and most players (in my experience) like the dice so they can feel like they control the story somewhat.

illusion ?!?!? OMG, my friends and players they aren't genius, but they know there isnt santa or faery tooth.

is a kind of insulting to them treat them as they dont know what is going on.

beside, if they are ubber min/maxer then is much more easy to plan an encounter if that is all about, u know exactly what are they strong, very strong points and they weak side.


i still dont undertand like nero said why use a chance metod if u gona fudge and cheat anyway. (and cheat for player side isnt a valid argument)

nedz
2010-06-08, 03:22 PM
This is something I do very very rarely.
Usually at low level when I make fail to notice a crit threat.

A little while ago some of my players accused me of being too soft and letting them off (they were about 6th): Later that session 3 PCs died (entirely their own fault) :smallcool: No more complaints. :smallbiggrin:

Ruinix
2010-06-08, 03:26 PM
Because players like to feel like they're in control. Having dice rolled gives them that feeling. Most of the time the dice do determine the outcomes, but when it's important to everyone having fun sometimes it's the DM's call as to what the dice should say. That's part of being a DM.

You roll anyway because you don't want the players to feel like they have no control. They need that illusion.

then u should tell them stay in character and stop metagaming, cause that "need" of control is the player, not the char.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 03:27 PM
illusion ?!?!? OMG, my friends and players they aren't genius, but they know there isnt santa or faery tooth.

is a kind of insulting to them treat them as they dont know what is going on.

beside, if they are ubber min/maxer then is much more easy to plan an encounter if that is all about, u know exactly what are they strong, very strong points and they weak side.


i still dont undertand like nero said why use a chance metod if u gona fudge and cheat anyway. (and cheat for player side isnt a valid argument)

Banjo thinks this issue is similar to the one in my recent thread, you are thinking in extremes. Just because you won't allow a player a 1 or a monster a 20 at a certain point doesn't mean you have completely eliminated chance from the game, you've just manipulated the odds.

Sarquion
2010-06-08, 03:29 PM
if u can't allow to fail a roll why to roll ?

I don;t normally but ocasionnally if they don't see multiple things which isn't key to the plot but would be fun then i would fudge the roll just to make the sceneraio funner for the Pc's and a better story for the book one of my Pc's is gonna write

Gnaritas
2010-06-08, 03:31 PM
All the time.

Adjusting things on the fly is part of being a good DM I think. The trick is to make it LOOK like everything was planned and to NOT change things just to screw over a well thought out plan or tactic on the PC's part.

This is exactly what i do NOT want.

What you want is for the players to feel they are determining the course of what happens.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 03:44 PM
illusion ?!?!? OMG, my friends and players they aren't genius, but they know there isnt santa or faery tooth.

is a kind of insulting to them treat them as they dont know what is going on.

beside, if they are ubber min/maxer then is much more easy to plan an encounter if that is all about, u know exactly what are they strong, very strong points and they weak side.

i still dont undertand like nero said why use a chance metod if u gona fudge and cheat anyway. (and cheat for player side isnt a valid argument)

Your friends do know about Rule 0 right? *Everything* is ultimately the DM's call. You could play a game of D&D where you tell everyone what happens and no one gets to object, just using Rule 0. But no one would want to play a 'game' like that, because it's not a game it's a story you were told.

In order to make your story interactive, we add rules and dice rolls so it seems fair. Now the players get to intercede and add their own details and motivations to the DM's story. Everyone wins in this case, the players get to be a part of and interact the DM's story, and the DM gets to involve others in their own story.

But it is still the DM's story. It is their responsibility when something goes wrong. Rule 0 exists so that the DM has the power to fix problems in the story before they result in an 'everyone loses' scenario with people leaving and the story withering and dying.

In truth, you don't need the dice. You never did, and that's why I say it's an illusion. As the DM you could just decide each time who hits and who misses, but the dice are impartial. They can't be bribed, they have no motives and are slaves only to random chance and probability. Even so, people insist that their dice are "lucky" or that 'the number god hates them,' and all sorts of things that can't be true or rational. This is because they want to imagine that they have some sort of control over the dice, and by extension the game itself. But that control isn't real, and there are no lucky dice and the DM makes the final call.

There are all sorts of illusions people cling to. It doesn't make those things bad or unnecessary just because they are illusions. If Santa Claus makes children behave for a few months a year, and gets distant people together with family for the holidays then he's not such a bad thing, even if he's 100% fake.

Bakkan
2010-06-08, 03:58 PM
I almost never cheat on dice rolls. I'm with an earlier poster -- the PCs need to know (or learn) how to handle a string of bad luck.

What I will do is cheat on enemy hit points. In my games all enemies have maximum HP, and even so sometimes they should be dead two rounds in. I will often increase their HP on the fly, especially if one or more of the PCs hasn't even really entered the fight yet. If, after this, the battle starts turning severely against the PCs, well then guess what? The next hit kills the creature, which only had one (two, three) hit points left!

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 04:05 PM
then u should tell them stay in character and stop metagaming, cause that "need" of control is the player, not the char.

Experiment for you then: At your next session as a DM, announce that you are removing all dice from your game. You will determine all hits and damage rolls yourself randomly off the top of your head. If anyone objects, find out what they feel will be different about the game this way. Some players can handle this, but a lot of them can't. If none of your players need the illusion of control, great! They shouldn't mind having no dice for a session.

Remember that if a player is having a problem with the game, then that is a problem with the game. You cannot have a game of D&D all by yourself, the DM needs players and players need the DM in equal measures. If you dismiss important player concerns as metagaming, you're going to alienate your player base.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 04:11 PM
Experiment for you then: At your next session as a DM, announce that you are removing all dice from your game. You will determine all hits and damage rolls yourself randomly off the top of your head. If anyone objects, find out what they feel will be different about the game this way. Some players can handle this, but a lot of them can't. If none of your players need the illusion of control, great! They shouldn't mind having no dice for a session.

Remember that if a player is having a problem with the game, then that is a problem with the game. You cannot have a game of D&D all by yourself, the DM needs players and players need the DM in equal measures. If you dismiss important player concerns as metagaming, you're going to alienate your player base.

Banjo supports this message

Curmudgeon
2010-06-08, 04:12 PM
I make all my rolls in plain sight, with a large-size d20. So the dice alone can kill PCs. What I'll vary based on the vagaries of luck is whether, and how quickly, the reinforcements show up.

Sarquion
2010-06-08, 04:27 PM
So over all i found out that we all cheat :smallbiggrin: well use mega god powers or rule 0 whatever you wish :smalltongue: but yeah been a great thread thanks to those who replied.

Saph
2010-06-08, 04:50 PM
You roll anyway because you don't want the players to feel like they have no control. They need that illusion.

I generally prefer to give players actual control rather than the illusion of it.

I'm not going to say that I never fudge rolls, but I've a very strong dislike of DMs who fudge dice rolls to make sure things go according to "their story". I'd rather be able to write my own story, thanks.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-08, 04:52 PM
I generally prefer to give players actual control rather than the illusion of it.

I'm not going to say that I never fudge rolls, but I've a very strong dislike of DMs who fudge dice rolls to make sure things go according to "their story". I'd rather be able to write my own story, thanks.

I recognize myself in this mindset. I fudge sometimes, but only to "push" a moment of awesome already started.

Actually, I did it on the past, only a little, in a story driven campaing. Now, in the sandbox, I almost never fudge (say, 1/year of real time.. really).

Xyk
2010-06-08, 04:53 PM
I'll sometimes fudge a player's attack roll to make them hit because a battle has gone on for too long and I'm bored. But actual cheating is frowned upon in my society.

pffh
2010-06-08, 05:05 PM
I sometime fudge some rolls to prevent a TPK and sometimes the monsters have less HP if I feel the fight is taking too long. When cheat I always cheat in the players favor.

Defiant
2010-06-08, 05:06 PM
When necessary. But I've noticed that if it's necessary, then I've made a fundamental mistake somewhere. If my foes are way too weak, and I need to fudge rolls to even threaten papercuts to the players, then that's my fault. If my foe is too strong, and I find I have to pull punches, then that's my fault.

With experience, I've learned to adjust encounters appropriately such that fudging is not necessary.

I'm still phobic of character death, though. If a character outright dies (to a spell or death attack), then I think "what now", especially since I tend to DM games with newer players. Start a new character? I'd like to avoid it. But yes, sometimes it may be necessary or appropriate.

So to sum it up, a good DM doesn't need to fudge, while a DM who fudges still has plenty to learn.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:12 PM
I'd rather be able to write my own story, thanks.

Easy for you to say, you aren't responsible for the creation of a map, monsters, towns, civilizations, in short and entire universe in which the game is to be played. By choosing to diverge from a story arc written by your DM YOU don't have to do anything for "Your own story" but your DM has to create something for you. A little selfish don't you think?

Dr.Epic
2010-06-08, 05:14 PM
Hey i wanna know how often and how severely you guys fake a roll just so somthing happens or someone doesn't die. I try not to but sometime it is irritating when a potential threat to the party isn't at all cos i kept rolling 1's.

I do it a lot. I want my players to have fun and they dying is not fun.

Jarian
2010-06-08, 05:15 PM
I do it a lot. I want my players to have fun and they dying is not fun.

Why have hitpoints at all, then?

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 05:17 PM
For the record, the phrase that should be used here, but hasn't, is "willing suspension of disbelief". Just because you buy into an illusion does not make you an idiot. This very simple idea is actually necessary for magic, TV, Movies, video games, stage plays, and any other kind of fictional media to work.

This is why you roll the dice when that net's there. It creates suspension of disbelief. Most players know or suspect that their GM will occasionally fudge rolls or add up math wrong in the player's favor. If you trust your GM is doing this for your fun though, then you really shouldn't worry about it. It's just like thinking too much about a movie, play, or video game can often ruin your enjoyment of it. Once you think TOO much about how propane doesn't explode like that, Hamlet should've just killed Claudius, or that the enemies are spawning out of invisible closets behind you, it often ruins your fun.

You're being tricked all the time in real life. Sometimes though, it really is harmless and best not to dwell on it.


I generally prefer to give players actual control rather than the illusion of it.

I'm not going to say that I never fudge rolls, but I've a very strong dislike of DMs who fudge dice rolls to make sure things go according to "their story". I'd rather be able to write my own story, thanks.

You'll actually notice most of the answers have used the phrase "in the name of player enjoyment" instead of story. There is a HUGE difference. I don't believe in that kind of railroading, but there are reasons to cheat in the player's favor that does keep things fun. I have absolutely NO problem with players getting beaten up when they shouldn't and changing the plot a bit. Kidnappings, imprisonment, and the eventual jail break is exciting and fun.

However, when players are against a tough opponent, come up with a legitimately intelligent and often funny strategy, they should succeed. The player rolls well and so the only way the boss can avoid is a 19 or 20. And rolls a 20. Well, okay. That sucks, but another shot could pull it off. You roll a 19 the next round. The players don't have the resources for a third shot, and not pulling the second one off still means they'll probably win, but now it'll be an incredibly slow and long battle that'll last an hour if turns go fast. It breaks the pace of the face paced action-packed mood you've set, and your players WILL get bored just rolling to hit rolls.

In that case, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with nudging a hidden +1 modifier to the player and giving your "damn. Dude almost had it" face. Mind you. With some groups, you could be honest and just say this in the open, but some groups really prefer that illusion.

That's the gist of what it means to cheat in the name of fun. Keeping the game's mood and keeping the fun. Honestly, I don't know why some monsters even exist in D&D 3.5 as they seem to be designed specific to trainwreck the pace of the game down to a crawl. "Oh hey. Everyone except one player is grappled now. The rest of you pray for a nat 20 while one player chips away at the barbed demon". I'd NEVER use one of those for that specific reason. Forcing players to rethink strategy is one thing, completely negating a character's entire point without any real cost to the opponent is another.

Now, as per the question of why a GM can cheat and a player shouldn't. Well...
1. Yes. We GM's know you players do cheat on occasion. Nothing severe. Just calling cocked dice when they're not and other small things that you might do subconsciously. We do choose to ignore it on small incidents when it doesn't impact anyone.

2. To go with the "The GM is the host of a party" analogy. Think of it this way. If you're a guest at a party, going down to the host's personal wine-cellar and pulling out his rare bottle of wine he's saving for a special occasion is rude and a crime. The host pulling it out when things go slow is a bit foolish, but ultimately an earnest attempt to keep the party going. If a GM's doing it right, he knows what his party wants and will tailor it to his group.

Mind you. Half of the people that are aghast by this, I wouldn't fudge dice rolls for. I'd know well enough that my players wouldn't go for it. If you honestly want to play it entirely by the dice, then you can have it, but not every group does that. Not every system is about epic powered heroes killing epic monsters and character math. In those cases, creativity should be rewarded and some concessions of probability should be made for keeping the mood. If the dice rolls betray the mood of the game, the dice are wrong.

The players' FUN is the #1 priority in the game. If the players aren't having fun, then you're not doing your job as a GM.

Saph
2010-06-08, 05:17 PM
Easy for you to say, you aren't responsible for the creation of a map, monsters, towns, civilizations, in short and entire universe in which the game is to be played.

Actually I'm DMing several online games at the moment and preparing to run a sandbox game over the summer, where yes, I am in fact doing all that work. What you've just done is referred to as "putting your foot in your mouth". :smallamused:

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 05:21 PM
Actually I'm DMing several online games at the moment and preparing to run a sandbox game over the summer, where yes, I am in fact doing all that work. What you've just done is referred to as "putting your foot in your mouth". :smallamused:

Yeah. I wouldn't argue with Saph too much (at least not in as severe of terms), if the various threads we've ended up in has proven anything, it's that Saph is one of the people around here that knows what they're talking about.

The truth of the matter is, that we're arguing two perspectives here, and I don't think too many people are saying the other side is wrong. The point I'm mostly making is that, yes, there are reason and groups where it is a good idea to cheat the rolls a bit. It doesn't always learn and only experience will tell you that, but ultimately, your job is to serve the players, not your game.

Drascin
2010-06-08, 05:21 PM
illusion ?!?!? OMG, my friends and players they aren't genius, but they know there isnt santa or faery tooth.

is a kind of insulting to them treat them as they dont know what is going on.

beside, if they are ubber min/maxer then is much more easy to plan an encounter if that is all about, u know exactly what are they strong, very strong points and they weak side.

i still dont undertand like nero said why use a chance metod if u gona fudge and cheat anyway. (and cheat for player side isnt a valid argument)

Okay, first, please try to write a bit more coherently. Some of us aren't native English speakers and it takes a while to decipher.

And second, you're missing the point entirely. I could kill them easily. Of course I could. Antagonistic minmaxing when the DM has unlimited resources and is a better minmaxer than you are is rather ill-advised. I could also make their lives pathetically easy. Of course I could. Lame and blind goblins are really easy to stat.

But the thing is, the encounters are generally thought for being close calls but not a kill machine, things they can lose if they don't play smart but which are overcomeable with tactics. I'm not going to let a small random encounter getting four crits in a row to kill a character with a lot of personality two sessions into the campaign. Besides, there are some times where the narrative would be killed dead by a certain roll. If a player just had an utterly awesome Big Damn Heroes moment, with RPed speech and all, as he guns down an enemy, I'm not going to say "nah, rolled 100 in a counterattack, you're hit for Xd6 first. *roll*. And die without getting the shot off. Who goes next?".

But to be honest, at first I thought like you. I was a rather merciless "may dice fall how they may" DM. But in a certain D&D campaign, something happened. I realized that after that one last death, not a single one of the characters that had started the campaign and started in the epic quest remained alive. It was a completely new party, because they had been dying one after another, and replacements being taken in. Not one of the current characters actually knew their patron, or had seen the initial spark that started the whole thing. None of them even knew what they were adventuring for save for the second hand accounts of the previous party and metagaming reasons. Right then and there I looked at my players and said "okay, guys, I'm kind of realizing this has gone real silly. Either we make this thing take a new direction, we bust out the Deus ex Machina, or something, because this makes absolutely no sense". General agreement was to terminate that campaign right there, cannibalize plot points, and make a fresh start. And from there I've been working to be a lot more lenient. Smoothing over those times when the enemy lands two crits in a row, being nice with the Notice checks, and such. People still can die through doing very ill-advised things, but no longer will I let their characters be lost forever because while their tactics are flawless, the enemies' dice refuse to roll under a 17 for five turns straight. I find this has made at least the players at my table have more fun. But of course, each table is a world. If your players would resent that, more power to them. But I wanted to explain a bit of the thought process that goes into the "fudging", as it were, since you seemed to consider it such anathema, as much as I can in another language.

Draz74
2010-06-08, 05:23 PM
I rarely fudge, if ever. Crazy bad luck and failure and lethal dangers are part of real life, and part of in-character life too. Sometimes I imagine it can be necessary, but usually that means a mistake has already been made. And the big climax is possibly the worst time to fudge something in either direction.


For the record, the phrase that should be used here, but hasn't, is "willing suspension of disbelief". Just because you buy into an illusion does not make you an idiot. This very simple idea is actually necessary for magic, TV, Movies, video games, stage plays, politics, and any other kind of fictional media to work.

Fixed that for you. :smallbiggrin:


Actually I'm DMing several online games at the moment and preparing to run a sandbox game over the summer, where yes, I am in fact doing all that work. What you've just done is referred to as "putting your foot in your mouth". :smallamused:

Oh snap!

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:23 PM
Why have hitpoints at all, then?

This is same logical fallacy we've been seeing over and over in this thread, it is the "Either Or Fallacy". The idea that you are stating is that if it is made impossible for your characters to reach 0 hit points then the entire system is pointless.

Banjo would like to point out that reaching absolute zero in temperature on earth is impossible as well, but that doesn't mean that the whole scale of temperature is completely worthless.

The inability to reach the end of a scale doesn't make the whole scale pointless. It isn't an all or nothing situation, it is not an either or situation.

Jarian
2010-06-08, 05:27 PM
This is same logical fallacy we've been seeing over and over in this thread, it is the "Either Or Fallacy". The idea that you are stating is that if it is made impossible for your characters to reach 0 hit points then the entire system is pointless.

Jarian would like to point out that you make an excellent strawman. It rivals of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz in its cuteness.

ChrisFortyTwo
2010-06-08, 05:27 PM
I've found that some of the best things I do is stop the dice rolling when it becomes boring.

The PCs are fighting a bunch of orcs or whatever and each round it's "you get hit for 2 hp, your turn..." Nothing is happening except roll after roll of nickel and dime hits.

So, I say "ok, you lose 15 hp in the battle, you lose 12, and you chose two spells that you think you would cast - you beat them to a pulp and have one prisoner who you can question or kill" (alternately, if it's a battle they should run away from, I usually make it clear they will lose in a few rounds - and they would)

It is actually quite unlikely that the dice would cause those exact things, but really, some encounters are for resource drain, some are to drive plot, and some are because they are battling the BBEG. I've seen different DMs do different things, and many of my BBEG die quickly, because the players are prepared for them (usually with inventive means of killing them). They know that if it turns into a dice roll match with the BBEG, they will probably lose.

The truth is, most battles are meant to be interesting, but in the end, the PCs should win the battle. Of course, some DMs don't want that - they want a competition. Those DMs should not cheat. Period.

Saph
2010-06-08, 05:28 PM
You'll actually notice most of the answers have used the phrase "in the name of player enjoyment" instead of story. There is a HUGE difference.

Here's the thing, though: are you really so sure that your judgement's infallible when it comes to deciding what's going to be best for player enjoyment?

Because it's often not at all as clear as you seem to be claiming. Will making the player succeed when they would otherwise have failed actually make the game more fun? Or will it just teach the players that the most important thing in a fight is the GM's mood, rather than luck or skill or tactics?

I've played in several games where the players could convince the DM to let them get away with stuff because it would be "more fun", and it rarely improved the game. In practice the players who got on best with the GM tended to get the most benefits. The GMs who stuck to the rules typically got more respect in the long run.

Now, I do agree that you've got a point. Sometimes it really does improve the game to fudge, and I've fudged before. The trouble with this sort of thing, though, is that it's just too tempting. It's always so easy to nudge things a little, because after all, you're the DM, and you know more about what's coming than the PCs do, so you really might be in a better position to make the decision. But the more you do it, the more you risk devaluing the players' trust in the DM.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:29 PM
Actually I'm DMing several online games at the moment and preparing to run a sandbox game over the summer, where yes, I am in fact doing all that work. What you've just done is referred to as "putting your foot in your mouth". :smallamused:

Banjo's foot is very far from his mouth. :smallyuk: You have taken a piece of my statement out of context and ignored the meaning of my post, I was not saying you were incapable of running a game, but that while in a game where YOU ARE NOT THE GM, ignoring the story designed by the GM so you can "make your own story" out of someone else's game is both inconsiderate and arrogant.

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 05:29 PM
Banjo would like to point out that reaching absolute zero in temperature on earth is impossible as well, but that doesn't mean that the whole scale of temperature is completely worthless.

