Should the GM "cheat"?

[ScionoftheVoid]

If you don't like GMs who fudge die rolls, don't game with them. If you don't like GMs who roll in the open, don't game with them.

I agree with this, with the note that fudging probably isn't something to quit/turn down a game over on its own.

What I've said previously is my opinion, nothing more. Other people don't mind or maybe even like fudging, that's cool too. I have nothing against them. I'd be more hesitant to game with them, because my likes conflict slightly with theirs, but that could apply to any other issue.

I personally have a rather odd list of times when fudging would be appropriate ("I really shouldn't have statted this guy at one in the morning/should have looked over these abilities more carefully. Umm... Do you mind if I take a minute to find something more appropriate?"), many people will disagree with me on when it is or is not appropriate. That's fine. Reading "No one wants an easy boss fight", or "Players will always feel they've had a hollow victory if they know you fudge/cheat at all" is not fine. Commenting on your own group is good, we then know why you fudge and many will be okay with it because it's probably justified. Alternatively we'll know why you don't fudge and the same applies. Making sweeping generalisations which are disproven by other people's observations which have already been stated is bad, it just shows that a. aren't paying attention or b. are deliberately ignoring things (or c. genuinely missed it, but you'd think people would be reading every post fairly carefully before disagreeing with those posts, or at least I would. My expectations may be rather too high, even here).

TL;DR: People are allowed to fudge, cheat or whatever, or not, and that's as it should be. But try not to say "no one" when you mean "no one in my group/that I've played with regularly" and justify what you do. That goes for all sides.

On that note, I don't fudge because I wouldn't want it if I were a PC and because it encourages unexpected (and therefore more interesting, to me at least) situations.

I'll probably stop posting in this thread now, my points are all made. Thank you for an invigorating thread that I shall continue to read presently.

[Killer Angel]

The point is that the die roll is pointless and deceptive if you will allow it on a failure anyway.


Ah, yes, but also if you will allow it on a success anyway.

Let's stay out of combat, given that we were discussin also on skills' checks.

The players need some infos before adventuring.
The DM that doesn't fudge, but who doesn't want to base the plot on the risk of failure of some gather information check, will give the infos in a way or another, without the roll. (you roll the dices only when the you are ready to accept the result)
The DM that fudge, let the players have the infos, but will adjust some roll of the NPCs or will not care about the "real" DC
The result is the same.

What's the difference?

A real example:

My players needed to infiltrate a fortified castle.
They totally ignored what i thought were the 2 primary options (entering in disguise through the main gate and sneaking in the sewers), preferring to sneak in the nightime climbing the walls near the mountainside.
They studied well the thing, camouflage, etc. and rolled on.
All went good 'til the difficult part: sneaking from the wall into the tower; the guards were near them, so they needed to roll move silently / hide in shadow;
The dices were good, the guards will succeed only on a 20. I rolled a 20. And ignore it, 'cause they deserved to enter and continue the adventure.
I fudge in their favour, but they rolled the dices, they heard me rolling for the guards, they were satisfied of the plan and of the points spent in those skills.
Where's the difference with "Nah, why risking, i don't roll for the guards"?

In both cases (fudge and not fudge) the DM would adjudicate a success for the idea and for plot continuity.

EDIT: it's late, I've got things to do before sleeping, so... Il'll read ya tomorrow, Tyndmyr. :smallwink:

[Umael]

I got an opposite example to give.

A (very good) GM was running a scene in a Werewolf LARP game. One of the PCs was pregnant and wanted to have her character give birth to her puppies (she was a Lupus) at a convention, with said GM* running the scene.

(* - Yes, I know. Werewolf GMs are known as Storytellers. Bite me.)

Both the player and the GM did the research on how wolves give birth, and the GM noted the size of the average litter and that that not all of the puppies will survive. So (using Beanie Baby puppies as props) the PC gave birth, and sure enough, one of the puppies was a stillborn.

The other PCs who were around tried to revive the puppy, using versus Gifts and talking to the spirit of Death and whatnot. One PC got a particularly clever idea and suggested it to the GM.

GM: "Okay, I'll allow it. However! Instead of doing the regular test (Rock-Paper-Scissors) to determine success, I will think of a number from 1 to 10. If you guess it right, the puppy lives. But you only have one chance at it."
PC: "Okay, um... 4."

The GM's eyes got wide with surprise and excitment for a moment, the players got excited, then...

GM: "Oh! You're losing him! You're losing him!!!"
Players: "Aaaaahh!"

The GM told me later on that there WAS no number. That puppy would die - but by pretending that the PCs would save the puppy, only to snatch their "victory" out from their jaws, it made for a great story.

Yes, it was a jerk manuever, but everyone thought it was also funny and memorable. Later on in the convention, when their paths crossed, the player who tried to save the puppy threw the Beanie Baby of the dead puppy at the GM and said, "Here, you puppy-killer!"

Was this the GM cheating? Yes. Did it make the game more enjoyable? Yes. Does this mean that any GM can cheat whenever they feel like it? No.

[Tyndmyr]

Ah, yes, but also if you will allow it on a success anyway.

Let's stay out of combat, given that we were discussin also on skills' checks.

The players need some infos before adventuring.
The DM that doesn't fudge, but who doesn't want to base the plot on the risk of failure of some gather information check, will give the infos in a way or another, without the roll. (you roll the dices only when the you are ready to accept the result)
The DM that fudge, let the players have the infos, but will adjust some roll of the NPCs or will not care about the "real" DC
The result is the same.

What's the difference?

Not using the "gather information" mechanic is not cheating. You don't have to use gather information for EVERYTHING in the game world.

You could have some interested NPC intentionally give them the information, as one example. There you go, PCs have the info, and you don't have to tell them to go out and gather info...and then adjudicate that they always find it. That seems like a waste of rolling.


A real example:

My players needed to infiltrate a fortified castle.
They totally ignored what i thought were the 2 primary options (entering in disguise through the main gate and sneaking in the sewers), preferring to sneak in the nightime climbing the walls near the mountainside.
They studied well the thing, camouflage, etc. and rolled on.
All went good 'til the difficult part: sneaking from the wall into the tower; the guards were near them, so they needed to roll move silently / hide in shadow;
The dices were good, the guards will succeed only on a 20. I rolled a 20. And ignore it, 'cause they deserved to enter and continue the adventure.
I fudge in their favour, but they rolled the dices, they heard me rolling for the guards, they were satisfied of the plan and of the points spent in those skills.
Where's the difference with "Nah, why risking, i don't roll for the guards"?

So...the guards can't possibly detect them at all. Because they "deserved to enter and continue the adventure".

Yeah, no point in rolling. In fact, no point in playing that part. You could have just said "you all sneak in without incident".

A better solution would have been, if they were detected, to see what happens then. They could still enter and continue the adventure unless you really designed this as a rather obvious railroad. Perhaps they can subdue the guard(s) swiftly and silently. Perhaps they flee, and try a different plan. Perhaps they learn from the guards reactions, and use this to plot a distraction.

All sorts of things can happen when things don't go exactly as planned. They don't HAVE to fail at everything because one guard rolled well on a spot.

[Serenity]

If you want them to have the information, just give it to them. If you wanted the DC lower, it should have been lower in the first place. I'm for fudging in places, but this isn't one of them.

If you want to honor the state of being "lower than the DC by one" for some reason, have it produce a lesser effect - you learn vaguer information, the door becomes loosened, the innkeeper will give you one night but then you have to get out.

Because it's perfectly possible to foresee every time that sheer luck will make them come up scarcely short of a DC which is reasonably within the player's ability to make. Again, I do not advocate doing this on all skill checks. And if not in a place like this, then where? This is precisely the least obvious means of fudging because the player does not know the DC, unless you tell him, but can see that their skill check result was pretty high.


So...the guards can't possibly detect them at all. Because they "deserved to enter and continue the adventure".

Yeah, no point in rolling. In fact, no point in playing that part. You could have just said "you all sneak in without incident".

Here's a few points to playing it out: to create tension by letting them see a chance for failure--and then reward their extensive planning and preparation with the visceral experience of handily sneaking past the guards, as opposed to hearing about it in narration? as well ask, if we know there's no chance the Joker will kill Batman, why doesn't the comic skip the fight scene and just have a text box saying 'Batman won the fight?' It also occurs to me to wonder, if the biggest complaint about fudging is that players will question their accomplishments if they know it happens, then isn't someone who does fudge to be commended for at least concealing it, as happened here, rather than copping to it with narration, as you suggest? I don't disagree with you that an intelligent party could deal with the complication, but I honestly can't see anything wrong with making the choice to ignore that 20 in that one moment.

[snoopy13a]

I think the GM should only "cheat" when they've erred and made encounters too difficult. Thus, players whose characters are outmatched for no fault of their own shouldn't experience a TPK.

However, I don't think a GM should fudge the rules to benefit the NPCs mid-battle.

[Caphi]

Because it's perfectly possible to foresee every time that sheer luck will make them come up scarcely short of a DC which is reasonably within the player's ability to make. Again, I do not advocate doing this on all skill checks. And if not in a place like this, then where? This is precisely the least obvious means of fudging because the player does not know the DC, unless you tell him, but can see that their skill check result was pretty high.

You're missing the point. If the DC was 16, and the player got a 15, and you were going to give it to them on the 15, just make the DC 15. That's why DC's are cutoffs. If you meet it, you succeed.

[Jayabalard]

Not using the "gather information" mechanic is not cheating. You don't have to use gather information for EVERYTHING in the game world. Meh, fiat is fiat; In one case you rule that some interested NPC intentionally gives them the information, and in the other you roll the dice and then have some interested NPC intentionally gives them the information.

In general, I prefer the latter; players like the sound of dice rolling, and (if done in moderation, and well) it preserves the illusion of risk even when there isn't any.


Yeah, no point in rolling. In fact, no point in playing that part. You could have just said "you all sneak in without incident".That's kind of boring compared to playing through a well GM'd series of possible encounters, especially if you are able to maintain the illusion of risk even when there isn't one; in his example it sounds like the GM was successful.


A better different solution would have been, if they were detected, to see what happens then.Fixed that; it might be better, but then again, it might not. The only thing you can really say is that it's different, or perhaps one that you prefer.


If fudging is the only way you can get a boss fight that lasts a while and has some tension(strawman), you need to get help with designing and selecting encounters. (ad hominem)This doesn't really help your argument very much; in fact it generally detracts from any valid points you are making.

and seriously, not one comment on the innuendo?

[tcrudisi]

Here's a few points to playing it out: to create tension by letting them see a chance for failure--and then reward their extensive planning and preparation with the visceral experience of handily sneaking past the guards, as opposed to hearing about it in narration? as well ask, if we know there's no chance the Joker will kill Batman, why doesn't the comic skip the fight scene and just have a text box saying 'Batman won the fight?' It also occurs to me to wonder, if the biggest complaint about fudging is that players will question their accomplishments if they know it happens, then isn't someone who does fudge to be commended for at least concealing it, as happened here, rather than copping to it with narration, as you suggest? I don't disagree with you that an intelligent party could deal with the complication, but I honestly can't see anything wrong with making the choice to ignore that 20 in that one moment.

In the cartoons (I haven't read the comics), Batman doesn't beat the Joker every fight. The stereotypical plot: bad guys beat good guys, bad guys might beat good guys again, good guys win the last fight. It was good enough for Walker, Texas Ranger and by god, that is Chuck Norris. (Since I was able to get Chuck Norris on my side, does this mean I won the thread?)


Meh, fiat is fiat; In one case you rule that some interested NPC intentionally gives them the information, and in the other you roll the dice and then have some interested NPC intentionally gives them the information.

In general, I prefer the latter; players like the sound of dice rolling, and (if done in moderation, and well) it preserves the illusion of risk even when there isn't any.

See, this is where we disagree. If I am playing and I come up with a plan so good, so creative, that my chance of failure is only if the bad guys roll a 20? Well, I don't want to see you roll. Rolling is not the reward, having the DM not roll is. In other words, as a player, I did so good that the DM didn't even have to roll. I love that.

And when I DM? That's what I tell the players: "Guys, that was brilliant. You foiled every defense that I had in place so I'm not even going to bother rolling. Way to go!"


That's kind of boring compared to playing through a well GM'd series of possible encounters, especially if you are able to maintain the illusion of risk even when there isn't one; in his example it sounds like the GM was successful.

Well, I certainly throw in lots of imaginary risk, but if my players did something so well that I'm going to give it to them anyway? I want them to know how awesomely they did it.


and seriously, not one comment on the innuendo?

Unfortunately I've only managed to read about 2/3 of this thread since I come back to it every few hours, so I missed your innuendo. Sorry. :smalltongue:

[tcrudisi]

Second: Even in D&D, the vast majority of people play with house rules (the polls I've seen have all been between 70 and 90% of people use house rules rather than the RAW), so you should never make sweeping, general arguments based on the assumption that people play by RAW, or even RAI. In this particular case, you're talking about resurrection, and from my experience I'd put the availability and mechanics of resurrection on my top 10 list of "most commonly houseruled mechanics"

I went looking for you innuendo and could not find it, so it's either before page 8 or over my head. :smallconfused: However, I did find this which I'd like to (very) briefly comment on).

When discussing a game, unless the OP specifies house-rules that are in play, the safest bet is to assume RAW. Yes, everyone has their own house-rules but only you and your group know what they are. To assume house-rules is dangerous because no two groups will use the exact same house-rules. For internet discussion purposes, therefore, people default to RAW since it makes it easier to discuss the game.

[JBento]

His innuendo is in pg.8, I believe - it's "hammering the boss" if I'm not mistaken. Even then, I don't advocate fudging - if a boss is worth hammering, she's worth hammering without GM help (but well played, sir, well played) :smallwink:

Was that "the guards only saw them in a 20" because you're taking 20 as an auto-success on skills? Because if you are, that's a houserule too (not that it's particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but since houserules were mentioned apropos... er.... something that I can't find right now, I thought I'd mention it)

Also, I finally got the GM terminology right, yay :smallsmile:

EDIT: Off to bed, more of my incessant bantering tomorrow - time dependent on the intensity of work

[Aotrs Commander]

RPGs are all illusion, anyway. If we can feel suspense and fear for a character's life in a TV show or movie even if we know they're too important to actually kill off, then there's no particular reason we cannot feel suspense even if we know the DM is fudging. By all means, the DM should not do so frequently, and should try to avoid doing so explicitly--though their have been times I have explicitly told them I'm saving one of their lives, and things haven't suffered for it. I play D&D to take part in a heroic epic. But by all means, I cheat. But when I run D&D, I'm running a heroic epic. If the ancient wizard king at the climax of the whole bloody campaign goes down like a bitch in the first round and never gets to show how he got to be a feared ancient wizard-king in the process, something's very wrong with that picture. And while character death can certainly be dramatic, I've always found the aftermath, well, isn't. Either they have a raise spell on hand, in which case, death is just another status ailment--with a stiff penalty attached to curing it. Or they drag them back to town, for much the same effect with a side order of disrupting the quest. Or else, a new character must be brought in, which often strains credulity. I can't attach a quest to raising fallen comrades, because one of my players would be sitting outside the game, twiddling his thumbs.

And this is exactly my mentality when I'm DMing. I won't kill off a character just because of bad luck (permenantly - when death is not final, I don't care, though I've nicked Pathfinder's death penalty for the one occasion I actuallly killed a PC by accident!) And also note "kill off" certainly doesn't preclude "get knocked into negatives". If the characters do something so unimaginably stupid as to warrent death, then fine. (One of these things is saying "hey, AotrsCommander won't kill us, so we're in no danger!") The fact Horatio Caine is not going to get killed (y'know, EVER) in a random gunfight (nor Luke Skywalker, or Harry Potter, or Wolverine etc etc etc) does not stop me enjoying watching or reading something. (Especially for a subsequent time).

I run modules (as does every other GM in our groups). No-one has free-forming skills, which means under practical considerations, a TPK means we don't get to play, or we have an even more fiated thing to get the game back on track (which means more work for me). As a preparation DM, it means that for every hour or so of game time, I've probably sunk in something like 2-4 hours quest-writing time.

So, I don't generally kill characters (and certainly don't TPK). Note the word "generally"; it's very important, because I don't ever say I won't ever kill anyone. (Indeed, when I'm actually running, I will give you the exact opposite impression.) That said, you can keep up the tension with the presentation of credible threat. (Both in-character and out-of-it. Like most other social-based skills, one of the key things for a good GM is a bit of psychology!)

As time has gone on though, I find the need to fudge (be it dice rolls or everything else) less. I always roll behind the screen though - if you don't like that tough, but no-one in my group would complain if the DM holds up his dice can goes "rattle rattle rattle, it's a 20." (We might take the wotsit, but not complain...) I won't be dictated to by a random number whose only purpose is to generate variance on task resolution, since the Dice Do Not Know Better Than Me. However, the occasions where they need to be adjusted are few; they can mostly be left alone to do their job without any help or interferance on my part.

(Unless we're playing Rolemaster, in which case I often will, since criticals are hilarious, but less so when they kill the PCs. On the other hand, I have officially given up with boss fights in RM anyway, fights are now almost inevitably the PCs slaughtering mooks in a variety of hilarious fashions, so who cares!)

Nowadays, to kill PCs less, I often use Fate Points (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread a la WFRP 1st edition) for the PCs. (And at higher levels, I generally don't need to bother even then with D&D.)

For the BBEGs in 3.x, I have a spectacularly successful new system, the Defiant Template. It's a stackable template that basically increments the BBEG's hit point each time it's applied, and allows them to expend a whole block of said hit points to get rid of the fight-ending effects (but at the cost of getting a cumulative -1 to everything). This means SoDs are neither ineffective, nor instant fight-winners. (Fight-finishers, though, yes!) The great thing is I can literally add it on the fly if I need to. (For example, in the converted AD&D modules I'm running, the PCs are WAY over equipped, and I'm not faffing about with Disjuction or Sunder. Normally, I treat every application of the Defiant template as +1 CR, but in these cases, I just call it even to balance all their extra kit.)

I have been astonished how effective this is. Slapping just one or two on solo monsters means that they actually last more than one round (against our consistent party size of six (or more)), while providing a damage output capability that's not unreasonably high (as a high-level creature sometimes is) AND meaning everyone can meaningfully contribute with everything from direct damage to debuffs to SoDs while keeping the fight interesting. (It's sort of like a CRPG boss fight, but one where the Final Fantasy Death spell actually contributes, rather than being a binary insta-kill or (most likely) useless.)

(It's also great for buffing solo monsters for modules with smaller party sizes! Rise of the Runelords has been getting this simply spammed, as I'll be playing with six PCs not four!.

[Serenity]

You're missing the point. If the DC was 16, and the player got a 15, and you were going to give it to them on the 15, just make the DC 15. That's why DC's are cutoffs. If you meet it, you succeed.

It's not something I usually have the opportunity to plan for. The situation is that I have set a reasonably achievable DC (or had one set for me, since most of my DMing experience has been running Pathfinder APs). The player rolls his skill check, coming up just short. In that moment, I have to make a private call in my head--do I adjust the DC, or do I call it a failure. Now in many cases, I will call it a failure--their grip slips on the rope at a critical juncture, they can't quite put their finger on something, or what have you. But sometimes, whether to reward a well-thought out approach to the task, or because things are more interesting if its achieved, I might just subtract 1 from the DC, which I never told them.

Also, I am intrigued by this Defiant template and wish to learn more. Might you post it on the Homebrew forums, or provide a finely crafted link to further information?

[Ashiel]

Y'know, I've decided that since reading this thread I will cheat always. If I'm playing D&D, since it's just a fantasy and a story telling game, and we're all here to have fun. So from now on I shall always...

Roll 20s.
And save against stuff.
And I won't fail skill checks.

Because failing isn't fun, and the rules are just guidelines anyway. Why should I expect to follow the rules as a player if you won't follow the rules as a GM? I hate double standards more than anything, except maybe cheaters.

I don't cheat in my games, and my players know this. They have all told me that the difficulty and true threat of failure makes it far more fun to play in my games. In our group, we have 2 people who GMed (myself and another fellow). He has been caught fudging dice, and he has openly admitted that if the party's druid cast Baleful Polymorph on a dragon he would have fudged it.

Guess who doesn't GM anymore, because no one wants to play when he's GMing?

Now there is one caveat. I will cheat if I catch you cheating. If you - the player - fudge dice, or cheat, then that gives me the GM the right to cheat so expect that next attack targeted at you to be 20/20 with above average damage; since what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Kylarra]

On the flipside is Pun-pun, the omniscifier, the diplomancer and a host of other things, so I think we'll find a suitable area for gaming somewhere in the middle of the two slippery slopes. :smallwink:

[Serenity]

Yeah, there's a world of difference between a GM judiciously fudging for the sake of tension or ironing out really dumb luck, and a player 'choosing to roll all 20s'. None of us pro-fudgers advocate anywhere near that level of shenanigans on the DM's part, and, frankly, the DM isn't just another player. He runs the entire world. He arbitrates, interprets, and chooses the rules, and can change them if he likes. The GM can't break the rules, because ultimately, he decides what they are. Now there is a social contract at play that he must be mindful of, and plenty of things that he shouldn't do, even though he can. And there's plenty of room for debate on the appropriateness of DM fudging--an answer which will vary from table to table. But to equate the argument in favor of fudging with an argument for god-moding PCs is a gross misrepresentation, and frankly disrespectful.

[Ashiel]

On the flipside is Pun-pun, the omniscifier, the diplomancer and a host of other things, so I think we'll find a suitable area for gaming somewhere in the middle of the two slippery slopes.

There's a difference between house rules and cheating. If I introduce a rule, or say "the following is not allowed", that's fine. Cheating the dice (aka - fudging, which is synonymous for CHEATING CHEATING CHEATING) and taking away your spell, or your critical hit, or even the honor of managing to do or die on your own; feel free to brick me with your PHB.


Yeah, there's a world of difference between a GM judiciously fudging for the sake of tension or ironing out really dumb luck, and a player 'choosing to roll all 20s'. None of us pro-fudgers advocate anywhere near that level of shenanigans on the DM's part, and, frankly, the DM isn't just another player. He runs the entire world. He arbitrates, interprets, and chooses the rules, and can change them if he likes. The GM can't break the rules, because ultimately, he decides what they are. Now there is a social contract at play that he must be mindful of, and plenty of things that he shouldn't do, even though he can. And there's plenty of room for debate on the appropriateness of DM fudging--an answer which will vary from table to table. But to equate the argument in favor of fudging with an argument for god-moding PCs is a gross misrepresentation, and frankly disrespectful.

You say disrespectful, I say disgraceful. There is no difference. You cheat, I cheat. You play fair, then I play fair. That's the way it works. If I don't trust you, I don't like you. If I don't like you, I don't wanna game with you. I can go roleplay on a forum somewhere freeform if I don't want to play with dice. There's no appropriateness to it. It's cheating by a different name.

If you cheat the dice then you better well be ready to allow your players to cheat to, otherwise you're being a hypocrite - and a poorly concealed one at that. What would you say if your player slid the d20 over to a 20? "I don't want to die, it would ruin my enjoyment of the game" he says. "I really wanted to succeed at this skill check, for my enjoyment of the game" she says. "I think the story would be better if this happened so we all got critical hits this round DM" they say.

Yeah right. Nothing more than hiding behind a title.

[Kaun]

i appoligise for this stupid question in advance BUUUUUUUUUUUTT....

Has this thread actualy caused anybody to alter there stance on the question raised in the OP?

From reading the posts it just seems like endless smashing of heads together.

[Ashiel]

i appoligise for this stupid question in advance BUUUUUUUUUUUTT....

Has this thread actualy caused anybody to alter there stance on the question raised in the OP?

From reading the posts it just seems like endless smashing of heads together.

Actually yes. It's caused me to shift to an even more extreme distaste for cheating.

[Kaun]

Actually yes. It's caused me to shift to an even more extreme distaste for cheating.

ok so thats 1 vote for "no".

It just seems like such a personal taste thing that affects nobody but the people involved in each individual game.

[Ashiel]

ok so thats 1 vote for "no".

It just seems like such a personal taste thing that affects nobody but the people involved in each individual game.

{{scrubbed}}

[Kaun]

{{scrubbed}}

So your angrey because people you don't know got "cheated" in a friendly game your not involved in?

Thats some serious passion for the cause sir!

[Ashiel]

So your angrey because people you don't know got "cheated" in a friendly game your not involved in?

Thats some serious passion for the cause sir!

Well I cannot help but to imagine myself in their shoes. Treat people the way you want to be treated, y'know? I would never do something like that to one of my friends and players. I had a player who specialized in Save or Die spells as a tactical concept and that would be been terrible to do to him. His most dramatic victory was casting flesh to stone on an avatar of Tiamat that was railing the party pretty hard. Dropped it from like 98% health to the party's new doorstop in 1 shot.

Call it passion if you want, but I call it right and wrong. Taking away his victory because my own egotistical sense of how something should be is wrong, and it means I need to take a break from GMing (or maybe get more practice).

[Umael]

Actually yes. It's caused me to shift to an even more extreme distaste for cheating.

Sorry, Ashiel, there is no Role-playing Police Force.

[Kaun]

Call it passion if you want, but I call it right and wrong. Taking away his victory because my own egotistical sense of how something should be is wrong, and it means I need to take a break from GMing (or maybe get more practice).

Right and wrong would sugest that the problem is black and white where it isn't, its a massive grey issue hence why there realy is no answer just personal preferance.

[hobbitkniver]

IMHO: The GM has final say on everything. They can do whatever they want as long as they keep the game fun for everyone. If this means cheating for or against the players, so be it.

[Jerohan]

The GM shoudl always be a cheating, rotten bastard who's sole goal is to make the player's lives miserable.

Include nonsensical traps like the "Gnommish ****-punch", where a gnome pops out of nowhere, punches the player in the ****, then ninja vanishes before the player can react.

Hell, thats not to say the GM can't be a douchebag even when following the rules. One instance, my character got set on fire... I forgot, cause I'm a barbarian, and my reaction was to just use my rage and keep swinging my axe even when I'm on fire. Im a berserker. Badass is my middle name.

Anyway, mid fight, both me and my brother, the GM, forgot. We kill the encounter, we loot the bodies, we go into the next room, we do some things...

And suddenly, he remembers, and goes "Hey, yeah, I just realized... you've been on fire for the last 16 rounds. You take fire damage for the whole time."

Ass.

[tcrudisi]

i apologize for this stupid question in advance BUUUUUUUUUUUTT....

Has this thread actually caused anybody to alter there stance on the question raised in the OP?

I have not changed my stance from one side to the other, but it has caused me to reflect upon my opinion and consider both sides of the argument. I still support my initial side but I have a better understanding of why I do so.

I do find it funny that the reason that I feel against the DM cheating and the reason that people are for the DM cheating are one and the same -- ultimately, we feel it makes for a more fun game.

After pondering their side, I understand why they feel that way. It just boils down to the fact that if I were a player and I found out that my character survived because the DM fudged a monster defense, I would be very... dissatisfied. If my character dies honestly, or even if the DM puts forth a challenge that is too tough and my character dies, I do not get angry with character death. It happens. But if my character survived when it shouldn't have? Or if the DM made a fight run an hour longer than it should have because he wanted the fight to last longer? Well, he just wasted an hour of our lives where we could have been progressing the story or working on a new story.

[Ashiel]

The GM shoudl always be a cheating, rotten bastard who's sole goal is to make the player's lives miserable.

Include nonsensical traps like the "Gnommish ****-punch", where a gnome pops out of nowhere, punches the player in the ****, then ninja vanishes before the player can react.

Hell, thats not to say the GM can't be a douchebag even when following the rules. One instance, my character got set on fire... I forgot, cause I'm a barbarian, and my reaction was to just use my rage and keep swinging my axe even when I'm on fire. Im a berserker. Badass is my middle name.

Anyway, mid fight, both me and my brother, the GM, forgot. We kill the encounter, we loot the bodies, we go into the next room, we do some things...