Yeah, because there's a relevent difference between different points on the scale. In terms of HP, if your HP > 0, you're completely fine. If you specifically made it so that your HP was ALWAYS > 0, that would make your current location on that scale utterly irrelevent, since there's no difference between having 92213094324 HP and having 3 HP.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:30 PM
Jarian would like to point out that you make an excellent strawman. It rivals of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz in its cuteness.


Explain how my argument is a strawman?

Private-Prinny
2010-06-08, 05:33 PM
I cheat when and if it suits me. If a die doesn't fall the way I want it to, but it won't affect the outcome of anything in particular, then I keep it, but I will fudge a roll when necessary. Of course, I did tell my players that I reserve the right to fudge a roll every now and then, and they all agreed to it, so that helps.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:33 PM
Yeah, because there's a relevent difference between different points on the scale. In terms of HP, if your HP > 0, you're completely fine. If you specifically made it so that your HP was ALWAYS > 0, that would make your current location on that scale utterly irrelevent, since there's no difference between having 92213094324 HP and having 3 HP.
Not necessarily, especially considering that 0 doesn't equal dead in D&D, and the argument was that fudging was an acceptable way to keep our pcs from dying, not being knocked unconscious.

But ultimately it doesn't matter, different strokes right?

Jarian
2010-06-08, 05:34 PM
Explain how my argument is a strawman?


A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Clarifying the previous question as "If your characters are incapable of reaching 0 hitpoints, why do they have hitpoints at all?" should clear up the confusion. If not, I'm not sure we're seeing the same thing at all.

*shakes head*

Also, your third person is slipping.

Saph
2010-06-08, 05:34 PM
Banjo's foot is very far from his mouth. :smallyuk: You have taken a piece of my statement out of context and ignored the meaning of my post, I was not saying you were incapable of running a game, but that while in a game where YOU ARE NOT THE GM, ignoring the story designed by the GM so you can "make your own story" out of someone else's game is both inconsiderate and arrogant.

Banjo should spend less time calling other people arrogant and selfish and more time listening. I don't expect anything from other DMs that I'm not willing to provide when I'm DMing myself. I give players a fair amount of freedom as a DM, and I prefer to have the same as a player.

ChrisFortyTwo
2010-06-08, 05:34 PM
This is same logical fallacy we've been seeing over and over in this thread, it is the "Either Or Fallacy". The idea that you are stating is that if it is made impossible for your characters to reach 0 hit points then the entire system is pointless.

Banjo would like to point out that reaching absolute zero in temperature on earth is impossible as well, but that doesn't mean that the whole scale of temperature is completely worthless.

The inability to reach the end of a scale doesn't make the whole scale pointless. It isn't an all or nothing situation, it is not an either or situation.

I agree with Jarion, this is a strawman. Of course, the HP scale isn't an all or nothing situation, but the idea of fudging dice rolls is a true dichotomy. Yes, some people do it more than others, but the discussion of whether to abide by dice rolls or fudge is the question at hand, not hit points.

Peanut Gallery
2010-06-08, 05:35 PM
Why have hitpoints at all, then?

Because knowing when to retreat and when to heal are still important aspects of an encounter.
And even if you don't want the characters to die, there's still the point where they get knocked unconscious.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:35 PM
I agree with Jarion, this is a strawman. Of course, the HP scale isn't an all or nothing situation, but the idea of fudging dice rolls is a true dichotomy. Yes, some people do it more than others, but the discussion of whether to abide by dice rolls or fudge is the question at hand, not hit points.

True. Banjo Surrenders.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:38 PM
Banjo should spend less time calling other people arrogant and selfish and more time listening. I don't expect anything from other DMs that I'm not willing to provide when I'm DMing myself. I give players a fair amount of freedom as a DM, and I prefer to have the same as a player.

Banjo did not say that you were selfish OR arrogant but that individuals who left other DMs story arcs for there own amusement were, and it sounded as though that was what you were advocating from your post.

Banjo apologizes if he insulted you.

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 05:38 PM
But ultimately it doesn't matter, different strokes right?

Now now, let's not start being reasonable, here. If we let such things as "tolerance for alternative opinions" get in the way, we'd lose so many amusing things to argue about. :smallamused:

ChrisFortyTwo
2010-06-08, 05:40 PM
Banjo should spend less time calling other people arrogant and selfish and more time listening. I don't expect anything from other DMs that I'm not willing to provide when I'm DMing myself. I give players a fair amount of freedom as a DM, and I prefer to have the same as a player.

I'm not agreeing with the statements about your character - you sound like a fair and enjoyable DM, however, as I mentioned earlier, there are different kinds of games. If I were playing in three different games with three different play styles, I would expect the DMs to take three different stances on how they ran it. I wouldn't mind being railroaded on a really epic story-centered game where the DM cheats, but I wouldn't want to be unduly restricted in a dungeon-crawl puzzle/tactics game, either. It's the difference between, "there are many caravans going through Marketville, but none anywhere else" and "there is only one tunnel, the rest are covered with an infinite amount of rubble"

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:41 PM
Now now, let's not start being reasonable, here. If we let such things as "tolerance for alternative opinions" get in the way, we'd lose so many amusing things to argue about. :smallamused:

True, and Banjo does love to argue. It's a puppet thing.

WarKitty
2010-06-08, 05:44 PM
Like someone said before, it depends on the players you have. I have a group that is interested in roleplay and world exploration with enough combat to spice things up and be the hero. And lots of shiny loot. So, if the battle is taking too long or they're not doing so well, I'll fudge a few numbers.

The other situation is, what happens when the DM messes up? The encounter is accidentally way too easy or too hard for the PC's? Personally, I'll fudge rolls if it's too hard, but not if it's too easy.

Personally, you shouldn't have to hide how you DM from the players. My players know that I will fudge rolls if it's needed, and they're ok with this. If your players aren't ok with it, then don't.

Saph
2010-06-08, 05:45 PM
Banjo did not say that you were selfish OR arrogant but that individuals who left other DMs story arcs for there own amusement were, and it sounded as though that was what you were saying from your post.

Banjo apologizes if he insulted you.

No problem.

Thing is, if you look at the first page of this thread, quite a few people were talking about "the story" or what's "dramatically appropriate". Now, to me, what that sounds like is "the story is supposed to unfold in the way I want it to, and attacks should only count if I think they're dramatic enough." And that just doesn't appeal to me all that much. I want the outcome of a battle to depend upon my choices, everyone else's choices, and to a certain extent, luck. If it's all just down to the DM's whim, then it's hard for me to get engaged, because I don't feel like my actions matter.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 05:47 PM
I generally prefer to give players actual control rather than the illusion of it.

I'm not going to say that I never fudge rolls, but I've a very strong dislike of DMs who fudge dice rolls to make sure things go according to "their story". I'd rather be able to write my own story, thanks.

When you put the modifier 'generally' into your statement, you were actually bringing your statement into complete agreement with mine. I'm not saying you should fudge every roll, or even one in a hundred or thousand. I was arguing with someone about extremes and my postulate was that in certain cases, it is a necessary thing for the DM to step in and override what the dice say. If that is the situation, then that act of stepping in effectively removes the control players have (i.e. their character stats and rolls). It doesn't invalidate all their past or future decisions or mean they have no impact on the story what-so-ever. It means at certain points, their control does in fact disappear... precisely when you invoke Rule 0.

The illusion I mentioned is there because even when the players aren't in control they should feel like they are, because they need it to stay involved with the story. Making all control into illusion would mean you are applying Rule 0 to everything in your game, not just the extremes. You would be letting people roll, then deciding the result after-wards. That only works occasionally, I don't think you could maintain the suspension of disbelief that long. The alternative would be to announce every time you fudged a roll to the players, but that tends to get abused.

Depending on your Dungeon Mastering technique, you may need to invoke Rule 0 more or less. But that's a style and personality decision, it doesn't make someone a better or worse DM.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-08, 05:54 PM
I don't throw dice out in the open (the urge to metagame can distract a player even if he never acts on it), but I don't fudge die rolls, either, and I really don't like it when other GMs fudge dice rolls. It's penny-wise, pound-foolish; sure, this encounter might be more 'fun' if the enemies don't get confused and start killing each other in madness, but in the long run all the encounters lose their tension if no one can die or lose unless/until the GM says so, dice be damned. And yes, it gets noticeable. I have spontaneously given each character one free 'mulligan' roll after a series of very bad player dice rolls, but that was a moment of weakness, and more importantly it was equal and out in the open.

To be honest, it seems like many DMs here view the variance of the d20 as an enemy: Slayer of new PCs, turner of BBEGs into frogs, destroyer of potentially interesting encounters. Well... why not switch to one of the hundreds of systems with less die variance? One of the several that are easy to learn and replicate D&D-style fantasy pretty well? This is where Satyr comes in and pushes GURPS.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 05:56 PM
No problem.

Thing is, if you look at the first page of this thread, quite a few people were talking about "the story" or what's "dramatically appropriate". Now, to me, what that sounds like is "the story is supposed to unfold in the way I want it to, and attacks should only count if I think they're dramatic enough." And that just doesn't appeal to me all that much. I want the outcome of a battle to depend upon my choices, everyone else's choices, and to a certain extent, luck. If it's all just down to the DM's whim, then it's hard for me to get engaged, because I don't feel like my actions matter.

AHHH! Yes. In that sense Banjo whole heartedly agrees. Fudging rolls so drastically that they only mean any thing if they are dramatically "apropos" is ridiculous. And the story must have SOME flexibility.

Banjo simply becomes frustrated when in the midst of a campaign a character dies by an exceedingly small margin and holds up the game, or when the players spend 10 rounds fighting a monster and it manages to retain "1hp" for an additonal 15. In those situations Banjo fudges for story progression.:smallwink:

What Banjo meant earlier about refusing to follow story was not about rolls at all, but characters being unreasonable, For example: a character decides that rather than continuing east to *insert story location here* they decide to walk the complete opposite direction and expect the DM to create story for them. :smallfurious:

^^That is what Banjo meant. :smallsmile:

Saph
2010-06-08, 05:58 PM
When you put the modifier 'generally' into your statement, you were actually bringing your statement into complete agreement with mine. I'm not saying you should fudge every roll, or even one in a hundred or thousand. I was arguing with someone about extremes and my postulate was that in certain cases, it is a necessary thing for the DM to step in and override what the dice say.

I generally see fudging the same way an earlier poster did - as an admission that I've made a mistake. Usually it means I made an encounter either too easy or too difficult, and I have to fudge it to correct it. Sometimes it's necessary, but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't have had to fudge the thing if I'd gotten it right in the first place.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 06:04 PM
I don't throw dice out in the open (the urge to metagame can distract a player even if he never acts on it), but I don't fudge die rolls, either, and I really don't like it when other GMs fudge dice rolls. It's penny-wise, pound-foolish; sure, this encounter might be more 'fun' if the enemies don't get confused and start killing each other in madness, but in the long run all the encounters lose their tension if no one can die or lose unless/until the GM says so, dice be damned. And yes, it gets noticeable. I have spontaneously given each character one free 'mulligan' roll after a series of very bad player dice rolls, but that was a moment of weakness, and more importantly it was equal and out in the open.

To be honest, it seems like many DMs here view the variance of the d20 as an enemy: Slayer of new PCs, turner of BBEGs into frogs, destroyer of potentially interesting encounters. Well... why not switch to one of the hundreds of systems with less die variance? One of the several that are easy to learn and replicate D&D-style fantasy pretty well? This is where Satyr comes in and pushes GURPS.
Banjo thinks his recent dispute with Saph covers this. You are thinking of DM's fudging constantly and blatantly denying the rules for no reason, where as Banjo and other pro-fudgers are thinking of situational modification for the sake of improved game play.

For example, Banjo would never stop a group of monsters from killing each other in confusion, partially because Banjo likes killing and confusion, but also because telling a player that their spell simply does not function would be wrong.

It is a breach of trust to pull your players to the table and then deny the rules at a whim. Your players sit down expecting certain rules, and they should have them, but this is very similar to a situation in OoTS. The paladins sometimes become so bogged down in their rules they can't do their job, but a certain late great leader of the Azure city remedied the situation by operating out side of the law in situations where it was necessary to protect the city.

^^this is how Banjo sees fudging, occasionally it can be necessary to maintain the game.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 06:06 PM
I generally see fudging the same way an earlier poster did - as an admission that I've made a mistake. Usually it means I made an encounter either too easy or too difficult, and I have to fudge it to correct it. Sometimes it's necessary, but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't have had to fudge the thing if I'd gotten it right in the first place.
But you have to admit, because a d20 system DOES leave a lot of room for chance, your characters could be facing an opponent beneath them and given the right luck, they could easily lose. This is why Banjo advocates at least some manipulation of the odds.

Saph
2010-06-08, 06:08 PM
But you have to admit, because a d20 system DOES leave a lot of room for chance, your characters could be facing an opponent beneath them and given the right luck, they could easily lose. This is why Banjo advocates at least some manipulation of the odds.

Well, I tend to take the attitude that if the the PCs literally can't lose, the fight probably isn't worth spending session time on in the first place. :smallwink: I just tell them that they win and move on.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 06:09 PM
Well, I tend to take the attitude that if the the PCs literally can't lose, the fight probably isn't worth spending session time on in the first place. :smallwink: I just tell them that they win and move on.

A healthy practice. :smallbiggrin:

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 06:12 PM
But you have to admit, because a d20 system DOES leave a lot of room for chance, your characters could be facing an opponent beneath them and given the right luck, they could easily lose. This is why Banjo advocates at least some manipulation of the odds.

I personally run under the belief that if there isn't a good chance of at least one PC dying in any given encounter, I'm going too easy on them.

For example, I intend to include in my first session in an upcoming campaign, a pair of zombie cows (read: zombie bison). On a 1st Level Party. Plus, the zombified remains of everyone they've ever known and loved. With little to no opportunity to rest between encounters. :smalltongue:

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 06:14 PM
I personally run under the belief that if there isn't a good chance of at least one PC dying in any given encounter, I'm going too easy on them.

That sounds both cruel and sadistic as a DM Banjo is sickened, as a deity Banjo approves. :smallwink:

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 06:15 PM
That sounds both cruel and sadistic as a DM Banjo is sickened, as a deity Banjo approves. :smallwink:

I'm only a sadist to masochists. :smalltongue: (And idiots, I suppose, but that's another matter.)

Drascin
2010-06-08, 06:19 PM
Thing is, if you look at the first page of this thread, quite a few people were talking about "the story" or what's "dramatically appropriate". Now, to me, what that sounds like is "the story is supposed to unfold in the way I want it to, and attacks should only count if I think they're dramatic enough." And that just doesn't appeal to me all that much. I want the outcome of a battle to depend upon my choices, everyone else's choices, and to a certain extent, luck. If it's all just down to the DM's whim, then it's hard for me to get engaged, because I don't feel like my actions matter.

And yet I don't even have a "focused" story in my campaign, rather letting the players literally do as they may, but as said, I fudge rolls like, as a certain Samuel would say, a mother******. Simply because I have seen what happens if you let the dice absolute reign. Namely, players dropping in the third session because their nicely crafted and backstoried character fell to a 20 before they even got a chance to actually play it, and after being all hyped to play it and getting that pulled from under them, the last thing they felt like is making yet another one. Or people downright stopping to care for their characters after failing miserably half a dozen times in a row at their character's "niche" and having them feel utterly useless because rolls refused to give anything over a 3.

Additionally, you're entirely overstating it. Fudging is something done maybe once every couple sessions, at the most. Something you do because it just doesn't feel fair that after the players went to such huge trouble to get the most awesome powerful poison on hand to weaken the powerful man they want to take down, and bait the adversary into position so as to get all the possible positive modifiers on the shot so that it's almost impossible to miss... the baddie just goes "oh my, who would have thought, natural 20 on the save, hope you managed to get more of that? No? Nice. Conventional combat (that you could have started equally if you had saved yourselves the whole last bargaining and searching session, plus a lot of cash) time now".

But eh, as said, I've seen that my table at least appreciates my style, and they know I'm fudging the occassional roll. If you prefer the more lethal styles, your choice. But I have to admit that as a man who learned to play under an extremely sadistic "roll well or die" DM, followed the same doctrine at first, and then changed his mind completely, I'm not at all a fan, not as a player, and not as a DM.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 06:21 PM
I generally see fudging the same way an earlier poster did - as an admission that I've made a mistake. Usually it means I made an encounter either too easy or too difficult, and I have to fudge it to correct it. Sometimes it's necessary, but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't have had to fudge the thing if I'd gotten it right in the first place.

That is usually when you would want to use it, but sometimes not even then. It can be fun to let the players have an easy or too difficult encounter once in a while. It can also be used to cover situations you could not have possibly known about, metagame concerns (e.g. "OMG! It's almost 10! I need this combat finished NOW!") or other things.

I try not to look at Rule 0 as only a mistake corrector. That makes it seem like fudging is only done by bad DM's. It can be used to improve the game for everyone as well, if used properly and discretely with the end goal of fun for everyone. It's the ultimate tool in the DM toolbox, and like any powerful tool it can really mess things up if you mis/overuse it.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 06:24 PM
I'm only a sadist to masochists. :smalltongue: (And idiots, I suppose, but that's another matter.)

A wise anonymous source was once quoted on a T-shirt as "Stupidity SHOULD be painful"

Saph
2010-06-08, 06:36 PM
Additionally, you're entirely overstating it. Fudging is something done maybe once every couple sessions, at the most. Something you do because it just doesn't feel fair that after the players went to such huge trouble to get the most awesome powerful poison on hand to weaken the powerful man they want to take down, and bait the adversary into position so as to get all the possible positive modifiers on the shot so that it's almost impossible to miss... the baddie just goes "oh my, who would have thought, natural 20 on the save, hope you managed to get more of that? No? Nice. Conventional combat (that you could have started equally if you had saved yourselves the whole last bargaining and searching session, plus a lot of cash) time now".

If you didn't want the poison to be saveable, why did you give it a save in the first place? You could create a homebrew poison that doesn't allow one, or give the PCs the means to bypass the saving throw. You know that a d20 has a chance of rolling a 20. If you're not willing to accept a certain result on the dice, it seems to me that the most honest way to deal with it is not to roll the dice at all.

And seriously, fudging because the bad guy . . . succeeded on a save against a poison? I mean, I could understand if it was something desperately important to the players, like saving their character's child or their lover. But fudging to stop the PCs wasting some time, some gold, and a surprise round? That's really so terrible that it can't be allowed? Really? Is the moral here that once the PCs have spent a certain amount of time and resources on a tactic, it's not allowed to fail?

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-08, 06:50 PM
Banjo thinks his recent dispute with Saph covers this. You are thinking of DM's fudging constantly and blatantly denying the rules for no reason, where as Banjo and other pro-fudgers are thinking of situational modification for the sake of improved game play.Actually, I'm thinking of DMs regularly (but not constantly or blatantly) denying the rules*, for the sake of improved game play. Sure, there are corner cases where fudging is a good thing, but myopia blinds DMs into overestimating the number of those cases.

*'Situational modification' is a funny euphemism.

TheThan
2010-06-08, 07:04 PM
DMs can’t cheat

You see DMs are empowered to change any aspect of the game as they see fit. This power is permitted within the rules; therefore by using this power DMs are not cheating. They may use this power to change rules, fudge dice, buff/debuff monsters, and generally make things easier or harder for the players, depending on the situation. But it’s not cheating. Cheating is all about breaking the rules in order to win, the rules Dms break are not used this way. They are used to keep the game fun for everyone, including himself.

That’s the thing about this power, DMs have to learn how to use it right. If your using to “get at” the players, or “make things more interesting” you’re probably doing it wrong. It needs to be used when you under/over estimate your players, when they take on more than they can handle or you throw something entirely too easy at them. Remember the game is about having fun, and part of that fun is a bit of challenge. I’m not saying that all encounters should be a potential party wipe. I’m saying that the pcs should be coming across things that can challenge them in a fight at least some of the time. Ultimately this comes down to the Dm tailoring the game to the personalities of the other players.

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 07:05 PM
I didn't break the law! I AM THE LAW!

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 07:07 PM
*'Situational modification' is a funny euphemism.

Yes, yes it is.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 07:08 PM
I didn't break the law! I AM THE LAW!

It's my ring! I found it!! WHY SHOULDN'T I KEEP IT?

Sorry Banjo had a LotR momment.

BobVosh
2010-06-08, 07:15 PM
I follow paranoia as far as dice rolls are involved: only roll a die if you don't know what you want to happen. So I never fudge on the dice rolling.

I do occasionally cheat in some ways, mainly where stuff is. Spell slots aren't always filled so I can be flexible if there is only one main caster vs PCs.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 07:17 PM
Actually, I'm thinking of DMs regularly (but not constantly or blatantly) denying the rules*, for the sake of improved game play. Sure, there are corner cases where fudging is a good thing, but myopia blinds DMs into overestimating the number of those cases.