And suddenly, he remembers, and goes "Hey, yeah, I just realized... you've been on fire for the last 16 rounds. You take fire damage for the whole time."

Ass.

Haha. Yes, it's true a GM can be a jerk no matter what, but no sense fueling the fire (no pun intended :smallbiggrin:). Truthfully, I would have just requested your reflex saves in order for every round after you stopped fighting and did damage based on the difference between the ones you failed or succeeded; then went on with the game (effectively emulating what would have happened if I hadn't forgotten); or allowed you to douse yourself with liquid IF there was some handy (not sure what was around you during your game).

But setting you on fire to begin with, possibly multiple times, would indeed have been something I would have done. :smallwink:

[Serenity]

My opinion, at it's core, is no more and no less than this: I believe there exist some situations in which fudging the dice is appropriate. When this is will vary wildly by individual taste, from adventure to adventure, from table to table, from system to system--and D&D, at least, makes the decision of if and when such a situation occurs the prerogative of the GM.

[Ashiel]

My opinion, at it's core, is no more and no less than this: I believe there exist some situations in which fudging the dice is appropriate. When this is will vary wildly by individual taste, from adventure to adventure, from table to table, from system to system--and D&D, at least, makes the decision of if and when such a situation occurs the prerogative of the GM.

Not that it will matter to anyone but...

I've been GMing 3E/3.5 for 10 years now. Ten long, wonderful years. I had a total party kill once that I can think of (the very beginning of the Red Hand of Doom adventure path by WotC), to which the players all got excited and re-rolled new characters and started again, ready to try again, and ready to see what new challenges it had to offer. These are also very role-play minded characters - who ended up doing a lot outside of the adventure campaign such as forming their own mercenary armies to fight the hobgoblin army and so forth. There were several deaths (and several uses of raise dead) before the campaign was over.

They were getting rocked by the end boss, before it was dropped by the party wizard's flesh to stone spell. Giant multi-headed dragon monstrosity was taken out by a flesh to stone.

Thus far, I've yet to find any need or any place where fudging was needed, or even a good idea. One of the players who had his character die once or twice said it was the best campaign he'd ever been in.

YMMV I guess.

[BobVosh]

I just am going to pop in to say what I always say in these threads: No. Especially not on dice rolls. A rule from paranoia that I feel should be a general rule for every game: Only ever roll the dice if you do not know what you want to happen (DMs obviously)

I have only cheated 2x as a DM for about 4 years. Both were so the players would have a clue what to do/where to go. If the plot stalls suddenly there is another witness to talk to them, or whatever.

[Dralnu]

I cheat very rarely in order to save a PC. The few times that I ended up killing a PC, the player would sit there like a dejected puppy. That sucks. I'll sometimes fudge a roll so that my NPC doesn't get the critical hit it rolled to kill a PC.

Something I used to do when I was brand new to DMing and never do these days is fudge rolls to let an NPC live longer than it should've. My reasoning behind those before was "well this NPC is really cool and didn't get a chance to do his/her cool stuff yet." Bad reason imo.

Oddly enough, all of my RL friend's first D&D campaign was under a brilliant DM that ruthlessly killed off our characters for stupidity or just luck of the rolls. Of the six players, five characters died, two of them dying twice. I LOVED it. I really don't mind when my PC dies, but I guess other people do and can respect that.

[Aotrs Commander]

Also, I am intrigued by this Defiant template and wish to learn more. Might you post it on the Homebrew forums, or provide a finely crafted link to further information?

I posted up some time ago on these very boards, but thread is now archived.


Defiant Monster Template

A Defiant creature is one that is extremely hard to kill. They cling to life (or unlife) with a tenacity unheard of by lesser creatures. The reasons are many. They may be chosen by destiny, favoured by some higher power, powered by some unspeakable ritual magic, driven by their sheer bloody-minded will to survive or they may simply be preternaturally fortunate.

The Defiant Template can be applied to any creature, hereafter referred to as the Base Creature. This template can be applied up to five times (or more if the party size is larger).

All statistics are as the base creature except:

HD: A Defiant creature always has maximum hit points. A Defiant creature’s hit points are divided into blocks, with the base creature’s maximum hit points forming the first block. For each time this template is taken, it gains an additional block of hit points equal to it’s maximum hit points. When one block is reduced to 0, damage transfers immediately to the next one.

These are not temporary hit points and are treated as regular hit points; if the creature’s Constitution is reduced (or any other stat that applies to it’s hit points), the base and the blocks are all reduced accordingly. Effects that reduce a creature’s hit points to 0 or 1 (e.g. Harm, suffocation) instead reduce the current block’s hit points to 0 or 1. Effects which likewise function on current hit points only treat the current block’s hit points. The creature’s HD remain unaffected.

Defiant creature hit points are indicated with the format x+x, where x is the base creature’s maximum hit points, with each block being separated by the plus sign.

Temporary hit points are not counted as part of the blocks, i.e. the creatures only gets them once. They thus are not lost when a block is sacrificed, nor do they count as a block themselves (and so cannot be used with I Got Better). Temporary hits are listed first in stat blocks in the notation y+x+x.

Special Qualities: As the base creature plus the following special ability.
I Got Better (Ex): Once per encounter per template application, if the Defiant creature fails a saving throw, it can reroll it’s save as a free action. It cannot reroll any one save more than once. Each time it uses a reroll, it takes a cumulative -1 penalty to attack rolls, skill and ability checks, opposed checks and saves.

At the end of it’s turn, as a Swift action, the Defiant creature can expend one full block of hit-points to negate any one negative condition, power, spell or other negative effect currently affecting it. This effect on the creature (only) ends immediately.

Any time the Defiant is subject to a non-hit-point-damaging effect that kills it outright or leaves it otherwise Confused, Cowering, Dazed, Helpless, Nauseated, Paralysed, Petrified (or similar), Polymorphed or Stunned, it may expend a full block of hit points to negate that portion of the effect.

A block of hit points expended by this power must be one that is completely undamaged.

CR +1 for each template application.

[Killer Angel]

So...the guards can't possibly detect them at all. Because they "deserved to enter and continue the adventure".

Yeah, no point in rolling. In fact, no point in playing that part. You could have just said "you all sneak in without incident".


To me (as a player) it would be boring. If I'm rolling a dice, there's the risk to lose, and so the success is more flavorful.
If the DM say "great plan, you sneak in", then why bother spending points in move silently?
Keep in mind that, the situation was the one described, 'cause they rolled good... with worst rolls, I wouldn't have cheated the 20. In fact, I was rewarding their planning AND their good rolls.
Saying "you all sneak in without incident", eliminates even the risk of a bad roll from the players, and becomes a mere storytelling.
Usually, when I "fudge", it's just a matter of +1, never more than +2.
I never change drastically the dices' result: sse also Serenity's post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9272166&postcount=263).


Was that "the guards only saw them in a 20" because you're taking 20 as an auto-success on skills? Because if you are, that's a houserule too (not that it's particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but since houserules were mentioned apropos... er.... something that I can't find right now, I thought I'd mention it)


Your right that's not relevant, but, anyway, it was not a house rule: with their bonus, the guards needed exactly a 20 to beat the players' result (and a 19 for a tie).


Has this thread actualy caused anybody to alter there stance on the question raised in the OP?

From reading the posts it just seems like endless smashing of heads together.

In a certain way, yes.
I wanna give an amount of "daily luck points", expendable to modify or rerolling dices, both to the players and to my NPS/monsters... this way, we all can effectively fudge some results in a "official" way.


Well you see, I originally didn't think much more of it beyond "I don't do that, and wouldn't do that", but after reading this thread and the horrible stuff some GMs will do - like cheating their players out of their spell slots - I became even more infuriated with the idea of such things. This thread has made me realize that not only is it a sign of a bad GM, but also a sign of a bad person.

Please don't judge us as players or even person, by your own playstyle. :smallwink:
You gave valid examples where you and your group have great fun without fudging.
I (and others) can do the same, both as DM and Players, with very satisfying campaing with some fudged dices.
And certainly, I wouldn't impose my DM style to a player like you, that hates fudge, 'cause in that case I would fail as a DM, not giving fun, neither entertainement.

[Psyx]

Elaborate, please.
It seems that, if you don't want the risk of a failure from the players due to a bad roll (ex. gather information), you don't require the roll at all and go on with the story.
If it's so, it's no more different than fudge the dices.

Once again: I never said that I never fudge. Just that I NEVER would let my players know, and I only do it in utter, utter extremis. I certainly don't do it to save PCs on a regular basis. Maybe multiple PCs, but only if they deserve it!

Ok... example: The entire plot involves on decoding something scribbled on a tomb wall. In the first case (there being alternatives), having the entire plot dependant on one die roll is a bad move. To alleviate this we could either:

1) Write it in English. No roll required. No chance of plot dying through one bad roll. Or make sure it's in a language that you know a PC is fluent in. If your entire plot rests on a dice roll, and you aren't willing to allow that dice roll to fail... why exactly are you asking for a dice roll?

2) Have the information available elsewhere, with other dice rolls. As a quick and dirty example, have the message in three ancient languages, giving three chances at the roll. Each language has a slightly different nuance to the message, so getting all three would give a fuller picture, but only 1 is needed.

3) It's in one language, and -say- DC25. But there was a lexicography available earlier in the plot (+10). The other carvings in the tomb -if found and examined- can be used to compare with and gain a bit of insight (+1 per text. ten other texts). Speaking the name of the king who was buried here, or the names of other important figures or locations makes the word in question glow, giving canny characters another +1 for each word/name that they know.

4) Make them actually work for it. No dice. Make a simple substitution cypher and hand it to them to figure out. If they can't do it, maybe let them resort to dice, but if that fails... then they need to sit there for as long as it takes to figure it out, and to provide me with tea in the meantime!


Now I don't need to fudge anything.

When I set a DC in advance, I stick to it. If I want it to be 1 lower, then I make it 1 lower. Simple as that. If it's plot critical, then there will be a safety net, or another way of dealing with the issue.

If I don't set a DC in advance, then I'm more flexible. As long as everyone got a decent result, I'll give the success to the highest result, or taint other results with ideas and insights specific to that character, and I'll have a sliding scale of success. For example, if the party see an NPC and make 'sense motive checks', the bodyguard in the party will likely notice that the NPC's man servant is really a bodyguard, as they always put themselves between the principle and possible threats. A better result would provide more information. If EVERYONE gets a bad result (which is ridiculously unlikely) then they don't get any information. If it's crucial, then I'll make sure they can get the information later perhaps. Or maybe not.

Once again though: I ALWAYS have a luck mechanic when I run games. If something is crucial and nobody is tossing in a luck point, I might hint. Otherwise, it's down to players to decide for themselves what is important enough to use their 'fudging' on. If a player used theirs to hit something harder and is now faced with doom because of it... maybe they should have saved that luck point for something more important!


The dices were good, the guards will succeed only on a 20. I rolled a 20. And ignore it, 'cause they deserved to enter and continue the adventure.
I fudge in their favour, but they rolled the dices, they heard me rolling for the guards, they were satisfied of the plan and of the points spent in those skills.
Where's the difference with "Nah, why risking, i don't roll for the guards"?

See: If I've decided that the guards only pass on a 20, and roll a 20, then I stick to it. If I decide that the plan is SO GOOD that it deserves to succeed, why would I pick up the dice: I'm just lying to myself. Don't set yourself a DC and then don't stick to it if you never planned to anyway. Just roll the dice, glance at them and say 'you make it'.

In this situation, I'd first roll a d10 to see how attentive the guards are, and relay that to the players. On -say- a 1-4 the guards are goofing off /changing and have NO chance, 5-9: 5% 10 really on alert: 10%. that swings chance even more in their favour. Yet there is still that tiny element of risk there which makes it exciting. Then they get to choose if they want to proceed, and if the guards are attentive and then roll that 20, then at least the party are primed for the possibility.

Risk is exciting. If that slim chance of failure never occurs because of generosity, then the players will notice, and will no longer feel the reward associated with the risk.

[Psyx]

Example just sprung to mind as regards why not every great plan deserves to automatically succeed:

James Bond has an awesome infiltration plan. He sneaks in, but then -even though the GM has only assigned a 5% failure chance- it all goes wrong. There is a massive combat involving bungee chords and liquid nitrogen.

Who is to say that the later is not more fun than the plan succeeding? Failing the roll doesn't auto-kill the PCs: It just makes it hard for them. They're tough adventurers: They'll live with it!

[Aotrs Commander]

See: If I've decided that the guards only pass on a 20, and roll a 20, then I stick to it. If I decide that the plan is SO GOOD that it deserves to succeed, why would I pick up the dice: I'm just lying to myself. Don't set yourself a DC and then don't stick to it if you never planned to anyway. Just roll the dice, glance at them and say 'you make it'.

In this situation, I'd first roll a d10 to see how attentive the guards are, and relay that to the players. On -say- a 1-4 the guards are goofing off /changing and have NO chance, 5-9: 5% 10 really on alert: 10%. that swings chance even more in their favour. Yet there is still that tiny element of risk there which makes it exciting. Then they get to choose if they want to proceed, and if the guards are attentive and then roll that 20, then at least the party are primed for the possibility.

Risk is exciting. If that slim chance of failure never occurs because of generosity, then the players will notice, and will no longer feel the reward associated with the risk.

I would most probably have gone with the roll (crap happens sometimes). If, however, I felt it would have been deterimental to the adventure for them to have failed at that point, I would have simply rolled the dice for the pretty sound they make and then ignored the results and told them they weren't spotted. After all, (as I roll behind my screen), the PCs never know what I'm rolling for.

(Seeding a little paranoia always helps things, I feel. There's nothing like calling for spot and listen checks and then telling them they see nothing (because there's nothing to see). Or just rolling dice and then smiling with satisifaction for no reason. Sends 'em crazy...)

[Killer Angel]

having the entire plot dependant on one die roll is a bad move.


Totally agree.


To alleviate this we could either:
(snip)
Now I don't need to fudge anything.

When I set a DC in advance, I stick to it. If I want it to be 1 lower, then I make it 1 lower. Simple as that. If it's plot critical, then there will be a safety net, or another way of dealing with the issue.

If I don't set a DC in advance, then I'm more flexible. As long as everyone got a decent result, I'll give the success to the highest result,


I don't think that, OOC, fudging and not fudgin, are so different.
Non Fudger: The players need something, they have various way to obtain it, they'll have it with good ideas, having various skills, roleplaying, giving the infos to the more skilled character, etc. If the players are passive, they receive little.
Fudger: more or less the same, but with more use of dice rolls; a DC is setted, that is a mere guidance for the effective difficulty of the task. You roll bad? you receive little. You roll almost the DC? well, I can alter the DC for good roleplaying/ideas/etc.
The story moves on either way.

The same is for skill contests between NPC and PC, you can avoid rolls, or you can roll and feel free to ignore the result if the difference is minimal.
The Non Fudger, doesn't want to feel constricted by the roll's result, the Fudger think that sometime, the result can be ignored.
On this matter, is important to note that the Fudger doesn't decide in advance to fudge a roll. The roll IS important, 'cause can give me a scale of the success or failure. It's only when the things are "on the edge" that, sometime, the fudger can decide to apply a "circumstance bonus".

If a DM "fears" a dice result, limiting the rolls to the minimal, while I don't feel constricted to stick to it at all costs, i don't know who's the more flexible... :smalltongue:



Once again though: I ALWAYS have a luck mechanic when I run games. If something is crucial and nobody is tossing in a luck point, I might hint. Otherwise, it's down to players to decide for themselves what is important enough to use their 'fudging' on. If a player used theirs to hit something harder and is now faced with doom because of it... maybe they should have saved that luck point for something more important!


In combat, fudging is a whole different matter. I'll use your idea of luck points, it's definitely the best advice I've read in this thread. :smallsmile:

[Frozen_Feet]

Whether or not I cheat bend the rules in an appropriate manner, depends on several things. Namely

How well my players know the system
What kind of a game I'm running
What rules are in question.


If my players don't know the system, it's often not that consequential whether I cheat or not - because it looks like I'm pulling stuff from my behind regardless. :smallbiggrin: To new players, it isn't really important what rules I follow or how, as long as I explain myself, they feel I'm being fair and they have fun.

If I'm running an old-school "everything's trying to kill you" scenario, then you can bet I'll follow the rules to the letter, no matter how inane or diabolic they might be. If, on the other hand, I have a story and I want it to go somewhere, I might fudge unlucky rolls just a bit so that the story doesn't come to a screeching halt.

The last bit is the most complicated, because in a roleplaying game, there are multiple rulesets at play.

First, there are rules that stem from the game system - the explicit mechanics written in a rulebook. I'm least likely to barter from these - if I have a system, it's there to be used, not ignored when me or someone else feels like it.

Second, there are rules that stem from narrative - causality, common sense and logic of the game world; stuff that isn't made explicit in the system rules, but is unquestionably there. (If you don't get it, here's an example: an oil soaked rag will catch fire, even if there are no mechanical rules for objects catching fire, or any rules for fire at all.) Sometimes, when I need to prevent the game from stalling, I make ninjas burst through the door or have both doors leading into same place when they shouldn't, and later retcon such silliness so that it manages to make sense, but overall I'm quite strict about these things. As a rule of a thumb, if something wouldn't make sense in the real world, chances are it won't in the game, either.

Thirdly, there are social rules, but I doubt the scope of this thread was really meant to include those. :smallcool:

[Psyx]

I don't think that, OOC, fudging and not fudgin, are so different.

To me, viewing my own GMing, fudging outside of combat smacks of either poor planning (failing to account what would happen if the check failed), or poor imagination (unable to quickly come up with another way for the problem to be solved). If I have to fudge something in a desperate manner outside of combat, I have essentially failed somewhere in the brain department. It's my fault, and due to poor GMing.

For that reason alone, I'd encourage GMs who 'depend' on fudging to try to find ways on cutting back on it: You can't always just blame the dice for it. Certainly: The more I've GMed, the less I've ever had to fudge, so there is clearly some kind of relationship there.

I also consider that when I planned the scenario, I gave that risk of failure for a deliberate and considered reason. If I'm not willing to stand by that, then why did I bother planning anything? And I've probably already considered the results of failure. I'm not about to over-ride that with a spur-of-the-moment choice I make while I'm feeling generous/drunk at the table...



If a DM "fears" a dice result, limiting the rolls to the minimal, while I don't feel constricted to stick to it at all costs, i don't know who's the more flexible.

The non-fudger: Because they are willing to allow more than one result to possibly happen. the fudger is pre-determining matters and then -if the dice don't agree- simply over-ruling the dice. It's like opening a box to find Schroedinger's Cat, finding it alive, thinking 'I forgot to buy catfood' and shooting it to solve the problem.
You've essentially rail-roaded the party. Perhaps in the sense that you kept them on the track, rather than sending them crashing into a ravine, but it's still a rail-road. I'd prefer to send them crashing, but to have already planned for the back axle of the carriage to get stuck on a boulder, and make them climb up and out of the carriage, dusty and a few HP down for their efforts.




In combat, fudging is a whole different matter.

Agreed. Cheers for the positive comment.

[dsmiles]

To me, viewing my own GMing, fudging outside of combat smacks of either poor planning (failing to account what would happen if the check failed), or poor imagination (unable to quickly come up with another way for the problem to be solved). If I have to fudge something in a desperate manner outside of combat, I have essentially failed somewhere in the brain department. It's my fault, and due to poor GMing.

For that reason alone, I'd encourage GMs who 'depend' on fudging to try to find ways on cutting back on it: You can't always just blame the dice for it. Certainly: The more I've GMed, the less I've ever had to fudge, so there is clearly some kind of relationship there.

I also consider that when I planned the scenario, I gave that risk of failure for a deliberate and considered reason. If I'm not willing to stand by that, then why did I bother planning anything? And I've probably already considered the results of failure. I'm not about to over-ride that with a spur-of-the-moment choice I make while I'm feeling generous/drunk at the table...



The non-fudger: Because they are willing to allow more than one result to possibly happen. the fudger is pre-determining matters and then -if the dice don't agree- simply over-ruling the dice. It's like opening a box to find Schroedinger's Cat, finding it alive, thinking 'I forgot to buy catfood' and shooting it to solve the problem.
You've essentially rail-roaded the party. Perhaps in the sense that you kept them on the track, rather than sending them crashing into a ravine, but it's still a rail-road. I'd prefer to send them crashing, but to have already planned for the back axle of the carriage to get stuck on a boulder, and make them climb up and out of the carriage, dusty and a few HP down for their efforts.





Agreed. Cheers for the positive comment.

See, I kind of agree here. I don't fudge out of combat, period. Most out of combat checks do not involve random player death. Oout of combat situations almost always provide an alternate sequence of events if the character's plan fails. Sometimes it involves them getting into a combat situation, but it just as often leaves the players languishing in a dungeon somewhere for a couple of game days (or about 5-10 minutes of real time, while the players come up with an escape plan).

It's the completely random death caused by Mook # 4,241.5 that gets me. The mooks are a supporting cast, which is one of the reasons I like the 4e minion system so much. Minions are so easy to dispose of, and it keeps massive encounters feasible without a high chance of random player death. Since I started 4e, I havent had to fudge a single die. 50 orcs and 4 PCs? No problem, only a couple of those orcs are really a threat anyways.

[Killer Angel]

The non-fudger: Because they are willing to allow more than one result to possibly happen. the fudger is pre-determining matters and then -if the dice don't agree- simply over-ruling the dice. It's like opening a box to find Schroedinger's Cat, finding it alive, thinking 'I forgot to buy catfood' and shooting it to solve the problem.
You've essentially rail-roaded the party.


It depends case by case, sometime it's the contrary.
See my example of the PCs sneaking through the guards.
The non fudger would adjudicate positively the preparation, letting the group enter for the good job done. He's limiting (rail-roading) the scenario.
The fudger let the players roll: if the roll is good but not sufficient for a little, I adjudicate the success, even if they needed one more point to beat the guards' skills, but if the roll were bad... then the guards would have given the alarm. I wasn't limiting the scenario, I was giving a bonus to the players for their effort. A bonus i decided to give'em after the roll. Being sure that, for that session, the Destiny would have no more favours for 'em.



Agreed. Cheers for the positive comment.

You're welcome. :smallwink:

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, there's a world of difference between a GM judiciously fudging for the sake of tension or ironing out really dumb luck, and a player 'choosing to roll all 20s'. None of us pro-fudgers advocate anywhere near that level of shenanigans on the DM's part

But is it ok for the players to just cheat a little? The same amount the GM cheats? I would say no. And if I notice a player doing so, I'll call them on it.

Killed a player with a random encounter last night. Of course, he did choose to enter the woods he knew to be filled with high level encounters all by his lonesome, with no effort to even bother remaining undetected. Then, when he could have ran, having spotted the enemy first, he chose to attack. Despite being a level six party, they managed to scrape together the resources to get a raise dead. It was costly, and the roleplayed out argument of if they'd spend the cash or just raise him as a zombie was awesome. I expect he'll be slightly more wary in the future. In fact, the party discussed his past foolish actions while debating if he was worth raising. Ah, good times.

[Jerohan]

I will say this; as a player, I cheat like crazy. Ability scores, and especially dice rolls.

But, hey, thats the price the DM pays for not watching me like a hawk. And I will say I'm a step below him; he loads his dice.

Cheater's tip: You can easily make you own home-made loaded dice with either some vinegar or a microwave/your own car. With the vinegar option, simply pour a tiny bit into the cap of the vinegar bottom (unless it's too small for the dice to fit), then put th die in there with the desired number facing up. Leave in there for a few minutes for a lightly weighted, more inconspicuous die, or for an hour or two for a heavily loaded, but more noticable, die.

For the heated version, simply but the die with the valued number facing up in your microwave for about 20 seconds. this can only be doen with plastic dice, mind you. Or you can leave them in your car, desired number face up, on a really hot day in the summer, for a couple of days.

[Volthawk]

But, hey, thats the price the DM pays for not watching me like a hawk.

So because he pays attention to the game at large as well as the group as a whole instead of focusing on you, it's fair game for you to cheat?

[The Big Dice]

Minions are so easy to dispose of, and it keeps massive encounters feasible without a high chance of random player death. Since I started 4e, I havent had to fudge a single die. 50 orcs and 4 PCs? No problem, only a couple of those orcs are really a threat anyways.
Minions annoy me. NPCS that exist for the sole reason of dying on the blade of a PC is something I find tedious. Why bother with the 50 if only a couple of them are a real threat anyway? Skip the 48 useless ones that just turn the fight into a three hour marathon. Get right to the purpose of things.

[Psyx]

^See; there's no way that should be fudged. Not only did the dice 'kill' the PC, but a string of stupid choices did, too.

I do believe that a party who doesn't ever back down from a challenge does deserve to die. IRL, none of us assume that we can overcome every problem or fight that we encounter because life doesn't work like that. As for heroic storytelling... well that doesn't always work that way either: Heroes run away or get beaten up and loose a few of their number to a foe every now and again. Narrative does not require that characters do not and cannot be killed by trivial occurrence.




It's the completely random death caused by Mook # 4,241.5 that gets me.

To me; it's -if I've done my job as a GM right- so statistically unlikely that they will kill PCs, that when it does happen I'm generally happy to live with the consequences. Otherwise PCs soon come to the conclusion that I won't kill them unless it's 'important', and it removes their sense of risk in most combats. I've already given the PCs luck points, so it takes something pretty astoundingly unlikely for one of them to die unless I've made them a big enough threat to kill PCs on purpose.

The fudge-issue I have is when there is a 'squishy' and weaker non-combat PC cops in the face the axe of a minion who was designed to be a mild threat to one of the front-liners. Typically in my campaigns, there will be a spectrum of ability and spread of XP: Not everyone makes every game, and some characters have been going for a very long while.
If the group is small, the squishy PC may not be doing anything 'wrong' to have got into the fight, nor for playing a character not min-maxed for combat. I won't fudge the dice if it was the front-line tanks taking the hit, because they are ludicrously unlikely to be killed by it (and if they are: Tough. That's why the encounter was there!) and it was 'their' threat to face because I penned it that way. But I might drop the damage against the Squishy guy if he takes the bad critical hit. It wouldn't miss, and would drop them, but wouldn't be enough to actually kill them.

I certainly don't ever fudge hits against 'my' monsters, regardless of who they are. It's surprised the party how easily a couple of NPC have been dropped, but it was followed by choruses of 'Oh YEAH!' and high fives, so I don't think it detracted from the game at all.


Additional: I do fudge dice if players are cheating. 'Oh look, another shot to the face with the .50BMG machinegun.'

[Tyndmyr]

I will say this; as a player, I cheat like crazy. Ability scores, and especially dice rolls.

But, hey, thats the price the DM pays for not watching me like a hawk. And I will say I'm a step below him; he loads his dice.



Does this sort of gaming environment make for a fun game?

[hamishspence]

Even minions are a threat if the character ignores them. And some minion monsters are designed to be a scary encounter all on their own.

Clockwork horrors, in Demonomicon, may qualify.

[Jerohan]

Does this sort of gaming environment make for a fun game?

Oh yeah. Cheating is half the fun. It's also double the lulz when your playing a paladin type character.

[Umael]

Does this sort of gaming environment make for a fun game?

In any earlier version of this thread, I posted an example where this kind of gaming environment could actually be fun (basically, playing cutthroats, cheats, and otherwise very pirate-esque).

For the most part though, I would think not.

[Aotrs Commander]

Killed a player with a random encounter last night. Of course, he did choose to enter the woods he knew to be filled with high level encounters all by his lonesome, with no effort to even bother remaining undetected. Then, when he could have ran, having spotted the enemy first, he chose to attack. Despite being a level six party, they managed to scrape together the resources to get a raise dead. It was costly, and the roleplayed out argument of if they'd spend the cash or just raise him as a zombie was awesome. I expect he'll be slightly more wary in the future. In fact, the party discussed his past foolish actions while debating if he was worth raising. Ah, good times.