*'Situational modification' is a funny euphemism.

If improved game play is achieved, then does it matter if the rules weren't followed to achieve it? In cases where it was not achieved, there is a mistake in the DM's judgement and myopia is the least of your concerns. Game rules should be a vehicle for delivering fun, not a protection structure from a vision- addled DM.

My style is never to let players even think Rule 0 was invoked, so if you're conscious of it enough for it to be an annoyance then you need to talk to the DM. Perhaps get a listing of house rules if you're unclear, or consider that perhaps your style of playing doesn't mesh with the DM's style of DMing. Or maybe the DM is less familiar with the logic of the rules than you are. Remember though, that the DM runs the game, and has the final word. No amount of you being correct in your rules interpretation is going to make them wrong in how they are running their game.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-08, 07:25 PM
I didn't break the law! I AM THE LAW!


http://bigdogdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/judge-dredd.jpg

"I am the law."

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 07:50 PM
Here's the thing, though: are you really so sure that your judgement's infallible when it comes to deciding what's going to be best for player enjoyment?

Because it's often not at all as clear as you seem to be claiming. Will making the player succeed when they would otherwise have failed actually make the game more fun? Or will it just teach the players that the most important thing in a fight is the GM's mood, rather than luck or skill or tactics?

I've played in several games where the players could convince the DM to let them get away with stuff because it would be "more fun", and it rarely improved the game. In practice the players who got on best with the GM tended to get the most benefits. The GMs who stuck to the rules typically got more respect in the long run.

Now, I do agree that you've got a point. Sometimes it really does improve the game to fudge, and I've fudged before. The trouble with this sort of thing, though, is that it's just too tempting. It's always so easy to nudge things a little, because after all, you're the DM, and you know more about what's coming than the PCs do, so you really might be in a better position to make the decision. But the more you do it, the more you risk devaluing the players' trust in the DM.

I'm not going to be arrogant enough to say I'm infallible. No one is, but I do make sure I have about a 95% certainty that it's for the better good before I do something like this.

I really do get to know my players and their styles inside out before I really get into the meat and bones of something. When I get a new player in, I do spend my time making sure to throw in a couple hooks here and there to see how they work. I work a little more leniently at first to get people into the mood with the rest of the group (for instance, in the Pirates vs. Ninjas beta test, I'll hand out awesome points a little more easily to people in their first couple of sessions to get them in the mood and pull back slowly). I can tell you theory after theory of what my players enjoy and how they work and how they're likely to solve any given situation. The one's I've had for 6 years, I probably know how some of them think about the game more than they do.

Needless to say, I've done my research.

I'm obviously still not infallible. My players surprise me all the time, but I know how to keep them entertained and I know how to pull them in without necessarily adding in more power and monetary reward. I know what kinds of NPCs they react to and how. I know how to get them to shoot a villain in the middle of his monologue. So, when I do cheat, I am REALLY certain that I do so when I believe they'll enjoy the game more. I've actually admitted to my players that I do fudge a roll here or there. I've been doing this long enough that they trust me to do it right though.

I really do value the player's enjoyment over anything else. The only time I will put something above a player's enjoyment is the rare case when one player's enjoyment would drastically decrease another player or multiple players' enjoyment. When I give the spotlight, I expect people to share if they can.

Now, I've had players that absolutely won't trust any GM to do the right thing and insist on 100% impartiality. However, (and by no means am I saying this is even close to a majority case) the players that have done this have also hogged the spotlight when given and flat out refuse to follow plot hooks and drag down the session. These are the same players that when asked personally what they'd like to see refuse to say anything while still complaining that the GM isn't listening to them. These are the players that attack other party members in the open and say its what their character would do, but get angry when other people attack them back while doing it. These players are rigid in their thinking and refuse to work with other players and think the game is for them and them alone. These are the players that I do have trouble reading and often can't help.

These players are not welcome at my table.

Now, if you gave me a group with good players that really do want it by the book 100% impartial, then I'll do it. I have no problem with playing Mr. GM McNastyPants Killbot, and I CAN do it easily. I've killed players before, and I've no doubt I'll do it again. Heck, I was a Paranoia GM for 2 years, and at that time, player death was expected. I'm told I'm pretty good at it too.

This just isn't how my players roll though, and so I play to their needs, not mine. I can't prove it, but I know my players like they're close family. I make mistakes, but in the long run, I've done what's best for my players.

Here's what I think is important to consider though:
As you said, fudging can be tempting. GM's are human. I really don't think that there is a single GM that's GM'ed for more than, let's say, 2 years without fudging a SINGLE roll, even if they weren't consciously aware of it. It's easy to convince yourself that that dice is more cocked than usual.

By being honest, and admitting that you have done it (as well as changing small details on encounters from here to there), even if only once, you actually help yourself to control yourself to only when it's proper and important to do it instead of just giving in when temptation says to. If you keep insisting that you're completely 100% infallible and impartial and NEVER fudge, then you're exactly the kind of person that is likely to give into it eventually. Of course, they'll never admit it, and they'll rationalize it. Arrogance leads to error.

So yeah. I'm a GM. I'm prone to error, and I do cheat for my players occasionally. On rare occasions, it's been the wrong choice. I openly admit it, and I think it's healthy for other GM's to know that a little bit of it really is natural. It's all about self-control and knowing to use it only when you need to.

The most important thing, though, really is to know your players and know the exact touch to use. Different strokes for different folks.

Physics_Rook
2010-06-08, 07:53 PM
Of the various styles of play in relating to the fudging of rollls, I'm most familiar with the following two.

With games that are driven by the story, it can sometimes be not only important to fudge rolls, but also appropriate and expected. In such cases you're shooting to try and find a happy balance between realism and cinematic drama in the game.

Other games might place more emphasis on creating a world that doesn't change it's rules while the player isn't looking (or even while they're looking). In this case the the assumption is that the DM isn't changing or modifying the players' interaction in the world outside of the rules they expect the world to abide by.

In one play style, you have a game where the players can accommodate and may even expect the DM to change how the world interacts despite what the dice might say. The other play style creates an experience that hinges on the idea that the players can trust the rules of the world to not suddenly change at the DM's whim.

I count myself lucky to have had the good fortune of experiencing both, because both styles can be fun. The former lends itself to comic-esque gameplay where the PCs are the central focal point of the game. The latter tends to be more appropriate for large scale worlds and sandbox gameplay where unreliable world rules could lead to some wacky (though possibly amusing) antics.

I personally, don't fudge rolls.

I don't feel there's too much of a problem if encounters vary over a range from too easy to too difficult, because the players know I won't pull punches or hit harder in order satisfy a predetermined outcome. Often times, the end result forces the PCs to plan and react to situations accordingly, instead of wondering if part or all of anything they planned actually had any effect, or if I as the DM had decided that things should happen a certain way.

Whatever style of play decided upon though, it would be best to remember that we get together to hang out, chill, and relax with friends above all else. If you have problems fudging or not fudging rolls, you can always break out Risk if you want to spend 11+ hours playing a single game. :smallsmile:

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 07:56 PM
Whatever style of play decided upon though, it would be best to remember that we get together to hang out, chill, and relax with friends above all else. If you have problems fudging or not fudging rolls, you can always break out Risk if you want to spend 11+ hours playing a single game. :smallsmile:

You've clearly never played Risk with my friends. The Cold War was more civil.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 08:02 PM
The DM's what? :smalltongue: People keep adding an apostrophe when they don't need to...

Anyways, I do sometimes. If they're fighting what's supposed to be a fairly challenging combat or a powerful enemy(such as a BBEG or the like) then I make sure that they usually roll at least fairly well.

Then you get the creatures that can only hit on a 20, and proceed to get 4 20s in a row(I play with a houserule that each additional 20 increases the crit multiplier by 1) and still do...4 damage.

Physics_Rook
2010-06-08, 08:07 PM
You've clearly never played Risk with my friends. The Cold War was more civil.

Indeed the Cold War was more civil ... since my friends and I play like the abominable off-spring of Machiavelli, Snidely Whiplash, and Evil Lincoln all rolled into one. Near the end of the game it becomes a mish-mash of unholy crusades, backstabbing allies, and the tears of orphans. Then we start playing Munchkin, and the real evil of man show its face. :smallbiggrin:

Lycan 01
2010-06-08, 08:12 PM
I occassionally cheat. When the players are doing something incredibly stupid, I'll fudge the rolls or lower the DCs of certain tests to get them back on track. I tend to roll dice in secret, but in the open. I'll just randomly drop a D20 in front of me, study the result, then tell what happens next. I don't have to tell them what its for. Sometimes I roll just because. Other times I roll randomly to determine if a random passing guard overhears them or something. So when I need to roll for something important, and I don't like the result, I can just roll again. They'll assume the previous roll was for something unimportant, and I get another chance to keep the game from derailing over a bad roll. No harm, no foul. :smallwink:

mobdrazhar
2010-06-08, 08:19 PM
I have fudged dice rolls but it's always been to make sure my players are enjoying the game. Hell even if it's just to make the NPC fall down while trying to climb a rope to get a good laugh from the players. If i can help it i won't fudge dice rolls. There are times when i feel it needs to be done, but then each DM has their own style of running a game.

Evil the Cat
2010-06-08, 08:44 PM
GMs never cheat, according to rule 0.

More honestly, I try to never fudge a roll unless absolutely necessary. The more I do, the more it makes PC builds irrelevant. What's the point in building a character, then having the GM make your strategies fail. On rare occasions I modify things on the fly to better fit my story/purpose, but I rarely touch die rolls. I often even roll where the PCs casn see my rolls, especially with saving throws and attack rolls.

DanReiv
2010-06-08, 08:50 PM
I cheat in the name of drama.

I don't, in the name of drama. You see, faked awesomeness isn't awesome.

Let the PC be awesome by themself. I assure you they can, if you let them ?

I believe our Job as DM is to have fun creating interesting, fun, and sometimes deadly settings/encounters.

Awesome kicks in when the PC overcome them without you fudging dices.

What's the point anyways ? Don't roll if you want to write a story...

I've so many fond memory as player and DM of good/bad rolls, those offen tell the story guys. Let them be.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:01 PM
I don't, in the name of drama. You see, faked awesomeness isn't awesome.

Let the PC be awesome by themself. I assure you they can, if you let them ?

I believe our Job as DM is to have fun creating interesting, fun, and sometimes deadly settings/encounters.

Awesome kicks in when the PC overcome them without you fudging dices.

What's the point anyways ? Don't roll if you want to write a story...

I've so many fond memory as player and DM of good/bad rolls, those offen tell the story guys. Let them be.

But what if the dice don't set up something awesome? Is it awesome for the PCs to prevail only because their enemy was tripping over his own feet the entire battle? If "fudging" some die rolls makes a combat or scene more interesting, then why not? If making a roll succeed rather than fail would make the battle more tense why stop because you "Let the PC be awesome by themself"? Is it awesome if the final battle of the campaign is short and anticlimactic? Or is it better if you change the results of some rolls to let the villain be a real threat, so that when the PCs win they have a victory over an enemy, not some failure. As someone once said, heroes are defined by the villains they face. If you want to be awesome, then wouldn't you like it if the DM sent you awesome villains?

Eloi
2010-06-08, 09:12 PM
But what if the dice don't set up something awesome? Is it awesome for the PCs to prevail only because their enemy was tripping over his own feet the entire battle? If "fudging" some die rolls makes a combat or scene more interesting, then why not? If making a roll succeed rather than fail would make the battle more tense why stop because you "Let the PC be awesome by themself"? Is it awesome if the final battle of the campaign is short and anticlimactic? Or is it better if you change the results of some rolls to let the villain be a real threat, so that when the PCs win they have a victory over an enemy, not some failure. As someone once said, heroes are defined by the villains they face. If you want to be awesome, then wouldn't you like it if the DM sent you awesome villains?

This, all this.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 09:18 PM
If improved game play is achieved, then does it matter if the rules weren't followed to achieve it?
OH NO!

This is the begging of the Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good argument all over again.

This is literally the age old question "Do the ends Justify the means?"

Tyrandar
2010-06-08, 09:21 PM
My DM basically gives everyone one mulligan per level; the player can take one event and say, "That didn't happen" (usually to prevent untimely death). There are some limitations on its use, but it can come in handy. Too bad I've never needed to use one. :smallannoyed:

Beelzebub1111
2010-06-08, 09:24 PM
I've cheated once. I've kept a villain alive to escape after a particularly jarring critical hit (which in retrospect shouldn't have even hit because of a forgotten penalty from Inflict Pain, but whatever)

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:25 PM
My DM basically gives everyone one mulligan per level; the player can take one event and say, "That didn't happen" (usually to prevent untimely death). There are some limitations on its use, but it can come in handy. Too bad I've never needed to use one. :smallannoyed:

I, as a DM, give one "mercy roll" per session. If you, say, roll a 1 on your Uber-charged Deadly Slasher Mega Attack(of Doom!) then you can reroll. It only comes up now and then, when a certain player manages to roll 1s on at least half of his charged attacks. The other gets crits, and maximum damage only on enemies with 1 HP. It's an odd campaign.

golentan
2010-06-08, 09:30 PM
I cheat to prevent TPKs and unjustified deaths (where they didn't actually do anything wrong, and in fact did everything right on a save or lose, and got crap luck), or to advance the plot.

Except in high mortality games, which I will advertise as such. There, I go by the rule of Xagyg Yrag.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 09:32 PM
I, as a DM, give one "mercy roll" per session. If you, say, roll a 1 on your Uber-charged Deadly Slasher Mega Attack(of Doom!) then you can reroll. It only comes up now and then, when a certain player manages to roll 1s on at least half of his charged attacks. The other gets crits, and maximum damage only on enemies with 1 HP. It's an odd campaign.

Banjo has watched a friend roll four 20s in a row. Banjo invested in a video camera almost immediately after.

DanReiv
2010-06-08, 09:33 PM
Whoa. That's a lot of questions, most of them makes no sense.

Again, if you want a story go your way, write a book.

RPGs are all about PC making their choices, and you going along with them.

I'd hate playing a game where I'm saved all the time for the purpose of the story. It's just that dumb.

And for the last time, if you fudge, then somehow, something was poorly designed, or maybe you can't accept the idea of your PC being (un)/lucky. That's no problem with me, as a DM, I roll so many dices sometimes they're on the (un)/lucky side too. That basically builds the story :smallwink:

I don't have to fudge because I spent a lot of time designing my adventures. Deadly ? yes, Cheated ? no.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:34 PM
Banjo has watched a friend roll four 20s in a row. Banjo invested in a video camera almost immediately after.

I've never bothered to do so, but he has managed to do so for the last 8 sessions. It's become a running gag, and whenever I declare it "Your time to shine." Everyone knows the enemy has 1 HP.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 09:37 PM
I've never bothered to do so, but he has managed to do so for the last 8 sessions. It's become a running gag, and whenever I declare it "Your time to shine." Everyone knows the enemy has 1 HP.

Sounds enjoyable. :smallbiggrin:

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:41 PM
Whoa. That's a lot of questions, most of them makes no sense.

Again, if you want a story go your way, write a book.

RPGs are all about PC making their choices, and you going along with them.

I'd hate playing a game where I'm saved all the time for the purpose of the story. It's just that dumb.

And for the last time, if you fudge, then somehow, something was poorly designed, or maybe you can't accept the idea of your PC being lucky. That's no problem with me, as a DM, I roll so many dices sometimes they're on the unlucky side too. That basically builds the story :smallwink:

I don't have to fudge because I spent a lot of time designing my adventures. Deadly ? yes, Cheated ? no.

Fun purposes. Assuming that people want to triumph against a real villain who poses a threat and gives a real fight, I provide. Why? Because I want both myself and my players to have fun.

I don't just save them all he time. In fact, the last time a player died in my campaign it was a random battle. I don't save them, I just prefer to keep battles from becoming boring.

I can accept the PCs being lucky. I can also accept that they will have less fun if my entire story goes downhill because they got a lucky crit on something. Now, granted, I could probably keep that from happening. However, I like to build up dramatic tension and the like for the story, which is there to do one thing: provide enjoyment. It's like collaborative storytelling with dice.

Well, this is where the two of us are very different. I don't prepare much for my meets and we get by pretty well, and everyone has fun. I rarely need to fudge, actually. It's just that I believe that there are times when it is necessary to keep the fun going, and that if it comes to it I will fudge a million rolls if it keeps my games more fun than they otherwise would be.

Also, @Banjo: It is. Very much so.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-08, 09:43 PM
OH NO!

This is the begging of the Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good argument all over again.

This is literally the age old question "Do the ends Justify the means?"

I somehow think both sides would be ok with this. The means in this case are a bunch of rulebooks, and the ends are a good time had among friends. Rule books are tough, and resist being stepped on without complaint. That's why they have such hard covers, ya know? :smallbiggrin:

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:46 PM
That's why they have such hard covers, ya know? :smallbiggrin:

Untrue. That's to force gamers to become stronger by carrying them, so that WoTC can recruit them into its army when the inevitable apocalypse strikes.

Yep.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 09:49 PM
Untrue. That's to force gamers to become stronger by carrying them, so that WoTC can recruit them into its army when the inevitable apocalypse strikes.

Yep.

Banjo finds this theory believable

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 09:53 PM
Banjo finds this theory believable

I find your lack of grammar disturbing. *Totally not force choke rip-off, definitely telekinetic grab*

DanReiv
2010-06-08, 10:03 PM
It was never about fun, even less a competition. I assumed we all have fun playing RPGs :smallbiggrin:

Thing is imo you have to let stuff happens.


To quoth the Paladin "Wow, that sucks"

To be honest I fudged too (but schhhh), who didn't ? But I try not to. Fun is the main purpose and I found out years ago that it work best without "cheating".

Crowning moment of awesome (like escaping a shadow dragon in the street of an abyss necropolis) offen means the death of PC (2/5 in the last example, the last one to cross the portal actually jumped out his chair claiming "YES" while managing to DD out the grapple - He knew I wouldn't cheat the drake next turn :smallwink:

(this was ofc the last part of chapter 2 of our ongoing game, they don't get to that all the times :p)

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 10:06 PM
Whoa. That's a lot of questions, most of them makes no sense.

Again, if you want a story go your way, write a book.

RPGs are all about PC making their choices, and you going along with them.

I'd hate playing a game where I'm saved all the time for the purpose of the story. It's just that dumb.

And for the last time, if you fudge, then somehow, something was poorly designed, or maybe you can't accept the idea of your PC being (un)/lucky. That's no problem with me, as a DM, I roll so many dices sometimes they're on the (un)/lucky side too. That basically builds the story :smallwink:

I don't have to fudge because I spent a lot of time designing my adventures. Deadly ? yes, Cheated ? no.

That viewpoint is understood, but you really should take the time to understand the other viewpoint. Fudging dice rolls is not something you do for just about anything, it's something you do for extreme cases.

Let's get into the VERY theorhetical here.

Let's say you decide to run a campaign from level 1 to level 10 building the characters from common to eventually heroes. You'll let the dice roll, and characters will die when they die. Fair is fair, and the players will have to be smart to survive, but you're not out to kill them.

Your players, excited, build their characters with love and care and even do the whole 2 page backstory thing to really get into character. Your players REALLY want to play these characters.

First encounter in the whole campaign, a goblin rolls 3 20's in a row and instant kills a party member in the first round.

Now, let's assume you DON'T use that optional rule.

Make it ONE CR 1 wolf. The wizard goes right before the Wolf and hits it with a spell for some minor damage. The Wolf charges the wizard, crits, and confirms on the party wizard with 4 hp and knocks him to exactly -10 with a max damage crit, and the player that spent a few hours on this character is now dead.

Now, in this specific case, do you:
1. Tell the character to man up, that's just the luck of the dice, and roll make a new character.
2. Let him bring in a new character that's EXACTLY the same as the old one.
3. Give the cleric one turn to heal him to stable.
4. Say the crit didn't happen.
5. Say it does less damage than it does.
6. Fudge the crit roll so the wolf doesn't confirm but still hits.
7. Tell him to stop sucking at the game because he clearly deserved it for not having at least a +1 con modifier and attacked the Wolf first so he would draw the first attack.

Now, if you said 1. It's fair according to the rules, but MOST players quite frankly won't find it fun. Maybe they'll laugh about it later, but a lot of people really don't enjoy getting gimped out that early by a lucky roll.

If you said anything from 2-5, then you're really just doing the same impact as 6, which is what you're arguing against. There's various different ways it comes into play, but you're bending that reality because that player had a bad roll. There really is very little difference between those results.

If you honestly thought #7, you probably need to stop DM'ing.

Now, you may never run a scenario at level 1. Maybe you like high level. Maybe you like level 5. Maybe your players don't ever trip up, but your statements give people the impression that you think that there's ABSOLUTELY no reason for ANY GM to fudge a roll because ultimately it's more fun to react to how the dice roll.