Now, I wouldn't qualify that as "accidental" death as much as "PC stupidity". If the PCs are doing something they really shouldn't (because the players should know better) I have no mercy. I do step in when a string of bad luck in an encounter would kill them through no fault of their own (crit in the wrong place, perhaps) AND the PCs have no means of coping with that loss (i.e. by Fate points of being high level enough for Raise or something).

Example case: I was starting a day quest for a new party. The set-up was not the tired old "you meet in an inn" but "you have all ended up in this field hospital and it gets attacked by Evil Wasp Minions". It was supposed to be an intro fight, to a) get everyone aquainted with their new characters (they were starting at level 6) and b) to introduce them to each other.

Now, the psion got attacked by several of the things (which are supposedly about CR 2). Wouldn't have been a problem; he had loads of stuff, loads of area effect attacks. It was the first time he'd played a psionic character. He hit off a Psionic Blast. Now, they had +1 on Will saves. His save DC was 17. And all four made their saves. Had I just let things go as they did, the psion would have been dead in the first five minutes of the game. So, (most of them) missed him when they attacked. (He still got a couple of solid twacks, and don't get me wrong, he was in deep trouble, but he wasn't dead.) That's the sort of occasion I feel I need to step in, when the random number generators pop up with something outside a reasonable level of variance that would be detrimental for the game. (Another example would be when a player is having a really bad day with the dice, and can't roll anything above single digits; if they really aren't having fun I might do something about it, though that'd be more often a tactical fudge, rather than numberical issue.)

[Tyndmyr]

In any earlier version of this thread, I posted an example where this kind of gaming environment could actually be fun (basically, playing cutthroats, cheats, and otherwise very pirate-esque).

For the most part though, I would think not.

I guess I can see that. I have played using similar rules in monopoly, and figuring out how to pull off thefts and such can be amusing.

Though if everyone cheating is expected...is it still cheating?



Edit: On the subject of giving tactical advantages to players rolling poorly...I can see that as entirely justifiable in game. Intelligent enemies will likely focus on the players that have been highly effective, concentrating less on those who appear unimportant.

[Umael]

I guess I can see that. I have played using similar rules in monopoly, and figuring out how to pull off thefts and such can be amusing.

Though if everyone cheating is expected...is it still cheating?

If "cheating" is defined and allowed in the rules, then I would say no.
If "cheating" is defined and allowed verbally, I would say no again, but with less conviction.
If "cheating" is implied but not explicitly defined, I would say yes.

For example, in the board game "Cosmic Encounters", each alien has a power that "breaks" the rules. For example, the alien Mind can look at the hand of one of the main players in a challenge if Mind is involved in that challenge. The alien Loser can declare an upset, meaning that the "winner" loses and the "loser" wins. One of the added aliens is the "Cheater", whose power is to cheat (take extra cards, put bases on other planets, etc.) - and as long as no one notices, this is considered okay. However, if any alien loses three of their plantary systems, they lose their power. So, it is cheating... but in certain cases, it is allowed.

Another example comes from the book "Another Day, Another Dungeon", in which three orcs are playing a simple card game in one of the scenes (the equal to Old Maid). Two of the orcs were playing it only because that was the only game the third orc could play (as the book said, orcs aren't known for being bright, but this orc was what other orcs would call a ma-roon). Because the game was so simple, the other two orcs were amusing themselves by cheating, which to them, was the only real game - to see who was better at cheating.

[Jayabalard]

I went looking for you innuendo and could not find it, so it's either before page 8 or over my head. :smallconfused: However, I did find this which I'd like to (very) briefly comment on).


When discussing a game, unless the OP specifies house-rules that are in play, the safest bet is to assume RAW. Yes, everyone has their own house-rules but only you and your group know what they are. To assume house-rules is dangerous because no two groups will use the exact same house-rules. For internet discussion purposes, therefore, people default to RAW since it makes it easier to discuss the game.I'm quite familiar with that, but In this case it doesn't apply. We're not discussing a game; we're discussing a broad RPG concept, one that isn't specific to a particular game, let alone a particular edition of that game. Assuming RAW 3.5 D&D and making sweeping generalizations in such a case is absurd. Even if you are talking about this in the context of 3.5e D&D, it's silly to make arguments that are based on raw when people (like Umael) are explicitly saying otherwise.

The only time it's valid to start throwing around strictly RAW based arguments is when you're talking about rules mechanics of a specific edition of a specific game.

[Sleepingbear]

First the disclaimers.

First of all, rules include house rules. House rules are not fudging or cheating. They're just an agreed upon (the players agree by playing with them) changes to the rules.

The following is entirely my own experiences and opinion and is only valid to the point where my own nose ends. If you relate to any of the following in any way, that's your bag, not mine.

Now for the meat of the post.

Before I ran any games as a GM/DM, I played. I played in several different games and learned from multiple sources. And of course I read the rule books of several different systems. After running a few sessions with my buddies I decided that I would never be responsible for killing a player character. If a PC died, it would be because of player stupidity and not bad rolls. My motto was, "I don't kill player characters. Players kill player characters."

So I started fudging rolls in combat.

Then I figured I would fudge rolls to make fights more challenging. Or add hitpoints or combat bonuses to the antagonists mid-fight. Or both. I justified it to myself as making the game more fun for the players.

And the players enjoyed the game.

Time went on, I became more skilled as a GM/DM. And as sometimes happens, I moved to a new city. I found more players and we started up a new game.

This time I decided to let the dice fall where they may. I even rolled out in the open. I didn't fudge dice rolls nor did I adjust encounters on the fly. And I maintained my motto of, "I don't kill player characters. Players kill player characters."

TPK's didn't happen.
The only player deaths were still ones I would have allowed to happen due to stupidity anyway.

And the players enjoyed the game.

So what's the difference?

I don't feel guilty anymore.

Because you see, here's the thing. Despite the justifications I used to cheat, it was still cheating. It was cheating because we had all gathered together to play a game. We had agreed to the rules. And I wasn't following those agreed to rules while (hypocritically) enforcing those rules on the other participants. I was breaking the social contract. I was decieving my friends. They had the (reasonable) expectation to be treated fairly and beleived that I was applying the rules to all particpants evenly.

A GM/DM may not be a player, but they are still a participant. They have an obligation not to decieve their fellow participants. They have been granted a position of trust and to abuse that trust is just something I'm not comfortable doing.

From a standpoint of a player, this new style of running games suits how I would want to be treated.

I want my victories to be sweater because I earned them.
I want my victories to be sweater because there is a genuine chance of failure.
I don't want my GM/DM to decieve me.
I don't want my GMDM to patronize me.

I want to play the game by the rules.

[Umael]

Sleepingbear:

Although my outlook is very similar to yours, there is a significant difference.

For me, cheating is something that can be used, but only sparingly and only for a good purpose.

However, I appreciate how you explained your outlook. Very cool.

[Ashiel]

First the disclaimers.

First of all, rules include house rules. House rules are not fudging or cheating. They're just an agreed upon (the players agree by playing with them) changes to the rules.

The following is entirely my own experiences and opinion and is only valid to the point where my own nose ends. If you relate to any of the following in any way, that's your bag, not mine.

Now for the meat of the post.

Before I ran any games as a GM/DM, I played. I played in several different games and learned from multiple sources. And of course I read the rule books of several different systems. After running a few sessions with my buddies I decided that I would never be responsible for killing a player character. If a PC died, it would be because of player stupidity and not bad rolls. My motto was, "I don't kill player characters. Players kill player characters."

So I started fudging rolls in combat.

Then I figured I would fudge rolls to make fights more challenging. Or add hitpoints or combat bonuses to the antagonists mid-fight. Or both. I justified it to myself as making the game more fun for the players.

And the players enjoyed the game.

Time went on, I became more skilled as a GM/DM. And as sometimes happens, I moved to a new city. I found more players and we started up a new game.

This time I decided to let the dice fall where they may. I even rolled out in the open. I didn't fudge dice rolls nor did I adjust encounters on the fly. And I maintained my motto of, "I don't kill player characters. Players kill player characters."

TPK's didn't happen.
The only player deaths were still ones I would have allowed to happen due to stupidity anyway.

And the players enjoyed the game.

So what's the difference?

I don't feel guilty anymore.

Because you see, here's the thing. Despite the justifications I used to cheat, it was still cheating. It was cheating because we had all gathered together to play a game. We had agreed to the rules. And I wasn't following those agreed to rules while (hypocritically) enforcing those rules on the other participants. I was breaking the social contract. I was decieving my friends. They had the (reasonable) expectation to be treated fairly and beleived that I was applying the rules to all particpants evenly.

A GM/DM may not be a player, but they are still a participant. They have an obligation not to decieve their fellow participants. They have been granted a position of trust and to abuse that trust is just something I'm not comfortable doing.

From a standpoint of a player, this new style of running games suits how I would want to be treated.

I want my victories to be sweater because I earned them.
I want my victories to be sweater because there is a genuine chance of failure.
I don't want my GM/DM to decieve me.
I don't want my GMDM to patronize me.

I want to play the game by the rules.

I agree. It's no fun being cheated. Also, nice story. :smallsmile:

[The Big Dice]

Some questions for all the people who claim they never "cheat" in their games. Which is really an inflammatory word used to obscure the real issue at hand.

How many of you non fudging types really run NPCs and monsters with the same mindset to a combat as the PCs enter into? Do you go all out to win and destroy your foes in the same way that players will, or do you hold back and go easy on them? Because I'd say going easy and holding back is a worse form of cheating than not defining the DC on a Move Silently check or having an NPC make or miss a save depending on what might be more dramatic at the moment it happens.

If your NPCs go all out, fighting in a manner that people who don't want to die would, do you roll your dice in public and then simply shrug and make excuses when characters die?

The problem boils down to modern D&D. It introduced concepts like rules lawyering as a good thing. And that the players should never face more than they can handle, that they are entitled to four level appropriate encounters per game day, with suitable time to rest and recover between them. Unless they want to hit their Milestones, of course.

Somewhere along the way, the idea that the GM isn't just there to let the players put bigger numbers on their sheet after everyone spends some time rolling some dice and doing a bit of basic arithmetic got lost. Especially in D&D.

[Tyndmyr]

Some questions for all the people who claim they never "cheat" in their games. Which is really an inflammatory word used to obscure the real issue at hand.

How many of you non fudging types really run NPCs and monsters with the same mindset to a combat as the PCs enter into? Do you go all out to win and destroy your foes in the same way that players will, or do you hold back and go easy on them? Because I'd say going easy and holding back is a worse form of cheating than not defining the DC on a Move Silently check or having an NPC make or miss a save depending on what might be more dramatic at the moment it happens.

They should pursue their goals with the same vigor, obviously. Intelligent foes will of course use tactics like focusing on the dangerous ones to take them down faster, just as players do. Or use CC to try to cut off players. Im pretty sure this was already mentioned.

Playing the mobs stupid isn't cheating, really, but it is lame and not terribly fun.


The problem boils down to modern D&D. It introduced concepts like rules lawyering as a good thing. And that the players should never face more than they can handle, that they are entitled to four level appropriate encounters per game day, with suitable time to rest and recover between them. Unless they want to hit their Milestones, of course.

Er. No. The encounter rules say fully 5% of the encounters should be overwhelming. Things the players cannot win. The 4 encounters per game day certainly isn't a rule. There are some guidelines about roughly what's appropriate, but the idea that you MUST have four equal CR fights per day is not in any way a rule.

[Sleepingbear]

Some questions for all the people who claim they never "cheat" in their games. Which is really an inflammatory word used to obscure the real issue at hand.

Cheating is the word used by the OP both in the title of the thread and their opening post. So it is not obscuring the issue, it is the issue. Nor is it inflammatory as cheating can be objectively defined.

Definition of CHEAT
transitive verb
1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>
intransitive verb
1a : to practice fraud or trickery
b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>
2: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <was cheating on his wife>
3: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>
— cheat·er noun
Examples of CHEAT
The players were accused of cheating.
I had to cheat in order to solve the puzzle.
The store cheats its customers through false advertising.
They cheated him out of a fair deal.
a heroin addict who has cheated death many times


How many of you non fudging types really run NPCs and monsters with the same mindset to a combat as the PCs enter into? Do you go all out to win and destroy your foes in the same way that players will, or do you hold back and go easy on them? Because I'd say going easy and holding back is a worse form of cheating than not defining the DC on a Move Silently check or having an NPC make or miss a save depending on what might be more dramatic at the moment it happens.

I do. I absolutely go all out with my encounters. I also ensure that the players have a realistic chance of success even with me going all out. This doesn't require fudging of dice rolls, changing stats on the fly or using kid's gloves with the players. It means ensuring they have the tools required to succeed and that the threat they face is not overwhelming or, if it is, they have plenty of options aside from direct confrontation. If they do not choose those options, the results are their responsibility.

Likewise, success, lucky or not, is also theirs and they know it. And they like it.


If your NPCs go all out, fighting in a manner that people who don't want to die would, do you roll your dice in public and then simply shrug and make excuses when characters die?

I roll in public. No excuses are required. Player character death in my game occurs as a result of poor player decisions.


The problem boils down to modern D&D. It introduced concepts like rules lawyering as a good thing. And that the players should never face more than they can handle, that they are entitled to four level appropriate encounters per game day, with suitable time to rest and recover between them. Unless they want to hit their Milestones, of course.

Somewhere along the way, the idea that the GM isn't just there to let the players put bigger numbers on their sheet after everyone spends some time rolling some dice and doing a bit of basic arithmetic got lost. Especially in D&D.

The issue of DM/GM cheating is not unique to any edition of D&D or to the D&D franchise. Nor is it a recent development. It has been going on in every system I have played in for the last 25 years.

[Ashiel]

Some questions for all the people who claim they never "cheat" in their games. Which is really an inflammatory word used to obscure the real issue at hand.

How many of you non fudging types really run NPCs and monsters with the same mindset to a combat as the PCs enter into? Do you go all out to win and destroy your foes in the same way that players will, or do you hold back and go easy on them? Because I'd say going easy and holding back is a worse form of cheating than not defining the DC on a Move Silently check or having an NPC make or miss a save depending on what might be more dramatic at the moment it happens.

If your NPCs go all out, fighting in a manner that people who don't want to die would, do you roll your dice in public and then simply shrug and make excuses when characters die?

The problem boils down to modern D&D. It introduced concepts like rules lawyering as a good thing. And that the players should never face more than they can handle, that they are entitled to four level appropriate encounters per game day, with suitable time to rest and recover between them. Unless they want to hit their Milestones, of course.

Somewhere along the way, the idea that the GM isn't just there to let the players put bigger numbers on their sheet after everyone spends some time rolling some dice and doing a bit of basic arithmetic got lost. Especially in D&D.

Like Sleepingbear before me,
I do run NPCs intelligently. My NPCs are terrible in combat, and devious in their tactics. It's nothing surprising in my games to find groups of bandits wielding nets as an opening attack, then moving and drawing glaives as part of their move actions before surrounding a single PC and trying to focus-fire them down with flanking and AoOs as you try to fumble around in your net and escape them (provoking a lot of attacks doing so).

Or the CR 1/2 orcs who include a potion of enlarge person in their NPC gear (within their WBL) who chug them during the first round of combat, who are now wielding 2d8+6 glaives with a 20ft reach for 10 rounds, while the orc shaman (a 1st level adept) casts bless and sleep.

How about the archers who apply an oil of magic weapon to their longbows, slings, or whatever else shoots ammo so they're firing +1 enhancement shots every round for 1 hour (longer than combat will likely last), while taking cover behind trees, through bushes, etc.

Or the drow wizard who casts shatter on your party's torch or sunrod (it's not a magic item, even if it has continual flame cast on it); destroying your light source while your enemies all have darkvision 120ft.

Is that not intelligent enough?
This is the kind of stuff my players deal with, and its what they live through and fight through without cheating. There's plenty of times that they have fallen into the negatives, and once they almost got a TPK in a fight they probably should have made a tactical retreat with but pulled through (but they all managed to live, and the last standing player managed to revive the rest of them).

And rules lawyering can be a good thing. It keeps things fair. It keeps things honest. If you have a house rule, then that's the new rule, but cheating players out of their options isn't a house-rule, it's cheating. Now if you make it a house rule up front "If I want to, I'm going to make your opponents save against your spells" and they still play with you then fine, they have let you know they're cool with that. But if you won't be that honest with your players, then you have to admit deep inside you know it to be wrong because you wouldn't be trying to cover it up if it were an "Ok thing". There's deception and dishonesty afoot. Unless you clear it with them all beforehand as noted previously.

My players don't expect only 4 encounters per day. Sometimes it might be as many as eight small skirmishes, or a few bonus fights (causing a lot of noise in a spider and ettercap infested forest for example - which resulted in a fight resulting from a fight), or it might be one or two big fights; some are easy, some are overpowering (like the DMG says). Some of them can be overcome through role-playing, some can be overcome through sword-slaying.

But my players know that I'm rooting for them, and I want them to win, and that I take care to keep things fair. Fair doesn't always mean having a 50/50 chance to win, but they know I'll balance things out for them over whatever adventure I have devised or am running off the cuff (as sometimes happens when I haven't prepared anything).

So yeah, I don't cheat by your definition either.

[The Big Dice]

You know what, this is pointless.

I genuinely can not believe that so many people never fudge a roll, never alter a spell list or add a protective item to an NPC during a scene. So many people who never alter an NPC's stats or equipment list during play. Who never keep rolling on random encounter or treasure tables until they get the result they want. GMs who never think otherwise about announcing the critical that will take out the party's most effective combatant and put everyone else on the back foot, and who are not just prepared, but absolutely committed to putting whether or not their campaign has any continuity of player characters onto a single roll of the dice.

People aren't that robotic. Especially not when it comes to their friends fun and their own fun.

[Ashiel]

You know what, this is pointless.

I genuinely can not believe that so many people never fudge a roll, never alter a spell list or add a protective item to an NPC during a scene. So many people who never alter an NPC's stats or equipment list during play. Who never keep rolling on random encounter or treasure tables until they get the result they want. GMs who never think otherwise about announcing the critical that will take out the party's most effective combatant and put everyone else on the back foot, and who are not just prepared, but absolutely committed to putting whether or not their campaign has any continuity of player characters onto a single roll of the dice.

People aren't that robotic. Especially not when it comes to their friends fun and their own fun.

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

[Saph]

I'm generally in the anti-fudging camp, but I'll admit to having done it in the past. Usually the way I see it is that if I'm fudging, it's an admission that I've made a mistake - the encounter's too hard or too easy. But everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes admitting it is the fastest way to fix it.

Of course, there's an argument that says that since as the DM I'm making everything up anyway, it doesn't really matter at which point I do it. I give my players a lot of freedom, so they regularly get into situations where I have to make up the stats, personalities, and agendas of a bunch of NPCs on the fly. Since often this leads to me having only a vague idea of the character sheet of the NPC that the PC is trying to negotiate with/bluff/run away from/kill, I'm basically making up the numbers on the fly and going with whatever feels right.

I think the most important thing isn't whether the DM's fudging or cheating, it's whether the players' choices matter. I've played under one DM who followed the rules and the results of the dice religiously, to the point of halting a game to look up some trivial rule . . . and yet the campaign was railroady as all heck. On the other hand, one of our other DMs used to fudge and adjust rolls WAY too often, to the point where it really annoyed us - but battles were always exciting and unpredictable, and we always felt that our actions made a difference, so overall, the game was a lot more fun.

That said, I'm always dubious about DMs who say they'll fudge for the sake of the "story", because in practice, that tends to mean their story - they've got their own script for what's supposed to happen and the players are just there to play a role. I much prefer games where the story's decided by what the players choose to do. But as long as the DM does that, I'm not too bothered if they fudge a roll occasionally.

[tcrudisi]

How many of you non fudging types really run NPCs and monsters with the same mindset to a combat as the PCs enter into? Do you go all out to win and destroy your foes in the same way that players will, or do you hold back and go easy on them? Because I'd say going easy and holding back is a worse form of cheating than not defining the DC on a Move Silently check or having an NPC make or miss a save depending on what might be more dramatic at the moment it happens.

No, I do not run the monsters with the same mindset to a combat as the PC's enter into, but the monsters are different. If they have a very bad intelligence, they will not be as good strategically as the players. If my monster has Int 14+, though? You better believe I'm using him to his 100% fullest. Basically, I try to play the monsters as I believe they should be played. To answer your statement, I'm not sure I would call "going easy and holding back" a worse form of cheating; I think it's on the same level, which is why I do not do either one.


If your NPCs go all out, fighting in a manner that people who don't want to die would, do you roll your dice in public and then simply shrug and make excuses when characters die?

I'm a bit confused by this question. If I am interpreting it correctly, you are asking if I shrug and make excuses when I kill off a player-character? Uh... no. I do, however, ask them if they want to wait on a resurrection or bring in a new character, as that can change the story progression. If you are asking if I make excuses when the monster dies? No - but if the monsters don't think they can win, they will run away... unless there's a reason for them not to.


The problem boils down to modern D&D. It introduced concepts like rules lawyering as a good thing. And that the players should never face more than they can handle, that they are entitled to four level appropriate encounters per game day, with suitable time to rest and recover between them. Unless they want to hit their Milestones, of course.

Well, I'm somewhat on the fence with this. I try to be very fair at the table and use RAW as much as possible. If a player calls out a rules discrepancy, I tell them "Okay, we disagree on this point and your objection is noted. After the session, please remind me of this and we'll do the research to find out who's correct. Until then, my ruling stands." ... except for sometimes when the rules discrepancy doesn't make a big difference to me or the story, and I use their version and we still look up the rule after the session.

I do occasionally (okay, it's more on the rare side and certainly not once a session) throw a ridiculously tough (close to unbeatable) encounter at the party just to keep them on their toes. My players are pretty good about realizing when they are over their heads and getting the heck outta dodge. As for 4 encounters a day? I've never tried to stick by that rule. I don't even really use it as a guideline. Sometimes they get 1 encounter in a day, sometimes they get 6. I suppose it balances out to 3-4 encounters in a day. But yeah, I do usually (stress on usually) give them their 5 minute break in between.


Somewhere along the way, the idea that the GM isn't just there to let the players put bigger numbers on their sheet after everyone spends some time rolling some dice and doing a bit of basic arithmetic got lost. Especially in D&D.

... I've never had this problem with any of my groups. As a GM, I am there for a few purposes: to build a story around the players, to give them a challenge, and for everyone to have fun. We sometimes go whole sessions without combat and nothing more than a couple of skill checks. Other times we spend half our session in combat. Either way, it's certainly not the "dice-fest" that I believe you are implying. But when we are rolling the dice, I want it to be a challenge and I want it to be in the players, and characters, hands. By that, I mean that I want whatever they roll to mean something and I won't "cheat" for or against them.

[Umael]

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

You know he's not saying, "I can't believe I actually met someone like that," but instead is saying, "I can't believe you are actually that way". Hence, I would infer that he is implying you are mistaken about yourself and your qualities.

*shrug*

Are or aren't, not my issue.

[tcrudisi]

You know what, this is pointless.

I genuinely can not believe that so many people never fudge a roll, never alter a spell list or add a protective item to an NPC during a scene. So many people who never alter an NPC's stats or equipment list during play. Who never keep rolling on random encounter or treasure tables until they get the result they want. GMs who never think otherwise about announcing the critical that will take out the party's most effective combatant and put everyone else on the back foot, and who are not just prepared, but absolutely committed to putting whether or not their campaign has any continuity of player characters onto a single roll of the dice.

People aren't that robotic. Especially not when it comes to their friends fun and their own fun.

Ahhh. Well, I've done it in the past (quite a few years ago). But then I realized that I didn't like having it done to me so I stopped doing it to my players.

Why alter a spell list or add a protective item to an NPC? If the players played intelligently, they deserve the reward of catching the NPC without the right spells or defenses. Why keep rolling on random encounters or treasure tables? Often times the really weird choices can be the most fun. And why not have a combat where the most capable combatant gets taken out? That would really light a fire under the other players and make them realize they are in trouble - shape up and use your big resources or this could be a TPK. Yeah, it's serious. Use the big guns.

And the campaign? If the fail, no biggy. I'll run another campaign. Sometimes the good guys don't win. If you wanted to run a game with me playing and I knew that you would not TPK us because of a fear of the campaign breaking down? There's no suspense there. When I'm heavily invested in a character, I want to feel that suspense. I want to know that if I screw up, my character can die. And ya know what? My character is an adventurer, and I feel that's the way it should be.

[Umael]

Why alter a spell list or add a protective item to an NPC? If the players played intelligently, they deserve the reward of catching the NPC without the right spells or defenses.

Playing Devil's Advocate - You realize that this can fuel the GM versus players mindset, right?

Think about it. Take a wizard, one that should be very intelligent. The trouble is, the GM isn't very clever about these kinds of things. He or she means well, but maybe just hasn't been playing very long. The players are all long-timers who know just about every trick there is.

When the PCs met this wizard, they know all the game-breaking tricks and completely steam-roll the wizard. By all rights, the way you play it, a GM shouldn't even say, "Hey, guys, I completely missed that, but Xordoc shouldn't have, because he's supposed to be a lot smarter than I am, so I'm going to re-con that he's got a defense against that."

That might sound lazy, or sloppy, but let me modify that a little.

1) The wizard has a "GTFO" card. Or two. Or three. Basically, because the GM was too tired, inexperienced, out-of-sorts, he or she missed some obvious holes in the wizard's defenses. These cards are "I screwed up, but Xordoc didn't." Maybe they represent a visit to the Oracle (how DO you play an NPC who has advance knowledge of what the PCs are going to do when neither the GM nor the players do?).

2) "Is he smart enough to have thought of that? Let me roll." Give the wizard a consecutively decreasing chance of have the thought of the required defense (or offense) and have it ready.

[Sleepingbear]

You know what, this is pointless.

I genuinely can not believe that so many people never fudge a roll, never alter a spell list or add a protective item to an NPC during a scene. So many people who never alter an NPC's stats or equipment list during play. Who never keep rolling on random encounter or treasure tables until they get the result they want. GMs who never think otherwise about announcing the critical that will take out the party's most effective combatant and put everyone else on the back foot, and who are not just prepared, but absolutely committed to putting whether or not their campaign has any continuity of player characters onto a single roll of the dice.

People aren't that robotic. Especially not when it comes to their friends fun and their own fun.

You're right. If you're going to ask a question and then refuse to believe the answer, it is pointless.

But most people haven't said they never fudge or cheat. My first post in this thread I said I used to do it constantly. I don't do it anymore.

And it's not because I'm robotic. It's because of how I want to treat my friends and so I can fully enjoy the game as well. Because feeling guilty for decieving my friends always robbed me of some of that fun. And because I want to run a game that I would enjoy playing in.

I still run basically the same game and my friends still have as much (if not more) fun playing in it. I've just taken away the safety net I used to have there for myself. The players never needed (or wanted) it. And as it turns out, I don't need it either.

Some people do feel they need that and that's their choice to make. I've known some GM/DM's who openly tell their players that they will occasionally fudge rolls and in what circumstances. In those cases, it becomes something of a houserule and the players have agreed to it by playing there. I've played in a few of those games myself although I enjoy them less than when the GM doesn't fudge things at all.

So it occurs to me that I haven't actually answered the question in the Thread title.

Should a GM "cheat"?

And that's because it's not a question I can answer.

I can say, "I don't cheat".

And I can say, "I prefer that my GM doesn't cheat".

What other people do, is up to them. If they're having fun and their players are having fun, more power to them. But it's not for me.

When I play a game, I want to play by the rules. And I want those rules applied evenly to everyone participating.

[Umael]

*gives Sleepingbear a cookie*

[Kaun]

You're right. If you're going to ask a question and then refuse to believe the answer, it is pointless.

But most people haven't said they never fudge or cheat. My first post in this thread I said I used to do it constantly. I don't do it anymore.

And it's not because I'm robotic. It's because of how I want to treat my friends and so I can fully enjoy the game as well. Because feeling guilty for decieving my friends always robbed me of some of that fun. And because I want to run a game that I would enjoy playing in.

I still run basically the same game and my friends still have as much (if not more) fun playing in it. I've just taken away the safety net I used to have there for myself. The players never needed (or wanted) it. And as it turns out, I don't need it either.