This is ultimately about the most extreme scenario, but you can follow a logical progression of reasonable choices from there. It gets even bigger when you consider that, yes, not everyone here plays D&D and D&D is fairly unique in being a system that actually LETS characters come back from life.

Spread it out to systems where characters people like playing can't come back from life and the consequences get more extreme. There's a lot of players out there, not just your own. You'll need to adapt to them.

DanReiv
2010-06-08, 10:32 PM
Let's say you decide to run a campaign from level 1

No.

2 was my very least. In the actual campaign they started 3, which I find is the best. Probably won't get killed by a lucky goblin, but can be scared with like 99.99% of the monster from all sources :smallbiggrin:

C'mon, level 1 is dumb. A friggin' cat could kill you.


The wizard goes right before the Wolf and hits it with a spell for some minor damage.


Cool, gonna learn to make a smart mage next time. Might help. Stupidity comes at a price. Your example is so retarded I take he is alone ? No lvl 1 fighter to 1-shot said wolf ? Or they were in group and the mage got the bright idea to go front line ? Then, yes, let him die.

OOOORRRRR

Maybe, just maybe, as a DM, you should warn the lvl 1 mage PC that wandering alone in a wolf infested area with the worst defense in the world and the most utter basic spells is maybe, just maybe, not a good idea ?

Just sayin'...

8. Encounter didnt happened.

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 10:34 PM
Cool, gonna learn to make a smart mage next time. Might help. Stupidity comes at a price. Your example is so retarded I take he is alone ? No lvl 1 fighter to 1-shot said wolf ? Or they were in group and the mage got the bright idea to go front line ? Then, yes, let him die.

He's not saying that the wizard attacked the wolf in melee, that the wizard got initiative, cast a spell for some damage and the wolf attacked him because it went next.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-08, 10:56 PM
I find your lack of grammar disturbing. *Totally not force choke rip-off, definitely telekinetic grab*

Banjo's grammar? :smallfrown:Banjo's grammar is correct, merely in the third person. And also... it was totally a force coke. :smallsmile:

Drakevarg
2010-06-08, 10:57 PM
force coke.

Best. Force Power. EVAR.

DanReiv
2010-06-08, 10:58 PM
He's not saying that the wizard attacked the wolf in melee, that the wizard got initiative, cast a spell for some damage and the wolf attacked him because it went next.

Then the wolf, being awakened and all, instead of fleeing like any normal beast would, took a leap into melee, maybe around the whole party, for he took a level of ninja last time he killed a bunch of farmers (and their cows), right into the throat of that dumb mage level 1 who should have known better than lurking around an awakened ninja wolf.

It's still quite a dumb example...you guys should learn to rp animals....

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 11:01 PM
It's still quite a dumb example...you guys should learn to rp animals....

Why would adventurers attack a random, sleeping wolf?

1: DnD is a combat game. Most people would give up or run after they hit 1/2 HP, but that isn't fun is it?
2: Perhaps, for whatever reason, the wolf attacked them, maybe out of hunger or something, and simply went after the first thing that dealt damage to it.


Banjo's grammar? :smallfrown:Banjo's grammar is correct, merely in the third person. And also... it was totally a force coke. :smallsmile:

...


Banjo finds this theory believable

What is missing in this sentence?


theory believable
...

believable
What should be there, but isn't?

...Your salvation. *Totally-not-force-choke-neck-snap, turns on heel. My cape twirls as I stride from the room.*

mobdrazhar
2010-06-08, 11:06 PM
2: Perhaps, for whatever reason, the wolf attacked them, maybe out of hunger or something, and simply went after the first thing that dealt damage to it.


I agree. The Wolf went after what it posed to be the biggest threat to it at the time.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 11:07 PM
No.

2 was my very least. In the actual campaign they started 3, which I find is the best. Probably won't get killed by a lucky goblin, but can be scared with like 99.99% of the monster from all sources :smallbiggrin:

C'mon, level 1 is dumb. A friggin' cat could kill you.

Oh. Don't worry. level's not that important and level 2 actually makes the potential worse since things start actually doing DAMAGE at CR 2.

Okay then. Let's go for level 2. I was doing level 1 to give you the benefit of the doubt. It's EASIER with Level 2.

Party fighter. Crocodile. 1d12+6. Maximum crit of 36 damage. Even high HP fighters can fall in one hit there.

That's not the only thing that can one shot a reasonable party member, and this actually can keep going until about level 4 or 5 depending on how many sources you're willing to pull from.

So yeah. Gonna tell the 18 con fighter with an average of 24 HP he's an idiot for going into melee against a CR 2 creature?


Cool, gonna learn to make a smart mage next time. Might help. Stupidity comes at a price. Your example is so retarded I take he is alone ? No lvl 1 fighter to 1-shot said wolf ? Or they were in group and the mage got the bright idea to go front line ? Then, yes, let him die.

OOOORRRRR

Maybe, just maybe, as a DM, you should warn the lvl 1 mage PC that wandering alone in a wolf infested area with the worst defense in the world and the most utter basic spells is maybe, just maybe, not a good idea ?

Just sayin'...

8. Encounter didnt happened.

As explained. You misread and missed the point. The wizard got initiative in that case and the wolf logically went after the first thing to hit him. Wizard had no idea how initiative would play out unless you flat out told him.

Also, making concessions where you warn the players is basically the same mentality. You're making a concession to make the player's life easier.

So yeah. You kinda missed the point.

EDIT: For the record, so we don't have to go for CR 3. Howlers. They do 25 damage AVERAGE on a full attack. CR 3. Max damage without crits is 53. They're fair game for CR 3 parties and fun to fight, but when they get lucky, they kill a party member. Also, max crit for just a regular attack is 26. Still enough to murder the rogue, even with a good con.

DOUBLE EDIT: CR 4. Minotaurs. Decently common monster. Also fun fight, but can do up to 72 damage on a capped crit.

CR 5. Six-headed hydra. 51 damage average on regular attack without a crit. Less common. Or Werebear in Hybrid Form (more common to run into) 75 max damage on a crit. 58 damage average on a regular crit.

DanReiv
2010-06-08, 11:16 PM
I agree. The Wolf went after what it posed to be the biggest threat to it at the time.

lol'd. friggin' awakened wolf they are everywhere, and nasty at that !

You realize an average wolf would flee and not come back from an acid splash ?

That's so bad ...going to bed...int dropping to 1....instinct telling flee the thread

PersonMan
2010-06-08, 11:20 PM
lol'd. friggin' awakened wolf they are everywhere, and nasty at that !

You realize an average wolf would flee and not come back from an acid splash ?

That's so bad ...going to bed...int dropping to 1....instinct telling flee the thread

You do realize that the average wolf wouldn't be attacking adventurers? You do realize that there are non-average wolves? You do realize that the average person would be killed by a wolf, having never learned magic, right? Do you realize that DnD is not Average Land?

...I'll just ignore the ad hominem there.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-09, 12:21 AM
Best. Force Power. EVAR.

Once again Banjo's inattention to detail has created a force to be reckoned with!

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-09, 12:24 AM
DnD is not Average Land?

New D&D Ad campaign? Banjo approves.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 12:26 AM
New D&D Ad campaign? Banjo approves.

Double post? PersonMan disapproves.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-09, 12:33 AM
Double post? PersonMan disapproves.

Why do you hate Banjo?:smallsigh:

Drakevarg
2010-06-09, 12:35 AM
Why do you hate Banjo?:smallsigh:

Probably because Banjo doesn't use the edit button. :smalltongue:

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-09, 12:38 AM
Probably because Banjo doesn't use the edit button. :smalltongue:

Banjo doesn't believe in the edit button!

Draz74
2010-06-09, 01:46 AM
Banjo doesn't believe in the edit button!

Then Banjo is in violation of Forum guidelines.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-09, 01:52 AM
Because Banjo doesn't edit for the occasional spelling or grammatical error? According to Forum guidelines they are to be expected, so how is this a violation of Forum guidelines exactly?

Drakevarg
2010-06-09, 01:55 AM
Because Banjo doesn't edit for the occasional spelling or grammatical error? According to Forum guidelines they are to be expected, so how is this a violation of Forum guidelines exactly?

He means double posting instead of adding your new remark to your previous post.

Saph
2010-06-09, 03:44 AM
Let's say you decide to run a campaign from level 1 to level 10 building the characters from common to eventually heroes. You'll let the dice roll, and characters will die when they die. Fair is fair, and the players will have to be smart to survive, but you're not out to kill them.

Your players, excited, build their characters with love and care and even do the whole 2 page backstory thing to really get into character. Your players REALLY want to play these characters.

First encounter in the whole campaign, a goblin rolls 3 20's in a row and instant kills a party member in the first round.

Now, let's assume you DON'T use that optional rule.

Well, yeah. If you don't want characters to die, then using instakill rules is a pretty obvious no-no. :smallwink:


Make it ONE CR 1 wolf. The wizard goes right before the Wolf and hits it with a spell for some minor damage. The Wolf charges the wizard, crits, and confirms on the party wizard with 4 hp and knocks him to exactly -10 with a max damage crit, and the player that spent a few hours on this character is now dead.

That's more plausible.


Now, in this specific case, do you:
1. Tell the character to man up, that's just the luck of the dice, and roll make a new character.
2. Let him bring in a new character that's EXACTLY the same as the old one.
3. Give the cleric one turn to heal him to stable.
4. Say the crit didn't happen.
5. Say it does less damage than it does.
6. Fudge the crit roll so the wolf doesn't confirm but still hits.
7. Tell him to stop sucking at the game because he clearly deserved it for not having at least a +1 con modifier and attacked the Wolf first so he would draw the first attack.

You obviously think fudging's the best solution here, and to some extent I can see your point.

The thing is, though, if it's not okay for a wolf to kill a PC, then what is allowed to kill a PC? Is an orc allowed to kill him? How about an ogre? A troll? A dragon?

Or is it because it's the first encounter of the campaign? In that case, at which number does killing a PC become allowed? Encounter five, ten, twenty?

Or perhaps you're saying that only enemies with a certain amount of story investment should be allowed to kill the characters, ie the BBEG is allowed to kill them, but random encounters aren't.

The point is that once you decide you're going to start fudging in these situations, you have to think about this stuff. Because it's a guarantee that if you don't, your players will. If you fudge to save William the Wizard in encounter 1, but allow Fred the Fighter to die in encounter 15, then you are going to have to have a VERY good explanation for it to stop Fred's player from getting upset.

My attitude with these things is that the entire point of combats is that they're supposed to be dangerous. If the PCs are literally at no risk, then it's usually not worth spending the time on in the first place. If you don't want PCs to be killed by random encounters, then I think the most sensible approach is just to take random encounters out completely. Otherwise you get a weird asymmetrical situation where the PCs are expected to kill the monsters, but the monsters aren't allowed to kill the PCs, which makes it less "combat" and more "let's get on with this so we can do something that matters".

Evilfeeds
2010-06-09, 05:02 AM
There seems to be a lot of divisiveness on this issue, but I think I'll add my 2 cents:

I believe the people who are against cheating see D&D more like a miniatures wargame, (perhaps akin to 4th ed) whereas DMs that cheat see D&D more like an interactive story. As with many things in life, there is no right or wrong, merely personal preference.

I class myself as the latter group: I cheat all the freaking time. I generally roll out in the open, but everything else gets shifted around. Monsters have however many HP as I want them to. Fireballs use as many dice as I think will sufficiently rough the players up. I generally refuse to kill players as the sole result of dice rolls

Having said that, I've killed plenty players. Almost every time a player dies, its a result of something they could have avoided if they played smarter. Examples:

Not healing when given plenty opportunity. An ambush (and failed save) reduced one player to exactly -10 HP.

Badly roleplaying talking to a dragon.

Refusing to retreat from battle against a demon.

Attempting to kill someone who was significantly more powerful than them in his sleep.

All of these situations were avoidable: in all of these situations, I felt entirely justified in killing a player. I believe you need to walk the fine line between not killing players off for no reason, yet still demonstrating that its a dangerous world they live in.

Malacode
2010-06-09, 05:33 AM
I don't cheat. I roll the dice, but I don't look at them, nor do I care what they say. The players I play with hate the idea of freeform, but in practice like it more than D&D. That's why I let them think they're playing D&D when we're just having unrestricted roleplaying fun. If it comes to an opposed-check style thing, I'll roll and add what I consider to be an appropriate modifier, but that's about it.
I agree entirely with the above poster. You express my feelings on the matter better than I could myself

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-09, 05:47 AM
I believe the people who are against cheating see D&D more like a miniatures wargame, (perhaps akin to 4th ed) whereas DMs that cheat see D&D more like an interactive story. As with many things in life, there is no right or wrong, merely personal preference.Even with the disclaimer this is utterly condescending, not to mention patently false.

At least to me, the actual dichotomy appears to be one of short run versus long run, session versus campaign. On on side, we have Dairun considering the wolf who gets a lucky crit on the party wizard. At least for that session, the wizard would feel better if he didn't have to roll up a new character. On the other side, we have Saph, considering how a fudge in encounter 1 will affect the group dynamics in encounter 15.

Consider the other pro-fudging examples: Save or X on the BBEG making an encounter anti-climactic. Random critical taking a player out of the session. Fudging HP on the fly to make the encounter more difficult. All of these take that session and only that session into account when considering whether it would be better for the story/group/fun to secretly alter certain results.

On the other hand, the arguments against fudging don't speak to specific events; we're more concerned with how this will affect the overall group dynamic. How can the DM maintain tension during random encounters when the players know they're going to win and live no matter what? How will the party wizard feel when he realizes half of his actions in major battles were secretly rendered useless in order to make the battle more interesting?

More generally, the d20 mechanic's randomness adds tension. If your group likes that kind of tension, they'll have to deal with the bad end of the randomness. If they never deal with the bad end, the tension goes away. If they don't like that tension, again, there are many systems out there with less dice randomness. Why fudge the d20 into an ad-hoc bell curve when you could just roll 3d6?


OH NO!

This is the begging of the Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good argument all over again.

This is literally the age old question "Do the ends Justify the means?The way I see it, both sides agree to that aphorism. The difference is between act-consequentialism and rule-consequentialsm.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-09, 06:34 AM
You obviously think fudging's the best solution here, and to some extent I can see your point.

The thing is, though, if it's not okay for a wolf to kill a PC, then what is allowed to kill a PC? Is an orc allowed to kill him? How about an ogre? A troll? A dragon?

Or is it because it's the first encounter of the campaign? In that case, at which number does killing a PC become allowed? Encounter five, ten, twenty?

Or perhaps you're saying that only enemies with a certain amount of story investment should be allowed to kill the characters, ie the BBEG is allowed to kill them, but random encounters aren't.

The point is that once you decide you're going to start fudging in these situations, you have to think about this stuff. Because it's a guarantee that if you don't, your players will. If you fudge to save William the Wizard in encounter 1, but allow Fred the Fighter to die in encounter 15, then you are going to have to have a VERY good explanation for it to stop Fred's player from getting upset.

My attitude with these things is that the entire point of combats is that they're supposed to be dangerous. If the PCs are literally at no risk, then it's usually not worth spending the time on in the first place. If you don't want PCs to be killed by random encounters, then I think the most sensible approach is just to take random encounters out completely. Otherwise you get a weird asymmetrical situation where the PCs are expected to kill the monsters, but the monsters aren't allowed to kill the PCs, which makes it less "combat" and more "let's get on with this so we can do something that matters".

There's a reason I chose these circumstances. It's essentially a thought experiment in this case. This is pretty much the worst case scenario a GM can reasonably be expected to deal with in a game, and it's a scenario that a LOT, if not most, GM's will consider fudging or putting on the kiddie gloves for.

There's actually numerous reasons built in here as you've noticed. It's a minor enemy, it's a first encounter, and it's on a character that a player spent a lot of time on and had taken away through no fault of their own, really. There's nothing tactically unsound about using magic missile on said wolf, but in this case, the actions led to instant death.

Mathematically speaking, these kinds of situations are statistical outliers. As much as some people want realism and risk, there's a certain level of realism and risk that just isn't fun if the player actually invested thought in a character. People get struck by lightning in broad daylight in real life, but that doesn't mean its something players should expect.

So, realism really does only work for fun/compelling gameplay up to a point. Even the most hardened players have a breaking point on what they'll really accept, unless (and this is a big unless), they really have absolutely NO investment in their character (which leads to another discussion entirely about whether it's risk if you don't care about the outcome). Ultimately, most people will agree that a death where a character literally had no chance of survival in retrospect is pretty crappy and tends to kill the "buzz" of the game pretty fast.

So, in this specific scenario, you essentially have 3 choices:
1. You tell the player to just take it and give the "crap happens" speech.
2. You fudge the circumstances in one way or another as listed.
3. You remove any creatures that can potentially 1-shot a party member from your game.

Number 1 and 2 have pretty much been discussed, and while I personally think GM #1 is a bit too harsh, they're legitimate choices. What about #3? Well, big damaging bruisers are a staple type of encounter, but you COULD remove them entirely until players can't possibly be one shot over them on a 1 in 200 or more chance.

But the problem is, at this point, you've pulled back. If you really believe in NO punches pulled, you shouldn't be excluded perfectly fine encounters based on potential outliers in the statistics. From how things turn out, using weaker monsters to avoid killing your players is essentially the same effect as fudging a dice roll.

Essentially, if you give players leeway, it's very much the same mentality that leads to an altered dice roll. Throwing in a magic item for the players here so they can catch up or beat the next challenge. Tell a player he stabilizies at -9 from an unfair crit in the first round. Allow a rule to be read in a player's favor when you normally wouldn't read it that way. Allow a power or rule to be used in a way that isn't explicitly stated in the book. You may argue that these are different severities of the same sin, but the magnitude of them isn't so great that each one is completely alien in thought process.

The truth of the matter is, outliers, completely unpredictable mathematical anomalies aren't fun. Rule 0 exists for the sake of correcting what exists in every game system on the planet because no game is perfectly balanced; the completely unforeseeable.

Now, you're right, of course. Rule 0 is not a tool to be wielded lightly, and going easy on the players isn't something you should do every time, but much like a responsible adult should be responsible enough to know how much to drink before they've hit their limit, a GM should know where the limits of this are for his or her group (and it does vary between each group). If a GM steps too much out of line, it's entirely the player's perogative to complain or just flat-out stop playing. It's not in the GM's interest to bore his or her players.

Cheating isn't just fudging dice rolls. It's anything you do to tip the scales in the name of your player's enjoyment. There's a reason for it, and even if you really don't agree, you should understand why a GM WOULD, and the players really should understand this mentality as well. It's not about a person being on a sick power-trip. It's about a host trying to fix a problem with a light touch.

Ultimately, like most other things, GM cheating is a tool, and one that has to be given a careful touch to be used right, but it's one that most GMs will end up using at least once or twice to correct completely unforeseeable problems that ruin the enjoyment of the game.

I don't expect you to use the tool, but I expect you to understand why someone would and not see them as an evil GM or even an inferior one for doing it. It's just another method for reaching the same end.

There are ABSOLUTELY no certainties in GM'ing or tabletop roleplaying. There are merely times and places when a GM's judgment is required to determine what is for the best. The same answer won't always work, but if you're saying there's no reason AT ALL to use some solutions (like some that aren't you have) then you're thinking too narrowly and that's something that'll cause you problems in the future as a GM. You have to consider all possibilities and do what's best and hope that your judgment is more often right than wrong. If your judgment sucks, you probably shouldn't be a GM.

Basically, I'm not talking about honor or rules, this is about a mentality that most GMs will have to take up at some point to keep the game running and enjoyable, and I think that giving GM's the impression that there is LITERALLY no reason EVER to cheat regardless of which group you are running with is an ignorant and narrow-minded way of thinking.






Consequently, as a funny aside, that kind of example above is exactly why 2d6 and 3d6 rolling systems exist. They make things tend towards an average and avoid the ridiculous outliers by creating a bell curve. Of course, as someone that likes those kinds of rolling mechanics and uses it for his most recent foray into game creation, I can tell you that they have their own equal set of problems that need to be considered (the least of which is how fast slight differences in skills lead to frustrating skips in chance to actually achieve something) and are by no means a better mechanic. Just different. How you handle the problems with that kind of mechanic are different.

Of course, if you can find me a system that works 100% of the time without breaking (and thus doesn't need the GM to touch things up for the sake of fun on occasion), you're either playing a freeform RP with YOURSELF or you're missing something.


More generally, the d20 mechanic's randomness adds tension. If your group likes that kind of tension, they'll have to deal with the bad end of the randomness. If they never deal with the bad end, the tension goes away. If they don't like that tension, again, there are many systems out there with less dice randomness. Why fudge the d20 into an ad-hoc bell curve when you could just roll 3d6?

You actually wound me a bit by assuming I'm arguing completely for the other side. The point I've been trying to make is that there are times and places for everything, and even the most hardened D&D game will likely have to sacrifice tension for the sake of someone's fun at some point.

I have fudged dice rolls in the past, and I will again in the future for the sake of my players and their enjoyment. I actually DON'T tell them for the sake of not removing their belief that their is tension in the encounters where I do. Tension and danger are still important.

This is not a black and white idea though. There's no ONE right answer here. There's merely two different views that are viable at different times and should be used as careful tools.

I'm just asking people to THINK before they automatically say, "I'd never cheat as a GM EVER". Such blanket statements lead to some pretty unhealthy GM attitudes.

Otodetu
2010-06-09, 07:12 AM
I can't ever remember cheating as a gm, not for good or bad...

If people die, so be it, maybe that was their destiny...

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 10:08 AM
The point is that once you decide you're going to start fudging in these situations, you have to think about this stuff. Because it's a guarantee that if you don't, your players will. If you fudge to save William the Wizard in encounter 1, but allow Fred the Fighter to die in encounter 15, then you are going to have to have a VERY good explanation for it to stop Fred's player from getting upset.

My attitude with these things is that the entire point of combats is that they're supposed to be dangerous. If the PCs are literally at no risk, then it's usually not worth spending the time on in the first place. If you don't want PCs to be killed by random encounters, then I think the most sensible approach is just to take random encounters out completely. Otherwise you get a weird asymmetrical situation where the PCs are expected to kill the monsters, but the monsters aren't allowed to kill the PCs, which makes it less "combat" and more "let's get on with this so we can do something that matters".

If Fred the Fighter dies in encounter 15...why would he know that you had saved William the Wizard? Unless you rolled the dice and counted up the damage out loud they wouldn't know how much damage was dealt.

I think that keeping people from being killed in the very first session is a good idea, especially if they're very into it. Afterwards, give them a warning: You can die from a lucky crit, and you should have a backup character ready, just in case. Then follow through with that, now that they know what might happen.

I don't use random encounters, and I actually agree with that part of your post.

Saph
2010-06-09, 10:15 AM
If Fred the Fighter dies in encounter 15...why would he know that you had saved William the Wizard? Unless you rolled the dice and counted up the damage out loud they wouldn't know how much damage was dealt.

You'd be surprised how quickly players can learn to read a DM. I can usually tell with a fair degree of accuracy when a DM's fudging, at least once I've played with them a few times. "I'm reading the numbers off the dice" sounds different from "I'm reading the dice and deciding whether to change them."

valadil
2010-06-09, 10:26 AM
You'd be surprised how quickly players can learn to read a DM. I can usually tell with a fair degree of accuracy when a DM's fudging, at least once I've played with them a few times. "I'm reading the numbers off the dice" sounds different from "I'm reading the dice and deciding whether to change them."

Certain DMs fudge better than others. And some parts of the game are easier to fudge.

I think it's easier to read a DM who holds back. Dice reading aside, their tactics change. In particular I remember a dragon fight that was going poorly for the party. The DM didn't want it to be that bad of a fight so he had the dragon's full attacks split up instead of focusing fire. It completely ruined the fight.

On the other hand it's pretty easy to say a monster has another 25 HP. I think most of the DMs I know do this, but I can never be certain. I do it depending on the game.

Finally, if you're reading your DM that well, he's obviously not trying hard enough. I can support games that fudge and I can support games that don't. But when the illusion is broken and the players know they've been fudged is the worst situation. During my fudgiest game I made sure to show my players fudged dice. I picked 3 identical 20s. I rolled one of them. The other two sat at the inner corner of my DM screen, set to 1 and 20. If I needed a particular roll I'd reveal the die behind that corner of the screen. Here's an illustration (http://files.sagotsky.com/dmscreentrick.jpg). They never caught on. Some of the players even suggested that I didn't fudge enough.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 10:31 AM
You'd be surprised how quickly players can learn to read a DM. I can usually tell with a fair degree of accuracy when a DM's fudging, at least once I've played with them a few times. "I'm reading the numbers off the dice" sounds different from "I'm reading the dice and deciding whether to change them."

If you know that at level 1 a crit will most likely kill the wizard, it's easy to roll the die and chuckle, saying "Heh, natural 1 to confirm..." Or even just say "Yeah, the wolf leaps at you...and bites the ground. Yes, nat 1."

Or you can just add up the damage differently so that the wizard ends up at -2 or -3 or something, muttering about minimum damage on a crit. I find very easy to do things like this, my players haven't caught on to whether or not I fudge.

Zellic Solis
2010-06-09, 10:33 AM
If fred the fighter remembers that I fudged to save will the wizard 14 levels ago then Fred needs to go into law.

I put different expectations on different characters on different levels. At levels 1-3, I will generally fudge to the benefit of my players. But past that the training wheels are off and players are more responsible for their own survival. Because I do story arcs, my players tend to realize that one of them is Drizzt... some times it's obvious and sometimes it's not... but that player can not die. Or if they do die, there will be a rod of resurrection with 1 charge left somewhere abouts. Once or twice though I've shaken things up with having the Drizzt die and letting another character pick up their sword. So my players don't get too complacent.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 10:36 AM
If fred the fighter remembers that I fudged to save will the wizard 14 levels ago then Fred needs to go into law.

-Stuff I agree with was here-

14 encounters ago. Most people don't level up once per encounter.

Saph
2010-06-09, 10:38 AM
On the other hand it's pretty easy to say a monster has another 25 HP. I think most of the DMs I know do this, but I can never be certain. I do it depending on the game.

Yeah, that's relatively easy to hide. It's still possible to pick up on it, though, after a while.


Finally, if you're reading your DM that well, he's obviously not trying hard enough.

It's harder than you think. Random chance looks different from a chosen series of rolls - a good statistician can take a glance at a series of "random" numbers and make a pretty fair guess as to whether they were doctored or not.

There's also the human element - eye movements, tone of voice, slight pauses. Unless you're a skilled liar, you'll act and sound differently from when you're telling the truth.

Finally, even if the DM has a perfect poker face and knows exactly how to camouflage his fudging, you can still detect it over a period of time simply by paying attention to what happens! If you're following the laws of probability, weird statistical outliers will happen from time to time. The DM can try to conceal how he's doing what he's doing, but he can't conceal the end result.

Ruinix
2010-06-09, 10:39 AM
Your friends do know about Rule 0 right? *Everything* is ultimately the DM's call. You could play a game of D&D where you tell everyone what happens and no one gets to object, just using Rule 0. But no one would want to play a 'game' like that, because it's not a game it's a story you were told.

In order to make your story interactive, we add rules and dice rolls so it seems fair. Now the players get to intercede and add their own details and motivations to the DM's story. Everyone wins in this case, the players get to be a part of and interact the DM's story, and the DM gets to involve others in their own story.

But it is still the DM's story. It is their responsibility when something goes wrong. Rule 0 exists so that the DM has the power to fix problems in the story before they result in an 'everyone loses' scenario with people leaving and the story withering and dying.

In truth, you don't need the dice. You never did, and that's why I say it's an illusion. As the DM you could just decide each time who hits and who misses, but the dice are impartial. They can't be bribed, they have no motives and are slaves only to random chance and probability. Even so, people insist that their dice are "lucky" or that 'the number god hates them,' and all sorts of things that can't be true or rational. This is because they want to imagine that they have some sort of control over the dice, and by extension the game itself. But that control isn't real, and there are no lucky dice and the DM makes the final call.

There are all sorts of illusions people cling to. It doesn't make those things bad or unnecessary just because they are illusions. If Santa Claus makes children behave for a few months a year, and gets distant people together with family for the holidays then he's not such a bad thing, even if he's 100% fake.

blablabla railroad plot blablabla

u like to reach at certain point cause u like to gide ur players to there is ok, is a way to railroad all the game.

i prefer tempt the CHARACTERS and let my players stay in char rol and use their (char) ambitions and emotions for reach in some times an unknow circunstance, then i have to improvise but knowing their chars i have a HUGE advantage for that.

and no i dont need railroad plot or fudge dice for that.

fun is given for ROL their chars not for control what ever

valadil
2010-06-09, 10:40 AM
Finally, even if the DM has a perfect poker face and knows exactly how to camouflage his fudging, you can still detect it over a period of time simply by paying attention to what happens! If you're following the laws of probability, weird statistical outliers will happen from time to time. The DM can try to conceal how he's doing what he's doing, but he can't conceal the end result.

Agreed. But all you'll be able to determine is that the GM fudges. You won't be able to tell individual rolls or even encounters based on this.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 10:41 AM
It's harder than you think. Random chance looks different from a chosen series of rolls - a good statistician can take a glance at a series of "random" numbers and make a pretty fair guess as to whether they were doctored or not.

There's also the human element - eye movements, tone of voice, slight pauses. Unless you're a skilled liar, you'll act and sound differently from when you're telling the truth.

Finally, even if the DM has a perfect poker face and knows exactly how to camouflage his fudging, you can still detect it over a period of time simply by paying attention to what happens! If you're following the laws of probability, weird statistical outliers will happen from time to time. The DM can try to conceal how he's doing what he's doing, but he can't conceal the end result.

Most players don't write down all of the DM's rolls and look at them later-and specifically my players aren't statisticians.

Me? If my players would notice, I cover it up with other stuff, such as a loud sigh or grumbling "of course, minimum damage". And when someone isn't paying very close attention, I can conceal these things fairly well.

If the PCs get saves from a lucky crit once or twice, there won't be very many outliers to notice.


blablabla railroad plot blablabla

u like to reach at certain point cause u like to gide ur players to there is ok, is a way to railroad all the game.

i prefer tempt the CHARACTERS and let my players stay in char rol and use their (char) ambitions and emotions for reach in some times an unknow circunstance, then i have to improvise but knowing their chars i have a HUGE advantage for that.

and no i dont need railroad plot or fudge dice for that.

fun is given for ROL their chars not for control what ever

I can hardly read your posts. Please put more effort into writing with proper English.

The thing is, with (I think it's Chekov's Gun, or however it's spelled) you can move your plot to wherever the PCs want to go.

And how can you let 'the CHARACTERS' 'reach in some times an unknow circunstance' if they get killed by a random crit on what was supposed to be an easy encounter?

Saph
2010-06-09, 10:48 AM
Me? If my players would notice, I cover it up with other stuff, such as a loud sigh or grumbling "of course, minimum damage". And when someone isn't paying very close attention, I can conceal these things fairly well.

Now, see, if you said anything like that to me in a session I would immediately start thinking that you were probably fudging. :smallamused:

ChrisFortyTwo
2010-06-09, 10:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of divisiveness on this issue, but I think I'll add my 2 cents:

I believe the people who are against cheating see D&D more like a miniatures wargame, (perhaps akin to 4th ed) whereas DMs that cheat see D&D more like an interactive story. As with many things in life, there is no right or wrong, merely personal preference.


I also think this is an unjustified comparison, but I don't necessarily agree with Dairun, either. There are good ways to make sessions, one-shots, and campaigns enjoyable with many different philosophies, including a "no cheating under any circumstance" philosophy.

I have played in many games: a few one-shots (though I don't prefer them), many campaigns that never took off, and some campaigns that I played in for months, but never really enjoyed. Two campaigns stand out as the best campaigns that I have been in. They were enjoyable, fun, and from my perspective, all the players were so enthralled with the game that they couldn't wait for the next session.

Each of these games had a different philosophy with respect to cheating. In one game, the rules were followed (as closely to RAI as possible). When there was a disagreement about the rules or dice rolls or whatever, we would make our points, the DM would make a fair decision, and we would move on. Every roll was random chance, and we had to be smart to stay alive. So, we learned to be smart, we took advantage of situations, and we survived (mostly - there were about 5 deaths over the campaign). It was our choice whether to take the level loss, roll up a new character, or pay a fortune for a miracle/wish. There was the occasional lucky or unlucky roll, and a couple of those deaths were pretty lame, but that was the game. The whole campaign was published (through Dragon Magazine), so there wasn't much situation fudging, but there was quite a bit of combat (sometimes the DM would scratch a battle for time - but I can hardly call that cheating). I do want to give the DM credit, though. It never felt like railroading, and he let us explore the world and interact a lot. However, we knew the stakes and we knew the rules, and we had a blast. One time, we teleported into a trap by a villian, and with a lucky initiative and a lucky death crit, I killed a powerful, spell-resistant, damage reduction, super prepped villian with one shot with a +1 quarterstaff. We had done a ton of prep, expecting a trap, and the whole thing was kind of anti-climactic, but had the DM denied that crit, or "cheated" somehow, we would have felt cheated, and the whole game could have died in that one moment.


The other game, the DM cheated without remorse, with the philosophy that story trumps rules. We knew that there was almost no chance at dying, so there was no real threat (other than true suicide attempt). It could have been a very bad game because of that, but it wasn't. The DM created a great story with NPCs that we cared about, and NPCs that we hated. There was emotion, drama, excitement, villians and heros, and it really wrapped us up. It had the same feel as a book. Yes, we had character shields, but that happens in literature all the time. The tension came from timelines and resources. If we lost a battle (but didn't die), we could lose allies, time, or something else could happen. There were gambits and plots that we were trying to wrap our heads around, and it was fun. There were moments when things got out of hand, or when we were nerfed for plot, or whatever, and I can tell you, there were times when I (as a player) was so angry about it that I walked out of the session, but I came back, because the game was that engaging.

So, to say that either cheating or not cheating makes the campaign or session worse is a dead horse. Either one can help or hurt the game. There are always situations that a dm will have to make a choice on - cheat or don't cheat. Some dms make the choice to cheat, others do not.

Hell, I try to go by the dice most of the time, but in my last game, a low-level archer got hit with strength damage and couldn't fire her composite bow. So, she was in the back doing nothing while the other two were fighting (fairly well). She was bored, and the others could see it. After three rounds, she looked like she was ready to leave. So, my wife asked the cleric "Why don't you cast restoration on her?" Cleric: "I didn't have enough slots to prep that" (they knew what they were going to face) Wife: "Didn't you get a scroll of it" Cleric: "No, I got other scrolls". I (DM) said "Ok, the lesser restoration you cast on her earlier was a restoration scroll - take off the gold for it, and don't let it happen again" (To the archer) "Your strength is back to full - next time bring a backup weapon".
They were new players, and didn't know how well they should have prepared, so I gave them a break, with the express idea that it wouldn't happen again.

A while back, I bought the Munchkin Master's Guide (and the other Munchkin RPG books), mostly for the humor and fun of it, but it contained one really good chapter about campaign philosophy, and what makes the game fun. They divided the different philosophies into categories (all named Monty/Monte), and went into a little discussion about cheating, PC Death, etc.

Here they are (I'm not quoting the whole section, just a name/recap)


Monty Hall - You're in a dungeon, you have doors, monsters and loot. Sometimes you just want to kill zombies.
Cheating: not usually, Death: roll with it

Monty Haul - Like the first, but with the DM just giving away treasure and XP for kicks. It's basically bribery within a game.
Cheating: sometimes, Death: rare

Monty Python - Jokes, craziness, and quotes. The DM sets up silly situations and the players laugh at it.
Cheating: probably, Death: when its funny

Monte Carlo - DM vs Players. A battle of wits. Risk, rewards, everything is just balanced enough that the PCs could die at any moment. It's a power-gamer's game.
Cheating: none - cheating would ruin it. Death: often

Monte Cristo - Similar to Monte Carlo, but without the balance. It includes unwinnable situations, TPKs, and (usually) easy way back in (same sheet, new name). It can be fun because sometimes you beat the impossible odds, and other times you get to be a stain in the ground that someone else walks through. Cheating: why bother? Death: inevitable

Monte Cargo - the Railroad Campaign (not recommended) Cheating: all the time, Death: exactly when the DM decides to do it.

Monte Cook - 10'x10' room; orc; pie. Ok, they did it, I had to.


Any (well, most) of these could have really good story/plot, any (well, most) could be done well or poorly. I'm there are players that would hate any one of these style games, and I'm sure that there are players that would love them.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 10:51 AM
Now, see, if you said anything like that to me in a session I would immediately start thinking that you were probably fudging. :smallamused:

Well, that would be inconvenient. Seeing as I do such things on a regular basis(exclamations and the like, not fudging). If something rolls a natural 20 followed by a natural 1, I say something like: "It hurtles towards you, and its claw cuts through the air and is about to perfectly skewer your heart...before suddenly veering off and slashing your arm. X damage."

In my games this stuff is fairly common, so I think that this is a playing style/group difference.

Saph
2010-06-09, 10:57 AM
Well, that would be inconvenient. Seeing as I do such things on a regular basis(exclamations and the like, not fudging). If something rolls a natural 20 followed by a natural 1, I say something like: "It hurtles towards you, and its claw cuts through the air and is about to perfectly skewer your heart...before suddenly veering off and slashing your arm. X damage."

In my games this stuff is fairly common, so I think that this is a playing style/group difference.

Not a playstyle difference, just the tone of your words. Overly-vocal grumbling in that particular situation is one of the classic signs that someone's bluffing.

Jair Barik
2010-06-09, 10:59 AM
Every good GM should cheat a little. In one of the first few games I ran for a group of people new to the game they ended up deciding to trust a demon they had found bound in a Wizards tower and agreed to help it. I had left equal options that they could trick the demon into thinking they were freeing it only to kill it banish it or even temporarily bind it to their will, they could have even just left it alone and walked off. I had already decided that if they helped it then it would betray them, summon a monster and disappear but at the point they summoned it one player wasn't there (the others playing his character for him) and all of them were severley weakened and likely to suffer TPK from pretty much anything, especially the creature I'd set out for them. So I set the creature on them anyway and had it bullrush the fighter down the chimney leading to both their deaths (it rolled pretty well as it was anyway but i decided to fudge rules slightly). The fighter had been largely responsible for the decision to agree with the demons plan and it seemed unfair to kill off the guy who couldn't make it. The fighter could get reincarnated in town anyway so the net result was fighter had a little less XP than the others and an important lesson was learnt on trusting demons.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 11:00 AM
Not a playstyle difference, just the tone of your words. Overly-vocal grumbling in that particular situation is one of the classic signs that someone's bluffing.

I see. I do that a lot, whenever a monster is able to get a natural 20 followed by a 1. Once again, I think that while an outsider may be able to see through my strategies, my players can't. Mainly because that's normal for me to do things like that, and they think nothing of it.

Killer Angel
2010-06-09, 11:30 AM
Not a playstyle difference, just the tone of your words. Overly-vocal grumbling in that particular situation is one of the classic signs that someone's bluffing.

Sorry Saph, I concede that you can distinguish this sort of things, but you're giving too much credit to the typical player.
Sometime, they'll notice, sometime don't.

For the record, I cheat only in 2 occasions:
1 - If a climatic ancounter, is going too easy, I'll cheat in favor of the BBEG to give the players the appropriate challenge. They expect (and want) a hard fight, so I'll give'em.
2 - if I've cheated in favor of the BBEG, for that encounter I'm not going to kill anyone, if I roll a nat. 20.

Saph
2010-06-09, 11:35 AM
Sorry Saph, I concede that you can distinguish this sort of things, but you're giving too much credit to the typical player.
Sometime, they'll notice, sometime don't.

Well, I used to play poker quite a bit. That might have something to do with it. :smalltongue:

Ruinix
2010-06-09, 11:57 AM
I can hardly read your posts. Please put more effort into writing with proper English.

The thing is, with (I think it's Chekov's Gun, or however it's spelled) you can move your plot to wherever the PCs want to go.

And how can you let 'the CHARACTERS' 'reach in some times an unknow circunstance' if they get killed by a random crit on what was supposed to be an easy encounter?

thx for try hard to understand my bad english :smallredface:


_____


some times a lot of DMs forget completly what is about RPG, some times some (i can say a lot) DMs think D&D is the only and absolute ultimate RPG and is only the "bestseller" XDD but is just mediocre RP game.


so the question is, what is RPG.
and i have to guess is about rol a character in a guided interactive story with some rules as mechanics.


so what is most important? rules? story? rol?

i have to say non of them, the FUN is the most important.

here is when we fall in interpretations and point of view.

for me my best unforgettable moment on any RPG was when i really feel the death of 1 of my most beloved chars and it wasnt because of the plot or the mechanics or a fortuneless dice roll of DM or mine, it was cause i rol that char in every posible way and get inmersed in HIS feelings and emotions.

and that was cause i had a GREAT DMs and a GREAT group of friends roling and playing with me.


so if u ask me if i like or even if i acept a fudge dice i can respond. why u play an RP game if the only posible way to get fun is about a dice?

play anything else like i dunno, magic cards or war board games.

Totally Guy
2010-06-09, 12:01 PM
How many GMs cheat?

Based on the thread I'd guess about 85%.

:frown: I don't like those odds.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-09, 12:17 PM
How many GMs cheat?

Based on the thread I'd guess about 85%.

:frown: I don't like those odds.