Some people do feel they need that and that's their choice to make. I've known some GM/DM's who openly tell their players that they will occasionally fudge rolls and in what circumstances. In those cases, it becomes something of a houserule and the players have agreed to it by playing there. I've played in a few of those games myself although I enjoy them less than when the GM doesn't fudge things at all.

So it occurs to me that I haven't actually answered the question in the Thread title.

Should a GM "cheat"?

And that's because it's not a question I can answer.

I can say, "I don't cheat".

And I can say, "I prefer that my GM doesn't cheat".

What other people do, is up to them. If they're having fun and their players are having fun, more power to them. But it's not for me.

When I play a game, I want to play by the rules. And I want those rules applied evenly to everyone participating.

Wow this is the first post that has in some way altered my point of view to the other side of the argument.

My hats of to you.

I still don't think that fudging or "cheating" dice is deceiving your friends tho.

[dsmiles]

You know what, this is pointless.

I genuinely can not believe that so many people never fudge a roll, never alter a spell list or add a protective item to an NPC during a scene. So many people who never alter an NPC's stats or equipment list during play. Who never keep rolling on random encounter or treasure tables until they get the result they want. GMs who never think otherwise about announcing the critical that will take out the party's most effective combatant and put everyone else on the back foot, and who are not just prepared, but absolutely committed to putting whether or not their campaign has any continuity of player characters onto a single roll of the dice.

People aren't that robotic. Especially not when it comes to their friends fun and their own fun.

Honestly, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, BD. I fudge a roll to save a character from Mook # 4,241.5 every now and again (because Mooks very rarely critical with my dice), and I rarely state DCs out loud, and I'll never tell you what the AC and hit points of the bad guys are, but once an NPC is created and in the game, I don't go changing him to make him easier or harder. It is what it is. I pre-roll random loot. I add or take away based on the result compared to the power level of the party, but once it's there, it's there. Especially BBEGs. Not pulling any punches there, but, then again, I don't expect the players to pull any punches. I write out his defenses when I design the adventure, and stick by it. If they one-shot it, crap happens, they either did their homework or got lucky. The only things that don't get lucky are Mooks. They're just there to spice up the action sequences. My players like big battles, so I spread their XP out over a few bad guys and a bunch of minions (mostly for the wizard, he like the AoE spells).

[Sewercop]

The biggest problem(in my book) are when gms cheats against just one player due to that player having a mechanicly better character than the rest of the group.
Nothing kills my fun more than a gm that uses different sets of numbers on the same "foe\enemy\etc" against different characters.
It just sucks... Big time.
Take away my sod just because he\she thinks the boss needs a different ending?
It takes away my fun.


So when i gm, I dont fudge.
But......... Sometimes...... You just have to.

[Ashiel]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - and I'll choose my words very carefully.

The topic is "Should the GM cheat". Since that's the topic, I will give an answer as best as I can.

No.



cheat
   /tʃit/ Show Spelled[cheet] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law . the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

Cheating is not a good thing. It is wrong. You do not cheat at monopoly. You do not cheat at cards. You do not cheat your friends. Cheating at its very core means you are being dishonest, and deceitful. If you are cheating your friends, then you are - by definition of the word - a liar, and doing something dishonest and "not-good". By the definition.

Do people do it? Yes. Should they? I say no, because you shouldn't cheat. Everyone knows you shouldn't cheat. Cheaters know you shouldn't cheat. It's ingrained into basic learning and development from childhood upwards; and it has age-old adages like "Cheaters Never Prosper", "Don't Stand for a Cheat", and you can ask any small child if it is alright to cheat and you are more than likely to hear them tell you "No". People don't like to be cheated. It's akin to stealing, lying, and general wrong doing by the very definition of the word.

I have a friend who tries to cheat at everything. For him cheating is part of the fun. He cheats at Magic the Gathering, he fudges dice when he rolls them, he "forgets" to mark off hit points, he attempts to take bills from the Monopoly bank when no one is looking because he thinks it makes the games more interesting and fun. He says it keeps things even and more tense. He always comes up with some sort of excuse for it being part of the fun or the greater good, but he has branded himself a cheat. When he does succeed at something, people automatically assume he must have been cheating again; because at the end of the day cheating is just wrong - by its very definition.

Will people do it? Yes. Can people do it and have an enjoyable game? Yes. Should they? No. Because by its nature it is deceptive and dishonest. Does that make someone a bad person for cheating? Maybe not, but it makes you untrustworthy, which makes people question your credibility as a GM and a person (as I mentioned earlier). As a GM it makes you seem less skilled, and provokes people to wonder "Did that happen for real or did he cheat?". If a player knows you cheat the dice and their character dies, they will question it. If they know you cheat the dice and their character succeeds they will question it. That looses your credibility as a GM. If you don't cheat - especially rolling combat information or lifting your GM screen for important checks - you will develop greater GM credibility and thereby also develop the faith of players in you. If a character dies, they assume it was part of the game and are less likely to feel targeted. If they succeed, then they feel it was all them and not just given to them by your whim.

Your reputation for fairness and honesty is not only one of the strongest credentials that you can have as a GM, but also as a person. Who are you more likely to trust? The guy who cheats at Go-Fish or the guy who doesn't? Who are you more likely to respect? Most people value honesty and fairness as marks of a good person, and the reverse the marks of a bad one. People are multifaceted but all of these things matter and play a role in determining your credibility and your quality as a person.

If you cheat and have posted that you cheat or even have advocated cheating, that doesn't mean I think you're a bad person; but it doesn't make any of the above any less true (all that about definitions and honesty and credibility). So if you're reading this, and you cheat, I'm not targeting you and I'm not putting you down, and I'm not calling you a bad person; I'm saying that by default cheating is and always will be seen as a bad thing - because that's what it is by definition. It might work at your table, and that's cool, but I wouldn't want to play with you; nor would my friends (I have a good 12+ friends whom I play tabletop with from time to time and two of us used to GM regularly; but now only I do, because the other cheated as the GM and the rest of the players are more hesitant to play when he wants to run a game). That's fine; different strokes and all that, but it's something to be considered.

Now I've said my peace; and hopefully in a clearer and less provocative manner than last time; I bid you good day.

[Shatteredtower]

Cheat? No.

Adjust circumstances to keep things interestingly for everyone at the table? Yes.

Knowing poor rolls will kill characters breeds cowardly players, people more likely to game the system than engage themselves in the circumstances. Knowing that they can kill characters encourages more spectacular risks, attracting more interest from NPCs who might want to see what you'll do next. You can't keep them from getting themselves killed if it's what they want, but when it all goes south, do not hesitate to tell your players, "I'd rather it didn't end like this, because you've been awesome and I'd to see where that could go." Death is an arbitrary goal line for determining failure, meaning no more than the results of a knowledge check or a juggling performance in the middle of a bar room brawl. It can be moved when it suits the table to carry on in anything less than tournament conditions.

[Umael]

*snip*

That was well-said.

And for the most part, I agree with you.

But the fact is, I don't totally agree with you, and that's what remains so incomprehensible to you - because I hold to the notion that cheating is NOT an absolute. There are times and places and circumstance and people for whom cheating is acceptable.

You compared cheating to lying.

That is very good. Lying is, for the most part, seen by most people as a bad act, something that should not be done.

But there are times and places and circumstances and people for which lying is acceptable, possibly even the better thing to do.

Planning a surprise party for a friend? Lie about what you are doing if he asks.
Girlfriend's mother asks for your opinion on her dress? Lie and say she looks very nice.
Being tortured to give sensitive government information? Lie and save a few lives.

Yes, I know. We are talking about cheating and role-playing games, not real-life politics.

But your stance makes it clear that you do not believe cheating or lying is allowed. Ever. If I cannot convince you that there is even the slightest possibility of cheating or lying being acceptable, at all, then this is nothing to be said - your mind is set in stone and you are completely inflexible in this regard.

[Psyx]

Playing Devil's Advocate - You realize that this can fuel the GM versus players mindset, right?

Whereas adding a ring-of-deflect-whatever-spell-you-just-cast isn't?

Not fudging to save NPCs lives is a pretty long way from a player v GM mindset, to my mind. So what if an NPC gets killed: You have an infinite number more at your disposal. Give 'em the easy kill: Next time you'll know not to stat like that. As a GM, we are allowed to make as many mistakes as we like in under-statting monsters. It's when we over-stat that there's an actual problem.


For reference; while I am not adverse to fudging a roll sometimes, I would NEVER change an NPC's stats mid-combat.

It must be said that one of the worst GMs I know never fudges a dice. But that's nothing to do with his poor GMing: That's due to a me vs. you attitude that he's not matured out of. Essentially, if anything happens, it's always to the monster's advantage, rather than the player's. And though he doesn't lie about dice, he just over-stats NPCs to the point it's moot. For him his maxim of 'let the dice fall where they may' is a badge of honour, that he waves around as though it was a certificate of 'Fair GMing', when in reality he's still the most brutally unfair GM I've played with since the one 15 years ago who cheated so constantly as to completely put me off 2nd Ed. I was powerless against the desires of both GMs not because of cheating, but purely due to their 'I want MY way' mindset.

[Kaun]

i still dont think fudging the dice as a GM counts as cheating since most rp games all have something similar to rule 0

[Killer Angel]

For example, in the board game "Cosmic Encounters", each alien has a power that "breaks" the rules.

It's OT, but cheers for havin brought to my memory that fantastic board game! :smallsmile:

[Hubert]

Hello again.

Just to clarify some points:

When I said "cheating", I wanted to imply "fudging the dice now and then, in rare occasions" and not "thwarting any SoD attempts against anything more powerful than a gobelin". :smallsmile:

Also, I intended the discussion about role-playing games in general, not specifically D&D. It seems that the "dead" state is (often) a mere temporary inconvenience in D&D. There are other game systems where death is pretty much always the end for the character. On the same topic, an experienced D&D character (say level > 15) is so much more powerful than a beginner (level < 3) that challenges for the latter are no threats for the former. In other game systems, the difference of power between experienced and beginner characters is much smaller, meaning that the same encounter can be (nearly) as challenging for both. In these other game systems, a supposedly easy encounter can quickly become a TPK.

Finally, it is not because you sometimes fudge the dice that your players know when you do it. It is not because you want to avoid TPKs that you will never kill a player (especially if he had done something very stupid). So it is not because you "cheat" that your players cannot fear for their character's survival.

[Aotrs Commander]

The way I look at it is this. (What follows, is, obviously, my personal opinion.)

An RPG is not a game like a wargame or a board game is a game. It's called a "game" for want of a better word, but it is not the same thing and it's goals and objectives are different. The rules of a wargames, say, define what you can do, and (unless decided among amicably by both sides) they are absolute. The dice rolls for same are equally as inviolate, because their is no arbitor aside from the rules. If you have a bad day and can't roll any higher than a three on D20, there is nothing that can be done. (Trouble is, a wargame is often very unsatifying for both sides is one sides curb-stomps the other, unless you are playing with a competition mindset.) Wargames basically run on mutual consent of the players (as do some groups of roleplayers, of course).

I on the other hand, see the GM's job in an RPG to do all the arbitration. The GM is indeed god when running the game (which also means they also have a responsibility to not abuse the priviledge of that vaunted position, of course!) What the GM says, goes; their word is final. The GM cannot therefore cheat as the GM determines everything, including the rules. The GM can be an imcompetant, stupid numpty, naturally, but so can the players; but this is sadly true of everything.

(This, of course, is an extension of playing exclusively with preparation and frankly, non-sandbox GMs (and players). Under those circumstances, the GM has put in more time and effort than anyone else, so they get the additional rewards for their extra work. And I say this as a player, too. Doubly so since if I'm playing it means I haven't had to DM. I grant my DMs (like it or not!) exactly the same consideration as I expect from my players when I run.)

That said, on balance, the GM should try to use the rules as understood by everyone as much as possible, for the benefit of all concerned. If the rules set is any good, (and the GM had enough experience as a DM and with the system and his players), the GM should be able to balance things so that everything plays out reasonably. 99% of the time (maybe even 99.9% of the time), the dice can be left to serve their function, which is to add randomness to the game.

How.

Ever.

Too much randomness in ANYTHING is detrimental, in my opinion. Randomness for it's own sake is bad. Often game-destroyingly bad, if, for example used in a wargame. I have a friend of mine who writes scenarioes. We played his homebrew Star Trek rules for years. They were often enjoyable wargames (actually, as multiplayer games, they had a large roleplaying element), but sometimes, he'd put too much randomness in, and it'd spoil the game. (Like rolling to see see who came on when and where, in a multi-sided conflict, sometimes meaning you had lost before you got on the board.) Randomly generated things span the phase-space of All Things That Could Possibly Happen. However, in both wargames and roleplaying, only a smaller subset of All Things That Could Possibly Happen make for a good game.

I see part of the GM's job as being to identify the occasions when the random number generators have led the possibility outside the envelope of a fun game and to make manual adjustments to the system. (Determining when these occasions arise, of course, is part of being a good GM; as is doing it then and no more often than it is needed.) If those adjustments can be done without actually fiddling with the random number generators, fine. If not, well, the dice and in the end, the rules - are not the reason I'm playing (either as DM or player). They are merely a faciliator of the game, not the game itself, and when it comes to choosing between the two, the random number generators don't even get a first thought, let alone a second.

I am entirely uncompetative as a person. I don't like sports, I don't play online games and I wouldn't play a competition wargame if you paid me. I play wargames and RPGs for fun, and for slightly different reasons. In the end, I play an RPG for the story. Really, that's all I play ANY game for, even wargames in the end; as my fellow gamer will tell you, behind each an every scenario I write (and I do tend to write most of them!) there is a story, each game being a snapshot into a wider universe whose events are often determined by each occuring battle. When I'm a player, I'm just not that bothered about wandering around, sandbox style. I am happy to follow an adventure wherever it goes (even if, like one or two modules I've played, it is a bit rail-roady!) Fortunately I am blessed that both of my RPG groups, both of which have people who I have been playing with continuously for twenty years, are of the same mindset.