As has been explained, it's really a matter of using it as a tool to keep game pace from slowing down. It works with some groups and it doesn't with others, but yes, at some point, most (if not all) GM's have at least made some concession for ease to their players for the sake of keeping them in the game. Even if its something as minor as removing a poorly thought-out encounter from a module.

Furthermore, you REALLY do have to consider that not everyone plays D&D. That has a pretty big impact since D&D is fairly unique in its usage of resurrection and raise dead spells.

You'd be surprised how many more players don't particularly enjoy random and completely unexpected death when there's absolutely no option to get the character fixed. It can be really frustrating, and just HAVING the option changes a lot of opinions. Sure, you lose some exp, but it's the same guy.

Point is, there's reasons for it, and understanding why someone would and why someone wouldn't is a good way to really become a better GM. Like all tools, some people overuse it.

Consequently, this is why a lot of people don't talk about it even though a lot of GM's know its happening. People start getting really panicky and over-react to it when they talk about it.

valadil
2010-06-09, 12:24 PM
How many GMs cheat?

Based on the thread I'd guess about 85%.

:frown: I don't like those odds.

So convince us to stop fudging! As I mentioned earlier, I just ditched my GM screen and really like rolling in the open. But I still approve of fudging and may use it for other games.

What I like about rolling in the open is that it allows those aberrant results to show up. The more the GM fudges, the closer the game gets to average. I find it freeing to allow other results into the game instead of sweeping them away because the players didn't earn those 3 crits in a row.

Balain
2010-06-09, 12:36 PM
When I run I fudge stats of monsters, but not to make them easier but tougher. Our group wants a challenge and often they come up with plans that I would never have thought of. So the plans end up making the fight easier for them so some of the monsters have higher HP or the attack bonus is +5 instead of +4.

Totally Guy
2010-06-09, 12:41 PM
So convince us to stop fudging!

If it's good and fun for everyone then why am I upset to find out about it?

Dairun Cates
2010-06-09, 12:53 PM
If it's good and fun for everyone then why am I upset to find out about it?

Same reason finding out how a magic trick works truly ruins the trick (especially the levitation one Chris Angel and David Blaine do. It's SO lame once you know how its done). Your willing suspension of disbelief basically fell apart. Once the cat comes out of the bag, some people really don't react to it well. In the worst cases, paranoia kicks in.

Truth of the matter though, is that if you trust the GMs you've played under and your players, there's literally NOTHING to worry about, and if you don't, then you might want to reconsider your group or how you play. The whole of tabletop RPs is actually built pretty heavily on implicit trust that the other people at the table aren't out to ruin your fun.

Besides, fudging a dice roll for the player really IS incredibly similar in mechanic scope to most other forms of going soft on the player. Some GMs have players that aren't into the "thrill of death" as much as "the thrill of character interaction". You tailor for your players.

Totally Guy
2010-06-09, 01:02 PM
Truth of the matter though, is that if you trust the GMs you've played under and your players, there's literally NOTHING to worry about, and if you don't, then you might want to reconsider your group or how you play.

One of the GMs I play under cheats. So I don't trust him.

So you're putting it upon me to look for another group? Can't the cheater mend his ways? That'd satisfy me. He's my friend after all.

valadil
2010-06-09, 01:08 PM
If it's good and fun for everyone then why am I upset to find out about it?

I dunno. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I think part of the probl difference of opinions is that you think of it as cheating. The 85% of posters who support it call it fudging, which explicitly (in their minds) makes it not the same as cheating. Is everyone who is opposed to fudging convinced it's a form of cheating?

eepop
2010-06-09, 01:18 PM
I hate fudging rolls. Many years ago I did so, but I have since done my best to rid myself of the habit.

When the players realize the DM is fudging, all tension in combat is pretty soon lost. Character death is more or less impossible without hurting someone's feelings "But you saved Bob's character two weeks ago! Why does mine have to die?".

A big lesson I learned came from looking at WHY I was fudging rolls. For me, it was about making up for misjudgments in preparation. I didn't want to penalize the group because I made a fight too hard or too easy.

So instead of just assuming that fudging was the best way to handle it, I looked at other ways I could achieve the same goal.

What I do now is I plan a base fight, and then 2-3 "escalation points" for the fight. An escalation point might be more monsters, or an upgrade of a monster (mutation/rage/etc), or a trap, etc. Then I have some leeway in adjusting encounter difficulty on the fly, but instead of having that adjustment fall on the rolls of a dice, it falls on which escalations I choose to bring into the fight.

This is much less likely to bring up any question of treating players differently.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-09, 01:25 PM
One of the GMs I play under cheats. So I don't trust him.

So you're putting it upon me to look for another group? Can't the cheater mend his ways? That'd satisfy me. He's my friend after all.

Think of it more like this. If it really is such a big number, then you might have misconceptions about the thing as a whole and the reasoning behind it. It might not actually have turned out to be as big of a problem as you thought.

So your friend fudges dice or cheats in some other way. Well, he might actually have a good reason, and you're just assuming he doesn't. Furthermore, has the person actually admitted to it or are you just thinking he is?

If it bothers you that much, maybe you should ask him maturely about it and choose to hear how he views things instead of instantly assuming your opinion is the right and only one here. If he's anywhere near a good GM, his reason is a lot more complex than either "I just felt like it" and likely is for your benefit.

If, after talking it over with him, you really can't trust him to work for your enjoyment of the game, then yes, maybe you really should quit the group. Trust between player and GM is not in trusting that he's not lying to you, but about trusting that he's got good intentions in mind. Without this, a game cannot run. A GM doesn't need to cheat his players to lose this either, nor does cheating or fudging or whatever really always cause this result.

To put it as a classic analogy, parents lie sometimes to protect your feelings and you from dangerous situations. This does not mean the person does not care about you as a person. While lying in general is bad, there is a reason to do it sometimes and not all people that lie are bad people.

Don't make out people to be villains without being informed first though, it's a great way to shut people out of your life and find yourself with less and less people to keep you company.

So yes. I'm telling you that even if you believe he cheats some rolls that you need to trust your GM and fellow players. If you're the one out of the majority and you want to stay friends, sometimes you have to compromise. Notice the phrasing. "Can't the cheater mend his ways. That'd satisfy ME." You have to consider how others other than you feel about it. Just like sometimes you have to let someone else have the spotlight, sometimes you need to adjust to the styles of others instead of insisting they adjust to you.

Ashiel
2010-06-09, 01:29 PM
I don't expect my players to cheat; and thus I don't cheat.

I find it dishonest, and I feel it detracts from the excitement of the game - because yes, you can die if that orc rolls a 20; even if you're Vinny Von'Orcslicer, today you fell in battle from a well-timed blow.

I won't cheat at my table if you don't either. If I catch you cheating, that gives me 1 cheat point; and it's likely the next roll against you will be a natural critical or some other form of auto-cheatery.

Encouraging cheating is never a good thing, IMHO.

WarKitty
2010-06-09, 01:34 PM
I play a more Monty Python style game. Actually, make that a very monty python style game. I believe one of my players is currently wielding a femur from the skeleton they defeated as a club. You get the idea. They're more interested in exploration and roleplaying than actual combat. They get bored if combat lasts too long and something funny doesn't happen. So, I fudge numbers as needed to keep it interesting.

Like I said earlier, I think if you need to hide it from your players then there's something wrong. My players know I fudge numbers. They expect it. I don't view it as cheating because I'm not violating any of the expected rules of the game as we're playing it.

Umael
2010-06-09, 01:42 PM
How many GMs cheat?

Sssh! My gaming group doesn't know that I'm seeing other players!

Dairun Cates
2010-06-09, 01:49 PM
I won't cheat at my table if you don't either. If I catch you cheating, that gives me 1 cheat point; and it's likely the next roll against you will be a natural critical or some other form of auto-cheatery.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." -Mahatma Ghandi


I play a more Monty Python style game. Actually, make that a very monty python style game. I believe one of my players is currently wielding a femur from the skeleton they defeated as a club. You get the idea. They're more interested in exploration and roleplaying than actual combat. They get bored if combat lasts too long and something funny doesn't happen. So, I fudge numbers as needed to keep it interesting.

Like I said earlier, I think if you need to hide it from your players then there's something wrong. My players know I fudge numbers. They expect it. I don't view it as cheating because I'm not violating any of the expected rules of the game as we're playing it.

Oh believe me, my players know I fudge the occasional roll for their benefit. They're completely fine with it. Doesn't mean you should openly state every single roll that gets fudged. Even if sometimes control isn't as much as the players suspect, the illusion is more fun than just being told "I think that's stupid, I'm ignoring it".

I do think your players should know you do it, just don't tell them when. I've only had 2 of my players ever complain about it and BOTH of them were extreme problem players that would've claimed favoritism against them even if the entire game were about only their character and you rolled every single roll in the game in front of them and had them double check every single number. There is such a thing as a player that just does not work well with others.

I just think that some people on the thread are letting one word get in their way of thinking rationally and seeing things from a different viewpoint. Like I've said, words like "always" or "never" usually mean someone is either lying to themself or isn't thinking about it enough. There are reasons, and they're not necessarily wrong ones. You can't assume your group and their style of play is the only one in the universe that works.

WarKitty
2010-06-09, 01:50 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 01:58 PM
As a DM, you can't cheat. Modifying the outcomes of rolls you don't like? Rule 0. Enemy gets a critical and would kill someone? Rule 0.

Whether you call it cheating or not, I think that in some cases just following the rules would result in less fun. Therefore I change the rules, because I can, and because I believe that those changes will result in more fun for the group.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-09, 02:02 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html

There's a few reasons you could be linking that, I'm a bit curious as to which one you had in mind.


As a DM, you can't cheat. Modifying the outcomes of rolls you don't like? Rule 0. Enemy gets a critical and would kill someone? Rule 0.

Whether you call it cheating or not, I think that in some cases just following the rules would result in less fun. Therefore I change the rules, because I can, and because I believe that those changes will result in more fun for the group.

...And of course, some people have huge problems with that, because they believe that human bias is so strong in everyone that it can not be overcome by any degree. This does forget that regardless, the GM has control over what monsters you fight. So, fudging the roll is just one way that a GM secretly manipulates events. Ultimately, no matter what, you're getting manipulated by your GM just a bit. You just need to realize that that's part of what makes the game fun.

Ruinix
2010-06-09, 02:20 PM
i guess some of us are true Lawfull and some are true neutral and use and take advantage of the rules when it suits them.

and just for the record, rule 0 is just lame, why use all the other rules if just 1 rule can do it all ?

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 02:22 PM
i guess some of us are true Lawfull and some are true neutral and use and take advantage of the rules when it suits them.

and just for the record, rule 0 is just lame, why use all the other rules if just 1 rule can do it all ?

You mean Lawful Neutral?

And what does that mean? Rule 0 is that the DM can change the other rules. The other rules are what gives us the game. Rule 0 is what makes it work.

Umael
2010-06-09, 02:27 PM
As a DM, you can't cheat. Modifying the outcomes of rolls you don't like? Rule 0. Enemy gets a critical and would kill someone? Rule 0.

Whether you call it cheating or not, I think that in some cases just following the rules would result in less fun. Therefore I change the rules, because I can, and because I believe that those changes will result in more fun for the group.

You are kinda forgetting the other half of that equation there.

Rule 0 means you can. It doesn't mean you should.

Use Rule 0 without care and you'll soon have no game.

Kylarra
2010-06-09, 02:28 PM
i guess some of us are true Lawfull and some are true neutral and use and take advantage of the rules when it suits them.

and just for the record, rule 0 is just lame, why use all the other rules if just 1 rule can do it all ?Because rulebooks aren't perfect and thus strict RAW readings can be just as problematic if not more so than applications of rule 0. See: Candle of Invocation and other core goodies from D&D 3.X for the tip of the iceberg.

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 02:34 PM
You are kinda forgetting the other half of that equation there.

Rule 0 means you can. It doesn't mean you should.

Use Rule 0 without care and you'll soon have no game.

I never said that I just use Rule 0 all the time. If I think that it will keep the fun of the group going, if it will make the game better or keep it from getting worse, I use it. If I need to use Rule 0 to keep the game working for my group, then I will, even if it wouldn't work for any other situation. Rule 0 is a tool to enhance the game for me and my players. I always consider the other possibilities when I use Rule 0, as well as I can, since at time it's a split-second decision.

valadil
2010-06-09, 02:40 PM
and just for the record, rule 0 is just lame, why use all the other rules if just 1 rule can do it all ?

It's there to keep a GM from being overrun by bad rules or abusive players. If the GM weren't above the rules the game wouldn't work very well.

I think that how and when a GM invokes rule 0 is a decent way to measure GM quality.

Megaduck
2010-06-09, 02:43 PM
Heck, I cheat so much I stopped even bothering to role the dice. My players quickly determined that the success or failure of any action is directly proportional to how much it entertains the DM.

I found this encourages creativity and initiative in my players. They can't just sit back and let the dice determine the story for them or hope that a natural 20 will let them win. They have to work for it.

Tokiko Mima
2010-06-09, 02:43 PM
i guess some of us are true Lawfull and some are true neutral and use and take advantage of the rules when it suits them.

and just for the record, rule 0 is just lame, why use all the other rules if just 1 rule can do it all ?

You don't let Rule 0 do all the work; if you do, then you're just telling a story. You apply Rule 0 only when you need to. It's not a binary thing, you can have Rule 0 and not use it all the time. If fact, that's what most everyone on this thread is recommending. Do not use it too much, or misuse it.

Rule 0 is necessary for a DM to be able to DM. It might feel lame to you, but that's your opinion and personal feelings. I could go on for pages about why Rule 0 necessary, but I'm almost completely sure I've answered all that before in this thread in a response to you. Nothing I can say is going to change your mind on you wanting the Dice and not the DM to rule over the game itself, and if that's how you want to run your game, that's fine.

WarKitty
2010-06-09, 02:45 PM
There's a few reasons you could be linking that, I'm a bit curious as to which one you had in mind.

I was referring to the very last panel, V's statement.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-09, 02:54 PM
If fact, that's what most everyone on this thread is recommending. Do not use it too much, or misuse it.

BINGO! WE HAVE WINNER!


I was referring to the very last panel, V's statement.

Heh. Yeah. Point made. Why do you think one of the Lucky abilities in Pirates vs. Ninjas is called "One in a Million" (actually, it's a discworld reference, but same concept).

Choco
2010-06-09, 03:36 PM
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." -Mahatma Ghandi

Truth right there. So a better solution:

"You take an eye and I'll take your motherf***ing head!" - MC Hawking

EDIT: Alright fine, I'll contribute to the thread, since I'm already here and all..

I sure as hell cheat. Sometimes I scrap the rules entirely and freeform/fiat a whole session (and the poor suckers... err, players often don't even notice :smallamused:). This is doable with my group because we use the rules as nothing but a framework to tell a story.

That being said, I have been in a similar situation to Steele in AGC on multiple occasions, I don't have the link but he was busted one time for just freeforming the RP encounters as opposed to rolling diplomacy and other social skills. Joe used that as an argument as to why Jill is wasting valuable resources boosting charisma.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-06-09, 03:52 PM
No. The players are my friends. I'm not going to cheat them. Not out of winning, not out of losing.

I'm shocked that so many people do.

Yeah same here.

I suppose I can understand why people do. But I think the unpredictability of the dice makes a more interesting game.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-09, 09:11 PM
Sssh! My gaming group doesn't know that I'm seeing other players!

Best respond to the first post so far

PersonMan
2010-06-09, 09:24 PM
Best respond to the first post so far

Best response. Good grief. For a deity, your spelling and grammar are horrible, Banjo. :smallamused:

Ormur
2010-06-09, 10:35 PM
I don't fudge rolls but sometimes I don't roll them. I don't recalling that ever made any real difference and I don't use it to bend things to some predetermined narrative, more for verisimilitude and challenge. It's a combination of laziness and me not being able to effectively prepare as well as my NPC should so I sometimes leave things somewhat unstated. Traps, prepared spells and manoeuvres pop up when it's appropriate. The player's big mouths also sometimes help me. If they say out of character "oh, I bet this is X", X being more effective and fitting than Y which I just prepared then presto, Y turns to X.

Cleverdan22
2010-06-09, 10:46 PM
I dunno, I've fudged a roll or two that would have killed a character one of my players was really proud of, but that's really as far as I've gone cheating-wise.

Physics_Rook
2010-06-10, 12:57 AM
Quoted for truth (yes the entire thing).


There's a reason I chose these circumstances. It's essentially a thought experiment in this case. This is pretty much the worst case scenario a GM can reasonably be expected to deal with in a game, and it's a scenario that a LOT, if not most, GM's will consider fudging or putting on the kiddie gloves for.

There's actually numerous reasons built in here as you've noticed. It's a minor enemy, it's a first encounter, and it's on a character that a player spent a lot of time on and had taken away through no fault of their own, really. There's nothing tactically unsound about using magic missile on said wolf, but in this case, the actions led to instant death.

Mathematically speaking, these kinds of situations are statistical outliers. As much as some people want realism and risk, there's a certain level of realism and risk that just isn't fun if the player actually invested thought in a character. People get struck by lightning in broad daylight in real life, but that doesn't mean its something players should expect.

So, realism really does only work for fun/compelling gameplay up to a point. Even the most hardened players have a breaking point on what they'll really accept, unless (and this is a big unless), they really have absolutely NO investment in their character (which leads to another discussion entirely about whether it's risk if you don't care about the outcome). Ultimately, most people will agree that a death where a character literally had no chance of survival in retrospect is pretty crappy and tends to kill the "buzz" of the game pretty fast.

So, in this specific scenario, you essentially have 3 choices:
1. You tell the player to just take it and give the "crap happens" speech.
2. You fudge the circumstances in one way or another as listed.
3. You remove any creatures that can potentially 1-shot a party member from your game.

Number 1 and 2 have pretty much been discussed, and while I personally think GM #1 is a bit too harsh, they're legitimate choices. What about #3? Well, big damaging bruisers are a staple type of encounter, but you COULD remove them entirely until players can't possibly be one shot over them on a 1 in 200 or more chance.

But the problem is, at this point, you've pulled back. If you really believe in NO punches pulled, you shouldn't be excluded perfectly fine encounters based on potential outliers in the statistics. From how things turn out, using weaker monsters to avoid killing your players is essentially the same effect as fudging a dice roll.

Essentially, if you give players leeway, it's very much the same mentality that leads to an altered dice roll. Throwing in a magic item for the players here so they can catch up or beat the next challenge. Tell a player he stabilizies at -9 from an unfair crit in the first round. Allow a rule to be read in a player's favor when you normally wouldn't read it that way. Allow a power or rule to be used in a way that isn't explicitly stated in the book. You may argue that these are different severities of the same sin, but the magnitude of them isn't so great that each one is completely alien in thought process.

The truth of the matter is, outliers, completely unpredictable mathematical anomalies aren't fun. Rule 0 exists for the sake of correcting what exists in every game system on the planet because no game is perfectly balanced; the completely unforeseeable.

Now, you're right, of course. Rule 0 is not a tool to be wielded lightly, and going easy on the players isn't something you should do every time, but much like a responsible adult should be responsible enough to know how much to drink before they've hit their limit, a GM should know where the limits of this are for his or her group (and it does vary between each group). If a GM steps too much out of line, it's entirely the player's perogative to complain or just flat-out stop playing. It's not in the GM's interest to bore his or her players.

Cheating isn't just fudging dice rolls. It's anything you do to tip the scales in the name of your player's enjoyment. There's a reason for it, and even if you really don't agree, you should understand why a GM WOULD, and the players really should understand this mentality as well. It's not about a person being on a sick power-trip. It's about a host trying to fix a problem with a light touch.

Ultimately, like most other things, GM cheating is a tool, and one that has to be given a careful touch to be used right, but it's one that most GMs will end up using at least once or twice to correct completely unforeseeable problems that ruin the enjoyment of the game.

I don't expect you to use the tool, but I expect you to understand why someone would and not see them as an evil GM or even an inferior one for doing it. It's just another method for reaching the same end.

There are ABSOLUTELY no certainties in GM'ing or tabletop roleplaying. There are merely times and places when a GM's judgment is required to determine what is for the best. The same answer won't always work, but if you're saying there's no reason AT ALL to use some solutions (like some that aren't you have) then you're thinking too narrowly and that's something that'll cause you problems in the future as a GM. You have to consider all possibilities and do what's best and hope that your judgment is more often right than wrong. If your judgment sucks, you probably shouldn't be a GM.

Basically, I'm not talking about honor or rules, this is about a mentality that most GMs will have to take up at some point to keep the game running and enjoyable, and I think that giving GM's the impression that there is LITERALLY no reason EVER to cheat regardless of which group you are running with is an ignorant and narrow-minded way of thinking.






Consequently, as a funny aside, that kind of example above is exactly why 2d6 and 3d6 rolling systems exist. They make things tend towards an average and avoid the ridiculous outliers by creating a bell curve. Of course, as someone that likes those kinds of rolling mechanics and uses it for his most recent foray into game creation, I can tell you that they have their own equal set of problems that need to be considered (the least of which is how fast slight differences in skills lead to frustrating skips in chance to actually achieve something) and are by no means a better mechanic. Just different. How you handle the problems with that kind of mechanic are different.

Of course, if you can find me a system that works 100% of the time without breaking (and thus doesn't need the GM to touch things up for the sake of fun on occasion), you're either playing a freeform RP with YOURSELF or you're missing something.



You actually wound me a bit by assuming I'm arguing completely for the other side. The point I've been trying to make is that there are times and places for everything, and even the most hardened D&D game will likely have to sacrifice tension for the sake of someone's fun at some point.

I have fudged dice rolls in the past, and I will again in the future for the sake of my players and their enjoyment. I actually DON'T tell them for the sake of not removing their belief that their is tension in the encounters where I do. Tension and danger are still important.

This is not a black and white idea though. There's no ONE right answer here. There's merely two different views that are viable at different times and should be used as careful tools.

I'm just asking people to THINK before they automatically say, "I'd never cheat as a GM EVER". Such blanket statements lead to some pretty unhealthy GM attitudes.



Dairun, you've likely come as close as we'll ever get to explaining why a GM would/should entertain the notion of fudging rolls or monsters for or against their players. That is to say (if I'm not putting words in your mouth), a GM might consider it if they feel it would add value to the enjoyment of the game, and at the same time a GM might avoid it if they feel it would detract from the enjoyment of the game. And given how variable and flexible a thing like "enjoyment" is, I wouldn't be surprised if a GM has both considered and avoided it at certain points in their game.

I admit though, that to the degree from which I approach this topic on the side not fudging, I can certainly understand the view point of Saph and the others of similar persuasion.


My attitude with these things is that the entire point of combats is that they're supposed to be dangerous. If the PCs are literally at no risk, then it's usually not worth spending the time on in the first place. If you don't want PCs to be killed by random encounters, then I think the most sensible approach is just to take random encounters out completely. Otherwise you get a weird asymmetrical situation where the PCs are expected to kill the monsters, but the monsters aren't allowed to kill the PCs, which makes it less "combat" and more "let's get on with this so we can do something that matters".

For my particular feelings on the matter, I've already mentioned I don't fudge rolls (which in retrospect is rather presumptuous on my part, to assume I am indeed so infallible ... but it's true I am infallible, so there:smallbiggrin:)

Even considering that I always strive to let the dice land where they may, I believe Dairun has touched upon an entirely related and also very important part of fudging gameplay. Whether you choose to fudge a roll to help encourage a desired outcome, or you specifically create and tailor an encounter to help encourage a desired outcome, you've effectively used your power of GM (be it a flat out use of rule 0 or just your given ability to construct and manipulate your world) to try and create a specific outcome.

If GMs try to make their BBEGs powerful and menacing, does that mean they've purposefully used their power as a GM to create a specific desired outcome for the PCs (i.e. a difficult or challenging encounter)? What differentiates purposefully crafting a difficult encounter, from using rule 0 to make an encounter challenging?

I tend to feel that there is actually a difference, but it's not some much as a difference in result (as they would both presumably result in a difficult encounter), but has more to do with the differences in expectations of the players (that is to say, what style of game do they enjoy, and what makes a game fun in their eyes).

As a result it's important to know whether the world environment behaves as the GM tells the PCs it behaves (this includes if a GM tells the PCs that the world behaves like an action movie with rule 0 cranked up to 11). Whatever manner in which a GM conducts their use of their power and rule 0, I've always felt it best to be consistent in that conduct.

I hope I've given food for thought. :smallsmile:

Katana_Geldar
2010-06-10, 01:09 AM
DM's don't cheat, it's unpossible. They are the game, how can the game cheat you except in Soviet Russia.

I will fudge occassionaly, though always on the players side. had to do it to a dice in front of someone once, just a little turn and hope he did not notice.

WarKitty
2010-06-10, 08:33 AM
If I may submit another story:

You messed up the CR on an encounter. What was supposed to have been a fast battle has now dragged on a half-hour. Your players are clearly fairly bored, but it's going to take a while to finish up still. Do you fudge a little bit to speed things up and make the monsters die faster? Or let the battle drag on?

Skaven
2010-06-10, 08:53 AM
All the time, its necessary to keep the story going in an interesting direction, if you have to fudge a few rolls for the Greater Fun, so be it.

This x2.

I keep things going for the best of everyones fun. Sometmes that means knocking that enemiues dice from a 20 to a 19 so it doesn't gut the parties wizard. Sometimes it also means that if I keep rolling 1's and the king of big bad's elite guards are weaker than those guards outside, i'll reroll 'to confirm the crit' when its really just another go to keep the final climactic battle non anti-climactic.

I feel the role of the DM is as a storyteller. The dice are just there to take a few decisions off you and to keep things a little more random.

TheMightyBanjo
2010-06-10, 12:51 PM
Best response. Good grief. For a deity, your spelling and grammar are horrible, Banjo. :smallamused:

Sorry, Banjo is a spaz. Besides, ever tried to type without fingers and hands made out of felt? It ain't easy brother!:smallwink:

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-10, 03:11 PM
Another slightly shocked at how many DMs cheat. I do not cheat or fudge dice. The closest thing I've ever done was using awful tactics with a pair of Young Green Dragons (like the Nine Hells that's EL 7. I don't take CR without looking over the stat block anymore), which would have been a TPK if I hadn't. I am not planning to do such a thing again (if they run into something tough, they should have been warned or know that "run" is always the default option when they don't know how powerful an opponent is).

I disagree with the assumption that a DM cannot cheat. A DM that doesn't use the rules that they have laid out previously is cheating. If a rule is not remembered the DM can use whatever they wish until looking up the rule in question to speed up play (usually making it more enjoyable, which is, IMO, the DM's job in a game. Rules arbitration and maximising of enjoyment). Just my personal point of view, but I would like Rule 0 to take a long walk off of a short pier.

Umael
2010-06-10, 03:27 PM
Another slightly shocked at how many DMs cheat. I do not cheat or fudge dice.

Okay, I got to actually weigh in here. Straw, camel, back, you know how it goes.

The people who are "shocked" that DMs "cheat"? Get over it.*

Look at my sig. The very first rule is - it is a game. The idea is to have fun.

If having fun means going by the dice, playing the rules exactly as they are written, go ahead. Go for it - that's what floats your boat, so fine. If having fun means changing a few rules here or there on the fly as you feel necessary, fudging a few die rolls to make the game more exciting, there is no fun police stopping you. If having fun is just putting the dice away and letting the GM dictate action for a bit - as long as everyone is having fun, who cares!?

*Sorry if the phrase "get over it" offended anyone (and it certainly was not meant as a direct comment to you, Scion, more towards a mindset), but when I see comments like "I am shocked that some GMs would cheat", it sounds like the RPG is some kind of sacred social tradition, and only those who play it exactly by the book, letting the dice fall where they may, are the ones who are "pure".

There are a LOT of cases where you get a GM who runs a tight ship when the PCs prefer more freedom, and other cases where it is just the opposite, and both kinds of situations stink, but neither one is the be-all-and-end-all of what any gaming session should be like.

If you run a tight ship, play by the book, and let the dice fall where they may, all I would ask of you is that you communicate this to the players, be aware, and be willing to be flexible if the ocassion occurs. And if you like to fudge a few die rolls, make the call instead of doing a look-see, and cater to whims (your own and everyone else's), all I would ask of you is that you play fair, know when to put your foot down, and be willing to let chance take control if the ocassion calls.

Ruinix
2010-06-10, 03:44 PM
Okay, I got to actually weigh in here. Straw, camel, back, you know how it goes.

The people who are "shocked" that DMs "cheat"? Get over it.*

Look at my sig. The very first rule is - it is a game. The idea is to have fun.

If having fun means going by the dice, playing the rules exactly as they are written, go ahead. Go for it - that's what floats your boat, so fine. If having fun means changing a few rules here or there on the fly as you feel necessary, fudging a few die rolls to make the game more exciting, there is no fun police stopping you. If having fun is just putting the dice away and letting the GM dictate action for a bit - as long as everyone is having fun, who cares!?

*Sorry if the phrase "get over it" offended anyone (and it certainly was not meant as a direct comment to you, Scion, more towards a mindset), but when I see comments like "I am shocked that some GMs would cheat", it sounds like the RPG is some kind of sacred social tradition, and only those who play it exactly by the book, letting the dice fall where they may, are the ones who are "pure".

There are a LOT of cases where you get a GM who runs a tight ship when the PCs prefer more freedom, and other cases where it is just the opposite, and both kinds of situations stink, but neither one is the be-all-and-end-all of what any gaming session should be like.

If you run a tight ship, play by the book, and let the dice fall where they may, all I would ask of you is that you communicate this to the players, be aware, and be willing to be flexible if the ocassion occurs. And if you like to fudge a few die rolls, make the call instead of doing a look-see, and cater to whims (your own and everyone else's), all I would ask of you is that you play fair, know when to put your foot down, and be willing to let chance take control if the ocassion calls.

the onlyones who looks offended are those who cheat and argue as if that ok, and the all rest must confirm ur argue for feel more confortable with ur cheat.

is ok, get over. u cheat. i don't (and many more) don't like and don't do that. and we don't do the over look for those DM's. so plz stop trying to convince cause wont happend.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-10, 03:53 PM
the onlyones who looks offended are those who cheat and argue as if that ok, and the all rest must confirm ur argue for feel more confortable with ur cheat.

is ok, get over. u cheat. i don't (and many more) don't like and don't do that. and we don't do the over look for those DM's. so plz stop trying to convince cause wont happend.

You are aware that that first sentence make the entire thing come off as haughty. Might not be your intention, but expect a sentence like that to be flame bait. That especially includes phrases "as it that's ok". That kinda of language completely insinuates that you believe you're absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong. That's not an argument you want to start lightly.

...And one of the points I was making, whether you choose to think of it that way or not, is that no one really plays 100% by the book unless you're a professional GM for the RPGA. Most GM's make exceptions and tweaks for their players all the time, and I'd be shocked to find a GM that's never done ANY of it and has managed to be a GM for more than a year. It's a very same mentality. You may never fudge a roll, but you might pick encounters your players think they can handle or remove ones that you believe will just be a TPK and pointless. You might throw in the occasional free resurrection as a quest reward at the end of a long campaign so a player doesn't lose a character. These are all similar mental states.

And that's really fine, for the most part. How much you do it is up to you, but a good GM will have to tailor things for the players.

Fenrazer
2010-06-10, 05:08 PM
I had a Shadowrun group that was in an epic style car chase/dog fight/cyber melee /matrix battle/astral quest...well...it started with all of us in Denver and in a large nutshell three characters ended up in Salish Sidhe, one was in Corpus Christi and Astrally in Galveston our Hacker was...well...he was still in the same Denver office he started in because he is a Hacker.

Anyway it was at the end of a custom run and from Denver to the final locations took a week of gaming nearly every day for four-five hours at a time. The guys were having so much fun, and the "bad guys" of the run had been so elusive for so long that if I didn't make this something über epic I knew it would be a let down. I fudged two to three rolls a night for the "bad guys" but to be fair to my players I fudged a few rolls that would have ended their run as well. Not that they ever knew.

Still, some would consider me story heavy rules light in that sense, but I don't consider it cheating.

Peanut Gallery
2010-06-10, 05:24 PM
Speaking as a player, I've played under both types of GMs.

GM A: Who let my character one-shot herself from full HP with a spell gone wrong. And declared that since no one had written down who was carrying the health potions on their character sheet, that meant we didn't have them. And almost had a TPK because none of the players could remember the name of the town we were in for the protection ritual.

GM B: Who occasionally throws the chaotic good vampires or lawful evil metallic dragons at us. And lets the "killing" blow be changed into non-lethal at a whim nevermind that the monster/NPC doesn't have the feat. And occasionally informs people that "you rolled a 1 on your will save" without ever actually rolling even if he pretends he did for sake of appearance.

I vastly prefer GM B. He's way more fun and makes the story interesting. And I will never play with GM A again because him sticking to the rules like that, no matter what, made him come off as an elitist jerk and the game session was too frustrating because it felt like the players were playing against him instead of with him.
But my husband prefers GM A. And has been known to pitch a fit at GM B for doing some of those things that fly in the face of the rule book. And he, unlike me, doesn't care if his character gets killed off due to a bad roll.

So yeah. You won't ever convince me a "by the rules" game is better. And you'll never convince my husband that "changing the rules as the story demands" is preferable. Live and let live.

blackseven
2010-06-10, 05:47 PM
I object to the very use of the morally pejorative term "cheat."

Some groups/systems/whatever work best and/or prefer to let the dice speak completely for themselves and to run as strict RAW as possible. Other groups/systems/whatever run almost completely freeform and ignore the dice/other randomization mechanic as it suits them.

The important thing is that the player has an understand of where on the spectrum they fall, an understanding of where a playgroup in which they play falls, and be comfortable with that.

This is purely a subjective matter of opinion and preference.

Umael
2010-06-10, 05:52 PM
the onlyones who looks offended are those who cheat and argue as if that ok, and the all rest must confirm ur argue for feel more confortable with ur cheat.

is ok, get over. u cheat. i don't (and many more) don't like and don't do that. and we don't do the over look for those DM's. so plz stop trying to convince cause wont happend.

You are aware that that first sentence make the entire thing come off as haughty. Might not be your intention, but expect a sentence like that to be flame bait. That especially includes phrases "as it that's ok". That kinda of language completely insinuates that you believe you're absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong. That's not an argument you want to start lightly.

Thank you, Dairun Cates.

Ruinix, I believed you missed several of my points, which I do not feel like just blithely repeating, rewording, or revising. If you request it, I will try again, but if not, I will content myself with the belief that you took my comments personally, and that you will remain ignorant of what I actually said and meant. Either way, I believe the both of us shall live.


...And one of the points I was making, whether you choose to think of it that way or not, is that no one really plays 100% by the book unless you're a professional GM for the RPGA.

I doubt even an RPGA professional GM would do that.

If the GM runs a tight ship, etc., etc., and a player sneaks past a character build like Pun-Pun, what will the GM do? Play exactly by the rules and let the player get away with breaking the game?

Myatar_Panwar
2010-06-10, 06:02 PM
In my opinion, if you go to your players and say "I reserve the right to fudge the rolls sometimes. But don't worry, I will do it in your favor sometimes too!", that just creates this whole new dynamic that I am not too fond of.

The dice stop being this cool randomized thing, and start being this randomized thing which could totally not be random at all. Its one thing to watch your DM roll three 1's in a roll, right in front of your eyes. Its another to watch as the DM informs you "I totally just rolled three 1's right in a row! Really I did!"

Of course, that kind of fudging probably doesn't happen much because it does sound ridiculous and it turns from funny to "heh yeah okay...". In fact, you may actually cheat and say you didn't roll those three 1's so that you don't look like a silly goose.

Really you are just losing out on some good laughs.

-

Also, as an aside, I am of the opinion that a good DM should not fudge rolls "for the sake of the story." A gm is not a traditional story teller. The worst kinds of DM's are those who look at a game and say "I can make this into a novel if I wanted to!" The game is not about your control over the players. Its about giving the players a world which responds realistically to their actions. If they can go about and know that their beloved characters are going to just get knocked out when reduced to 0, then its really something else.

But hey, do what you like. Just expressing some thoughts myself. I know that DM screens are a pretty big turn off for me.

Umael
2010-06-10, 06:45 PM
In my opinion, if you go to your players and say "I reserve the right to fudge the rolls sometimes. But don't worry, I will do it in your favor sometimes too!", that just creates this whole new dynamic that I am not too fond of.

I don't tell my players I might fudge the die rolls because it does about the same thing as explaining a joke. It kills something.



The dice stop being this cool randomized thing, and start being this randomized thing which could totally not be random at all.

Nice rhetoric.

You take the position of the objective, yet slip in a subjective adjective to bolster your claim.



Also, as an aside, I am of the opinion that a good DM should not fudge rolls "for the sake of the story."

You might be surprised to learn that there are actually are GMs who fudge the rolls and the players appreciate it and consider those GMs to be "good" GMs.

It might seem that your opinion is just that - an opinion.

PersonMan
2010-06-10, 06:52 PM
Also, as an aside, I am of the opinion that a good DM should not fudge rolls "for the sake of the story."

Then do you find it alright if they do so for the sake of fun? What if doing something "for the story" increases the fun at the table?

Myatar_Panwar
2010-06-10, 07:07 PM
Then do you find it alright if they do so for the sake of fun? What if doing something "for the story" increases the fun at the table?

I guess I just find honest randomization more fun than what are essentially DM scripted events. If that is the right way to phrase it... You know when you play a video game, and you encounter a character which you just can't kill because he is important in a later point in the story? Fudging rolls is kind of like that. It may lead to a cool moment later in the story because the game kept the character alive, but at the current moment you just can't help but feel cheated.

At least, that is how I feel. Maybe I am just a mistrustful rules-lawyery bastard to feel this way, but there you go.

PersonMan
2010-06-10, 07:10 PM
Hmmm. In my opinion, that is a completely different issue. Anyways, how could the player feel cheated if they don't know? I'd rather have my character live because the DM didn't want to kill them in encounter 1 than die.

Maryring
2010-06-10, 07:18 PM
I only "cheat" if the situation would otherwise end in a game over. Because if the game is over, whatcha gonna do next?

Myatar_Panwar
2010-06-10, 07:48 PM
Hmmm. In my opinion, that is a completely different issue. Anyways, how could the player feel cheated if they don't know? I'd rather have my character live because the DM didn't want to kill them in encounter 1 than die.

If your players have no idea that you cheat, and they never suspect anything, then yeah I guess you are golden. But I doubt that most players are that naive. Even if they don't know of exact moments of your cheatery, they still know that you cheat, and will suspect it at every turn.

And really, character deaths are usually the result of two things:

1. Players being stupid.
2. DM's being stupidly hard with their encounters.

You shouldn't be cheating your rolls just because you like to torture your players with scaled up encounters. If its players being silly, then.... okay? They should know that death is a possibility if they decide they want to run in the middle of a group of balors and cast magic missile. Player's would rather enjoy not dying by their own ingenuity, and not DM protection, I would imagine.

But then again there are times when the dice are not with either the DM or his players, with none to blame. It is these moments where the good DM's decide to cheat, I'd imagine. I know why they do it, but I guess I just don't find it necessary. A player death can be just as good a story to tell as one of victory. And often they are better remembered.

WarKitty
2010-06-10, 07:49 PM
To be fair, I finally just decided to drop my group a set of "Diamonds of True Resurrection" and be done with it.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-06-10, 07:59 PM
I didn't, until my player said they'd like me to on rare occasions. Now I do if I've been getting unusually (un)lucky, or I'm accidentally gonna' TPK the party. That is all.

drengnikrafe
2010-06-10, 08:05 PM
I prevent PC death with a few HP less of damage from time to time, but I mark down how often I do it, and I'll only save their lives so many times before they die. Also, if a powerful monster is being lame, I'll cheat a good hit. Other than that, I rarely cheat.
There is one example of this not being true. Right now, I have a BBEG sitting in my folder of monsters with the item "Scroll of whatever I need right now".

Susano-wo
2010-06-10, 08:19 PM
I have to say that I enjoy a DM who will modify encounters, etc, even turn a crit into a normal hit for the sake of players not getting screwed, or on occasions where it screws the story.

(Which is not to say I enjoy Final Fantasy style RPing on the table top--if the non combat/exploration stuff is just pre-scripted, that's quite boring. Story doesn't need to be constricting. It can be X, Y, and Z people and places and events are in place and happening, and you can interact with it in various ways.)

And the reason I decided to post on this: Peanut: GM A is not following the rules, he's being a jerk. There's nothing in the rules one way or the other to rule on who has the potions because you didn't write it down, or if the player has to remember something for he character to, etc. And I'm willing to bet that the spell thingie was some sort of custom mishap BS, but that's just the impression I get.
Now if there are things in there that are covered in the rules, or in common sense narrative (IE we said we bought X potions and took them to our Inn room, but forgot to say that we took them out, or what have you), Than that might be different.

Of course, you can still follow the "Rules" and be charitable about human forgetfulness. :P

Peanut Gallery
2010-06-10, 10:12 PM
And the reason I decided to post on this: Peanut: GM A is not following the rules, he's being a jerk. There's nothing in the rules one way or the other to rule on who has the potions because you didn't write it down, or if the player has to remember something for he character to, etc. And I'm willing to bet that the spell thingie was some sort of custom mishap BS, but that's just the impression I get.
Now if there are things in there that are covered in the rules, or in common sense narrative (IE we said we bought X potions and took them to our Inn room, but forgot to say that we took them out, or what have you), Than that might be different.

Of course, you can still follow the "Rules" and be charitable about human forgetfulness. :P

The spell legitimately killed me. It was called Experience Death and lets the caster relive the killing blow of a corpse but you get a "shield" to protect you from the damage. Little did I know, the guy had died by throwing himself out a tower. So I took massive fall damage in that one blow and it killed me by 1 hp. So yeah, I walked into that myself I admit. But I sure didn't enjoy spending the rest of the game as a body in someone's bag because of it.
I guess I assume all "rules lawyer GMing" is like him, which he may very well be an example of the wrong way to do it. But officially he was right. I did kill myself. None of the characters had any health potions on them according to their character sheets (even though we all remembered buying them). And we'd been told the name of the town, probably a couple times at that point.

I've seen GMs abuse Rule 0 too though. Usually when the GM has their own pet PC in the party and they get away with ridiculous antics like "ancient dragon gets turned into their special mount/companion" or some crap like that. That's what I'd call cheating.

Susano-wo
2010-06-10, 10:34 PM
Hmm, not sure the exact logistics of that spell--first time I've heard about it. Though from your description, I would think you would either:A: relive the blow that actually killed him sans fall, or B: have the fall damage shielded by the mechanics of the spell.

Though Damn ,that sounds like a cool spell (even cooler as as Psi-power)[though yeah, spending the campaign in such a mater would be freakin stupid]

Anyway, that one does sound much more legit than my gut feeling, so yay. In any case, a rules lawyer GM? yeah, probably gonna be a lot like that guy. >.<
But you can follow the rules, IE not fudging or modifying results to make sense where the rules/dice create unreal, bizarre results, and still not jerk players around.

And what I meant by the potions bit was that the rules don't say you have to record it on the sheet for your character to have it, just that the sheet is where you record what you have.

The difference being what makes you have it in the game is that you guys went through the narrative process of purchasing them. Recording it is just so everyone isn't fouled up by misremembering (as well as "misremembering," wink wink)

And re the name of the town, I'm just saying that characters remembering something is not covered, aside from perhaps knowledge checks, and is certainly, by RAW never stated to be tied to player memory.

Oh god, I've never had to deal with"ancient dragon gets turned into their special mount/companion"...I've been pretty lucky on that level of BS, which is good, cause I'd probably have an Aneurysm

valadil
2010-06-10, 10:37 PM
the onlyones who looks offended are those who cheat and argue as if that ok, and the all rest must confirm ur argue for feel more confortable with ur cheat.

is ok, get over. u cheat. i don't (and many more) don't like and don't do that. and we don't do the over look for those DM's. so plz stop trying to convince cause wont happend.


How many GMs cheat?

Based on the thread I'd guess about 85%.

:frown: I don't like those odds.


If it's good and fun for everyone then why am I upset to find out about it?

Ruinix, based on Glug's posts it sounds like a) about 85% of GMs in this thread cheat and b) Glug is offended by it.

Regarding RPGA play, I've seen judges fudge rolls in LFR. It's called DM Empowerment and is encouraged in each mod. LFR mods are designed to run in 4 hours. DMs are therefore expected to speed the PCs through slow encounters, so that they don't miss their next game, as well as beef up the easy encounters because the group would feel ripped off it they were done playing after only 2 hours. Or DMs can use their judgment to make the game more fun in other ways. I don't know if this goes for other RPGA play, but it's certainly legit in LFR.

I don't fudge any more. I used to though and I still approve of it. I certainly wouldn't call it cheating. Here's a scenario/question though:

Many of those who support fudging cite cases of badly designed encounters. I know this was why I fudged. I had trouble balancing fights in 3.5, so I found myself needing to extend or shorten them. Fudge detractors have mentioned having reinforcements ready for fights. Low ball the fight a little and as help is needed, add more guys to it. How is adding combatants any different from adding to a die roll or two? Yes you can say the guards signaled for help before the PCs showed up. You can also say they chugged Bull's Strength potions. I just don't see how the ability to summon more combatants at will (or force them to retreat) is any better than changing a die roll or HP total.

Cuaqchi
2010-06-10, 10:41 PM
The 'cheat' I sometimes do is allow a full round at or below -10 before death if the damage came from a really good roll. It allows someone to try and heal you if given the chance, otherwise you are still dead.

Saved a character from a massive crit by a Fire Giant one game, but it also hasn't stopped a TPK when the rogue decided to attack a non-combatant Green Slaad rather than one of the Blue's that was ripping the party FB to shreds.

Umael
2010-06-11, 10:53 AM
If your players have no idea that you cheat, and they never suspect anything, then yeah I guess you are golden. But I doubt that most players are that naive. Even if they don't know of exact moments of your cheatery, they still know that you cheat, and will suspect it at every turn.

Did you read the earlier story about the DM who turned a potion from lesser restoration to restoration just so one of the PCs could get back into the fight?

It was a moment of quick diplomacy and fixing the game so that the player could enjoy it more.

But the fact is, the DM changed a potion from one thing to another. That was one of the examples of cheating that people are talking about.

Yes, doing thing like this can backfire. So the other option, doing nothing.



And really, character deaths are usually the result of two things:

1. Players being stupid.
2. DM's being stupidly hard with their encounters.

No.

I can give plenty of examples of death being a common ocassion which has nothing to do with either of those reasons you gave.

Care for me to list a few?

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-11, 01:10 PM
Just to comment again, I don't mind DMs cheating. I won't complain often in a game with a DM who cheats, my own DM is very fond of "the DM's word is law". I personally dislike the practice but I can't have it my way just because.

There are times that cheating will increase enjoyment for the other players, there are times when it would make it worse. I am not good at trusting my player's statements on how fun the game is (I'm not trusting in general actually) nor at judging how much fun they are having so I avoid making any assumptions on the matter and play the rules. If I could judge my players well (or thought I could) I would still avoid cheating to make the game better, because I am not nearly infallible. I would screw up that judgement a lot, and then probably try it more often or at more critical points to try to make up for that, which may well ruin the game. If others are good at that judgement, if they feel that cheating is worth the risk, good for them. I congratulate them for having better social skills and confidence than I (however easy that "achievement" is).

I would rather have a BBEG (or more likely, BBGG) fall to a critical or natural one on a save on round one than have a moment of excellent luck stolen from me and would rather have my PC die to be recycled some other time than being "saved" from what could have been an awesome death scene, other people would hate those situations and that is cool too. I only mentioned being shocked because I expected something closer to even sides, where actually fudging rolls is by far the more popular choice. I hope I didn't offend anyone, and I apologise if I did. Thank you for your time.

Fenrazer
2010-06-11, 01:23 PM
And really, character deaths are usually the result of two things:

1. Players being stupid.
2. DM's being stupidly hard with their encounters.


Amend that to add 3. Botching consecutive rolls. We all have those days fella. I rolled four consecutive natural 1s just last week. The first was the save against ongoing that put me down for the count. The other three were Death saving throws.

Sorry. Fudging is completely accepted in my book.

AimlessSage
2010-06-11, 06:57 PM
I GM fairly often ,and i find that as long as you are moving towards the benefit of the group as a whole, it doesn't matter how much you fudge the dice. Some sessions i just roll, and that's word of the dice gods. Other times I'm Fudgey McCheaty pants especially in regards to one of my players barbarians who uses intimidate for All social interactions. (he fails Reflex rolls ALL THE TIME, its like the universe is against him :smallsmile:)

One thing i like to do, is that if a player is performing actions beneficial to the group, or is taking action not because it is likely to succeed , but because their character would truly do it even if it is dangerous, or has poor reward/risk ratio. then i will try to tip things in their favor.

Also if a party member is doing something destructive to Play, Plot or Party, then i either let them take bad odds as a straight roll, or if they are likely, i tip the scale slightly more against. Or i make a note to have something "interesting" happen to them later.


From what i understand GM's job is only keep things going, and by definition they cannot "Cheat" as changing the odds is part of their mechanism within the game.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-06-11, 09:17 PM
Amend that to add 3. Botching consecutive rolls. We all have those days fella. I rolled four consecutive natural 1s just last week. The first was the save against ongoing that put me down for the count. The other three were Death saving throws.


No.

I can give plenty of examples of death being a common ocassion which has nothing to do with either of those reasons you gave.

Which is why I included this later in the post....


But then again there are times when the dice are not with either the DM or his players, with none to blame. It is these moments where the good DM's decide to cheat, I'd imagine. I know why they do it, but I guess I just don't find it necessary. A player death can be just as good a story to tell as one of victory. And often they are better remembered.

Sarquion
2010-06-12, 06:29 AM
I used to fudge rolls but in the last game i didn't fudge any rolls and that made the game so much more fun and tense becuase the players got suprised attack by only two goblins who managed to take the barbarian out in one turn and then the chleric had to stay alive and wait for the paladin to arrvie but ofc he was only walking because he did not know what was happening and because i didn't fudge the rolls the goblins some how manages to make all three of them bleed out and kidnapped them the cleric stablised at only -2 the paladin healed the bararian to -3 before he started to bleed to -9 and stablised and they knewi wasn't fudging which made the situation that much more tense and fun for them

Mr.Moron
2010-06-12, 07:10 AM
I think I've fudged all of two rolls, ever. I do my best to tune my challenges very tightly based on the ability of the group and things rarely wind up surprising me.

derfos
2010-06-12, 07:39 AM
Playing D&D I follow the motto: "It's fun while the characters survive". That means I get two options. Either I don't put my characters in situations where a die roll might kill them, or I am willing to fudge some rolls. I wouldn't call it cheating, since I honestly believe that the DM is above the rules of the game - the job of the DM is to keep the game interesting and fun, and sometimes the DM might have rules or ideas that are more appropriate for that than the rulebooks.

I had a DM that, under pressure from some players, agreed to have a 'no mercy' policy on his campaign. That meant never fudging rolls, never making NPCs do stupid things for the sake of helping us, etc. We basically almost died every encounter and it didn't make things any more fun.

Things changed when we switched from regular task-solving to a conflict-resolution directed approach. In this form, failing a roll doesn't mean failing a task, but it instead means completing the task but with a negative drawback. Example: If you fail a Climb check to go up a tree in task-resolution, you can simply try again next turn. If you fail in conflict-resolution, you climb the tree, but injure yourself in the process, or you drop something important while you're climbing. Conflict resolution means no more fudging rolls, since a failed roll actually makes the game more interesting rather than less.

Another good policy is the 'say yes or roll the dice', popularized by Dogs in the Vinyard. It's that simple - unless you can think of a good consequence for failure, just say yes. Most people use this rule unconsciously - you don't call for a Search check every time a character is looking for something. Just extend it even more: A character is running from somebody and they want to climb into the roof of a house. If it sounds interesting, just say yes. If it sounds like something you don't want, or you can think of a really original consequence for failure, then have him roll the dice. NEVER say no. If you have a group that understands the game, you will never have to. You can make things hard for them, but impossible is no fun. Plus, sometimes it's interesting when things don't go according to plan.

Totally Guy
2010-06-12, 07:51 AM
Things changed when we switched from regular task-solving to a conflict-resolution directed approach. In this form, failing a roll doesn't mean failing a task, but it instead means completing the task but with a negative drawback. Example: If you fail a Climb check to go up a tree in task-resolution, you can simply try again next turn. If you fail in conflict-resolution, you climb the tree, but injure yourself in the process, or you drop something important while you're climbing. Conflict resolution means no more fudging rolls, since a failed roll actually makes the game more interesting rather than less.

Another good policy is the 'say yes or roll the dice', popularized by Dogs in the Vinyard.

We do this in the Burning Wheel game I run. It's right there in the rules. The relevant rule is even called Vincent's Admonition (Vincent Baker being the DitV author). It's pretty amazing.

derfos
2010-06-12, 08:06 AM
We do this in the Burning Wheel game I run. It's right there in the rules. The relevant rule is even called Vincent's Admonition (Vincent Baker being the DitV author). It's pretty amazing.

I LOVE Burning Wheel. Probably my favourite system because of its focus on character's beliefs as the central factor to the story. Plus, having a game in which the players dictate the story makes things a lot easier for me as a GM and I get to relax and enjoy the game a little. But the cool thing about these ideas (conflict-resolution and Vincent's Admonition) is that they can be thrown into any game with any system for the same fun results.

AntiHeart
2010-06-12, 10:56 PM
My party includes one player who gets a kick out of optimizing his characters. At one point I discovered that my sub-boss, a huge Monstrous Centipede of some kind, was unable to hit the player without a crit, and even then for reduced damage. So... I put a Chain Devil in it. The centipede shot chains from it's mouth and created an image of some nameless member of the player's family within the shadows of its mandibles. The monster targeted the broken character while the rest of the party ran away. Eventually the party leader convinced the chain-centipede to back off.

AntiHeart
2010-06-12, 11:07 PM
Just remembered another one. We play with the house rule of 20, 20, 20 = instant death. At one point a player was attacked by two demon possessed guards at once, The first guard rolled a 20, crit threat. The next roll was a 20 as well, so crit with death threat. The next roll was a 20. :smalleek: I fudged it and said the the other guard rolled the last 20. :smalltongue: The next roll was again a 20. :smallannoyed: I gave it the the second guard. Two crits with death threats... :smallamused: Next 2 die were a 20 and some othe number.
Sucks for him, the dice do not lie. Crit and a death blow. :smallamused:

The rest of the party died shortly after. Huzzah TPK!

derfos
2010-06-12, 11:09 PM
My party includes one player who gets a kick out of optimizing his characters. At one point I discovered that my sub-boss, a huge Monstrous Centipede of some kind, was unable to hit the player without a crit, and even then for reduced damage. So... I put a Chain Devil in it. The centipede shot chains from it's mouth and created an image of some nameless member of the player's family within the shadows of its mandibles. The monster targeted the broken character while the rest of the party ran away. Eventually the party leader convinced the chain-centipede to back off.

What I would do for a character that is so uber is put him in situations where he either loses his power or his power is useless. Maybe the monster casts insanity spells on everyone and has them attack each other (oldest trick in the book, I know). Maybe killing the monster is actually bad for the group because it wastes time. Either way, let the uber character pwn every now and then (that's what he wants out of the game), but make it hard for him in some other way (tough choices, for example).

Either way, I don't really do D&D anymore, and definitely not 3E. I played 3rd Edition D&D for 6 years until 4E came out, and I've beat the game in every way possible. The amount of broken characters I've created keeps me awake at night. I play many indie RPGs that focus on other parts of the game than just getting an overpowering combo that leaves all monsters in the dust.

I feel like I'm getting off track though, so I'll post my final comment on the "Do I cheat" question. I do not believe that fudging a roll is in any way cheating. I think that lying to players and selectively enforcing rules based on social preferences is cheating. Actually, I think sticking to every rule in the rulebook is cheating too: cheating the players out of a good time. That's my 2 cents.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-13, 09:43 AM
Actually, I think sticking to every rule in the rulebook is cheating too: cheating the players out of a good time. That's my 2 cents.

Why? Certain rules rub me the wrong way (multiclassing penalties are the big one) but that's what pre-established houserules are for, not on-the-spot cheating. In any case why would a game sticking to pre-set rules (whether all from the rulebooks or the rulebooks with houserules laid out before the game) be any worse than a game with rules changed on the whim of the DM? I personally like knowing what I can achieve from one round to the next is constant discounting outside influence, I can't understand wanting to have what your character is able to do change based on the passing fancies of another person, trustworthy or not. I would like to alter this situation so that I at least know how such a thing could be fun, if not neccessarily fun for me. May you explain please?

valadil
2010-06-13, 10:22 AM
Why? Certain rules rub me the wrong way (multiclassing penalties are the big one) but that's what pre-established houserules are for, not on-the-spot cheating.

You may not realize rules rub you the wrong way until you play with them. For instance, I really liked how 4e handles non lethal damage. You can just do it, no penalties to keep track of, no need to carry a non lethal weapon. It fits in very well with 4e's philosophy of being a game first and a realistic world second.

When I started running 4e I learned to hate that rule. All it means is that when combat ends, the players say "by the way, all that was non lethal damage, so we tie up the enemies and torture them for information." It makes it very hard to use enemies who have secrets. I couldn't have predicted that rule needed changing (especially since I didn't think my PCs would be so torture friendly), so I have to live with it or change it mid game. I'm choosing to change it mid game (albeit between sessions instead of screwing the players during a fight).

Umael
2010-06-13, 01:02 PM
Myatar_Panwar:

Death happens in games for more reasons than just players being stupid, GMs being stupid, or the dice rolling poorly.

You have times when the player or the GM just makes a mistake - and to call that "being stupid" is insulting, by the way. You have times where the game is more lethal, either because the players wanted it that way, the GM did, or both (Tomb of Horrors comes to mind). You have moments where the game calls for it (it might not be railroading, but the GM could say that a certain PC earned the wrath of something very nasty). A GM could also set up the world in a way that if the PCs go in the wrong direction (despite warning, for whatever reason), they go into more dangerous territory and are likely to get killed. It might even be part of the game setting for the PCs to die often - d20 Rokugan is a good possibility (not because the world is necessarily nasty, but because your daimyo orders you to commit seppuku).

Of course, it might not be any one of these things, but a combination. Player forgot to add something, GM used something that was too powerful, and the dice gods had it in for the PC, all at the same time. It happens. Stupidity, as you so kindly labelled it, isn't the only thing.


More generally,

In the game I am running right now, I don't have a complete write-up of the adventures; I don't have the time for it. But my players want to play, so I have to do some improvization. When I know that a certain NPC should know somethings or be more than a fight, I go with it and don't worry about things - until the PCs push the envelope. Then I have to quickly revise, make some notes, think fast on my feet, and push on. Everyone has fun. Yet by the most strict definition, I am cheating.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-13, 04:48 PM
You may not realize rules rub you the wrong way until you play with them. For instance, I really liked how 4e handles non lethal damage. You can just do it, no penalties to keep track of, no need to carry a non lethal weapon. It fits in very well with 4e's philosophy of being a game first and a realistic world second.

When I started running 4e I learned to hate that rule. All it means is that when combat ends, the players say "by the way, all that was non lethal damage, so we tie up the enemies and torture them for information." It makes it very hard to use enemies who have secrets. I couldn't have predicted that rule needed changing (especially since I didn't think my PCs would be so torture friendly), so I have to live with it or change it mid game. I'm choosing to change it mid game (albeit between sessions instead of screwing the players during a fight).

Houserules made in between sessions with a clear warning I don't mind. Round-by-round changes with little if any warning scare me as a player. Just a clarification in case that wasn't clear.

Ashiel
2010-06-14, 12:05 AM
The way I look at it, you break the rules, you're cheating. You cheat, it's dishonest. If you fudge a roll to save my PC, then you're being dishonest with me, and you're cheapening the experience. Maybe you get away with it for a while, but the moment someone begins to expect it or know you will do it; then they'll question it. Your honor as a GM falls under scrutiny.

That question will echo in the minds of the players when they succeed. "Did I really succeed? Did we do that, or did the GM? Did my PC really die, or was that critical hit for plot reasons? Did we fail to save that NPC legitimately, or did she fail her save because he decided it so?"

Yeah. It's cheating. It's dishonest. It's something my players and I don't do. Cheaters will always deny cheating, but some things are black and white. If you're breaking rules or ignoring them, you're cheating. You make a house-rule, that's fine - that's a variant - but the referee doesn't govern a game of soccer how he pleases; just helps it go along smoothly.

It saddens me to see people being disingenuous and hiding behind rule 0 or hiding behind the title of Game Master. It would be more honest to say "I cheat, and I don't care", rather than spouting nonsense such as "the GM can't cheat". CHEAT (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat).

Mystic Muse
2010-06-14, 12:13 AM
Apparently WOTC cheats.

In our scales of war game our DM ran this encounter exactly as the module told him. Except, for the encounter to work the way it was written, the enemy needed to have at least 8 minor actions each turn.

--Lime--
2010-06-14, 12:15 AM
I agree with everything Ashiel says, except under certain circumstances.

I had a bunch of level ones still getting to grips with the game. The idea was to teach them about the game, let everyone have a good time.

I'm not in the business of fudging rules, so that's not what I did.

They'd fallen for a wolf attack: one had appeared in front of the watchman while the others slept - they didn't roll high enough to spot the other 2 behind, and one ignored the listen check that told him there was a rustling back and to his right.

Now, the way they positioned themselves meant the spellcaster wasn't able to cast colour spray (the monk for some reason decided to grapple a wolf) - things a more experienced party probably wouldn't do. So I redirected a wolf. Yes, it would have been an illogical thing to do, but not stupidly unlikely. Wolf 1 lost a flanking bonus, wolf 2 didn't eat the PC alive, and wolf 3 was off being grappled.

After a tough battle, the PCs regrouped and finally won. That could have turned into a TPK, which was the opposite of what I was trying to achieve. And all that was avoided by having a wolf make a slightly illogical decision. No roll fudging, and every player learned not to ignore rustling - at least look in that direction!