I thus don't really get a feeling of accomplishment for relying on dice rolls, and letting the dice fall where they may. I have no control over that; all I do is generate the numbers. Yes, a timely crit may be remembered for years afterwards, but I'd much rather win and lose the encounter overall due to tactics and co-operation. And losing because of something I cannot control is not fun, it really is not fun at all. I have played wargames where I did everything right and still lost because everyone else was lucky and I wasn't. Y'know what? Really not fun.

Yes, there is a satisfaction for surviving a difficult encounter; but if we got unlucky or the GM got lucky early on and we suspect we might not have been wiped out because of what went on behind the screen (as has happened in the past to me as a player) - well, so what? I just consider myself honoured the DM elected to not kill us off and end the game. As a DM, I'll damn well not end my campaign early with a TPK unless the players (not the PCs, the players) do something so stupid as to warrent it. (They never have yet...)

(The key is of course, to not tell the players, especially at the time. If you do it right, they should have no reason to suspect anything anyway; which goes equally for numerical and tactical alterations. After all, even the best of us forget important things sometimes, even when we're playing normally!)

Well, that's my piece, at any rate!

[bokodasu]

Someone earlier asked if this thread changed anyone's mind - hello, I'm here!

I have fudged in the past. I'm going to end that practice.

(Except when I'm running games for the kiddos. It's one thing when everyone's an adult, but I've found that kids take character death hard, and it's better to ease them into it rather than just tossing them into the deep end of the pool.)

Strangely enough, part of the reason I'm changing has been playing with my daughter; a big thing I've been working on with her is "You know what happens when your character dies? You roll another character." That's it.

So this thread made me realize that if that's something I'm trying to get my 7-year-old to understand, adult players should certainly be able to get it - so why am I "protecting" them and what am I protecting them from, exactly? Further: You know what happens when your players take out your carefully-planned story-arc nemesis with a couple of lucky crits? You roll another BBEG. That street goes both ways.

So yes, sometimes un/lucky rolls change the story you're telling. They don't change the fact that you're telling a story, which is what it's all about, right?

[The Big Dice]

So this thread made me realize that if that's something I'm trying to get my 7-year-old to understand, adult players should certainly be able to get it - so why am I "protecting" them and what am I protecting them from, exactly? Further: You know what happens when your players take out your carefully-planned story-arc nemesis with a couple of lucky crits? You roll another BBEG. That street goes both ways.
What do you do when there's no characters left that are connected to your original idea? Where do you go when Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia have all been killed off and replaced with River Tam, John Crichton and The Doctor?

In any campaign where character death is inevitable, there comes a point that there are no characters left who were there when everything began. All the hooks that were based on the original characters are now discarded or worse, twisted round to be uncomfortably jammed onto new characters.

Which is deeply unsatisfying for player and GM alike.

If you've got a specific story arc nemesis and he gets killed by a couple of lucky crits, it isn't always as simple as just roll a new one. Especially if you've made an issue or plot point about there being something unique about this particular villain.

Or you could just arrange events so that the PCs don't have time to stick around and examine the body, then have the BBEG survive, only to come back for revenge later. It works in comic books, it works in TV shows, it works in RPGs.

But I know what's going on now. It's the difference between people who play the game and those who game the system.

The difference might not seem obvious at first, and there's not really anything wrong with either approach. It's the difference between a ROLEPLAYING game and a roleplaying GAME. It's not even as clear cut as that, but that's pretty much the spectrum that I'm talking about.

It's the difference between having your character killed by bad luck or by you making a bad choice.

[Tyndmyr]

What do you do when there's no characters left that are connected to your original idea? Where do you go when Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia have all been killed off and replaced with River Tam, John Crichton and The Doctor?

I would watch that movie in a heartbeat.

[Oracle_Hunter]

In any campaign where character death is inevitable, there comes a point that there are no characters left who were there when everything began. All the hooks that were based on the original characters are now discarded or worse, twisted round to be uncomfortably jammed onto new characters.
You say this like it's a bad thing.

Plots change - that's the essence of the RPG. If the hooks were intrinsically interesting, then the Players will be happy to pick them up with a little nudging; if they're not interesting, then it's time to "roll up a new story" instead of trying to shove the PCs back onto a track they don't care for.

[The Big Dice]

Plots change - that's the essence of the RPG. If the hooks were intrinsically interesting, then the Players will be happy to pick them up with a little nudging; if they're not interesting, then it's time to "roll up a new story" instead of trying to shove the PCs back onto a track they don't care for.
Suspension of disbelief breaks, usually at the moment you realise that there's no connection to what's going on anymore. And when the GM loses suspension of disbelief, the campaign tends to fold very soon after.

[Tyndmyr]

Suspension of disbelief breaks, usually at the moment you realise that there's no connection to what's going on anymore. And when the GM loses suspension of disbelief, the campaign tends to fold very soon after.

So, in your world, it goes like this.

DM stops cheating.
The PCs die. All of them.
Story is now pointless, but DM keeps using it anyway.
Campaign implodes.

Yeah, I've never seen that happen. Sure, I've seen PCs die, campaigns implode, etc, but it never actually goes like you describe in my experience.

[Oracle_Hunter]

So, in your world, it goes like this.

DM stops cheating.
The PCs die. All of them.
Story is now pointless, but DM keeps using it anyway.
Campaign implodes.

Yeah, I've never seen that happen. Sure, I've seen PCs die, campaigns implode, etc, but it never actually goes like you describe in my experience.
Pretty much this.

Seriously, is the plot so weak that only a specific bunch of people could ever be interested in it? Even if it is a "rescue my sister" sort of deal, surely there must be someone out there who wants to take down the BBEG for different reasons?

[Psyx]

What do you do when there's no characters left that are connected to your original idea? Where do you go when Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia have all been killed off and replaced with River Tam, John Crichton and The Doctor?

A story is a rope. It's made of bits of twine. Those twines are the characters. Few -if any- run the length of the entire rope. No one piece of twine is essential to the rope. The story is bigger than any of the characters in it.

Although - as I said - I don't really fudge much. And yet I don't have these problems. a five-year campaign with a game each week has been more than robust enough to survive character deaths. I've got ONE original PC, who took a year off in the middle. There's been perhaps 15-ish deaths and retirements. Despite the lack of fudging, I don't think more than 1 PC has ever died in a single combat. And I've never TPKed a party in ANY game that I've run.

[The Big Dice]

So, in your world, it goes like this.

DM stops cheating.
The PCs die. All of them.
Story is now pointless, but DM keeps using it anyway.
Campaign implodes.

Yeah, I've never seen that happen. Sure, I've seen PCs die, campaigns implode, etc, but it never actually goes like you describe in my experience.

Again with the obsessive cheating.

It goes more like:

GM lets the dice take over, abdicates responsibility and the dice then kill characters. After a while, there are no starting characters left. There were no cataclysmic mass deaths, but at some point every starting character had their number come up and the GM let this happen.

Despite in most cases the character's story not being completed.

GM realises that the campain is now something other than it was and there is no connection to his original idea for where the campaign should end. GM loses interest, campaign folds.

It's all very anticlimactic, not the big drama you present. Things go out with a whimper, rather than the bang of a massive TPK.


Seriously, is the plot so weak that only a specific bunch of people could ever be interested in it? Even if it is a "rescue my sister" sort of deal, surely there must be someone out there who wants to take down the BBEG for different reasons?
How do you rescue your sister when her brother died because of random number generators?

[Oracle_Hunter]

How do you rescue your sister when her brother died because of random number generators?
You don't, but the Peasant Hero of Oppressed Village #236 will after he overthrows Baron McEvilz to free is village.

Conveniently, both The Brother and The Peasant Hero share the same Player :smalltongue:

For extra connection, have Baron McEvilz parade The Sister around as his bride-to-be and have Peasant Hero fall in love with her.

[The Big Dice]

You don't, but the Peasant Hero of Oppressed Village #236 will after he overthrows Baron McEvilz to free is village.

Conveniently, both The Brother and The Peasant Hero share the same Player :smalltongue:

For extra connection, have Baron McEvilz parade The Sister around as his bride-to-be and have Peasant Hero fall in love with her.

Which is what I mentioned before as "stretching the disbelief suspenders too far." As soon as coincidence and convinience get mentioned, I lose interest. It's not a good reason to keep reading a book, so why is it ok in an RPG?

Suppose Wesley died in The Princess Bride. He gets the life sucked out of him and Miracle Max fails his Create Miracles roll. Who takes over at this point? Random McVillager? I'm sorry but no. You just lost any semblance of me caring about the plot at that point.

Or suppose Luke got shot escaping from the Death Star. Does some guy who we never heard of before take over? I don't care if the guy has an entire EU trilogy about him. We never met him before now and he's got no connection to the events that are taking place. And as a GM I just got frustrated.

And that means no more campaign because I let a dice make a decision instead of making a decision myself, with input from the actions of the player.

Not everything has to be random, just as not everything has to be planned. But there needs to be a point where consistency of campaign takes over from letting the dice fall as they will.

[Zore]

How do you rescue your sister when her brother died because of random number generators?

Have his brave and true friends carry on in his memory, the tragedy only further strengthening their commitment to the cause? Have his death inspire the sister to break free of the villain herself? Have a parent or another relative or their fiance take over the saving duties?

Thats not unsalvageable by any means, it adds some pathos and tragedy to what otherwise seems a fairly unremarkable tale.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Which is what I mentioned before as "stretching the disbelief suspenders too far." As soon as coincidence and convinience get mentioned, I lose interest. It's not a good reason to keep reading a book, so why is it ok in an RPG?
I knew I was in trouble when you said "stretched suspension of disbelief" - it's on my list of Discussion Enders :smallsigh:

While I'm sorry to hear that your ability to suspend disbelief ends when a Peasant Hero decides to overthrow the BBEG who is oppressing his village, I can happily say that I've never had that problem.

In fact, there's a whole Trope devoted to this sort of story - The Decoy Protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DecoyProtagonist) :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

Well, a movie isn't an P&P RPG. The same conventions don't apply to both.

A movie is typically notoriously limited on characters due to the limited screen time they have. They CANT rotate out too many people, because it'd simply take up too much time, and other stuff would be dropped instead. Television series have some of this still, but it's less of a crunch, and thus, you frequently have decent cast turnover. Look at say, BSG. This is, while still not the same as a P&P RPG, somewhat closer to it than a movie.

Even in books, it's common to give the perspective of a person that dies as a way of giving a different perspective on events. The main hero is of course the fellow that lives, generally. From the replacement character's perspective, learning about the failed attempts of prior heroes to vanquish whoever is a great way of giving the plot some depth. And because the players actually played it themselves, it's far better than any backstory you just invent.

[Jaidu]

I play 4th edition, and the only time I can remember fudging a die roll is when an elite soldier who did extra damage against marked targets rolled enough to take a barbarian from just over bloodied to dead. Not dying, dead. I decreased the damage by just enough that he was one over his negative bloodied value, to give the group a fighting chance to save him. They did, and rebounded from the fight quite nicely.

[Umael]

Have his brave and true friends carry on in his memory, the tragedy only further strengthening their commitment to the cause? Have his death inspire the sister to break free of the villain herself? Have a parent or another relative or their fiance take over the saving duties?

Thats not unsalvageable by any means, it adds some pathos and tragedy to what otherwise seems a fairly unremarkable tale.

Just as long as you aren't playing with someone being "The One" or "The Last of His/Her Kind".

For the record - just create another character - that doesn't always work. One player I know hates creating characters. Hates, hates, hates it. And she's extremely poor at communication - more likely to quietly glare at you if she is unhappy with you (even worse, she usually is justified in being unhappy with you if she is).

And since she is married to one of the other players, it quickly becomes a situation where if her character died, game would grind to a halt while we tried to get her interested in another character. If we played without her, she would be unhappy. If we rushed her, she would be unhappy.

You know the saying about knowing when to pick your fights? Yeah, this is a fight I'm not going to pick. Believe me, given the social situation, I think it would be more harmonious, short-term and long-term to keep her PC out of the line of fire. If she stumbles into the line of fire, I would avoid killing her character. Way, way, way too messy.

[The Big Dice]

I knew I was in trouble when you said "stretched suspension of disbelief" - it's on my list of Discussion Enders :smallsigh:

While I'm sorry to hear that your ability to suspend disbelief ends when a Peasant Hero decides to overthrow the BBEG who is oppressing his village, I can happily say that I've never had that problem.

In fact, there's a whole Trope devoted to this sort of story - The Decoy Protagonist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DecoyProtagonist) :smalltongue:
I hate tropes. They turn everything into "Oh its just a..." and I find that approach takes the fun out of things.

The problem is the way I structure a campaign. I don't script what the PCs are going to do. I plan for the beginning and the end, then let the players find their own way between the two. But to use the threads analogy that Psyx mentioned, it's not a cord, it's a tapestry. If the wrong thread breaks at the wrong time, the whole thing ends up coming unravelled.

And what would you as a player prefer, making a choice that leads to your character dying, or the dice just coming up that way one day?

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah. I'm not going to cheat someone into living just because they throw a fit when they die. Nobody gets special treatment, especially not for reasons like that.

When a player dies, they can choose to wait for a possibility of a res, or start rolling up a new char immediately. Generally, players peruse options while seeing if the res will happen, or pondering the decision, but the game continues merrily without them until such time as they pick a new character. They are advised to pick a character that could reasonably exist in this world and would be interested in the current events for some reason. I'll make sure the party has hooks to lead them together quickly once the character sheet is complete. Generally, someone at the table will happily help you build a char. A couple of us can stat out a wide variety of builds purely from memory. It won't take long.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And what would you as a player prefer, making a choice that leads to your character dying, or the dice just coming up that way one day?
When they play D&D, #2 - with the implicit assumption that the rules are fair; they allow the Players to weigh their decisions and take courses of action based on the risks and benefits presented. Consequently, this is why I play D&D4 - there's less chance that a Bolt From The Blue will do a character in.

If they wanted #1, I'd suggest they play a system where character death is impossible without an affirmative player action.

[Psyx]

As soon as coincidence and convinience get mentioned, I lose interest. It's not a good reason to keep reading a book, so why is it ok in an RPG?

See, that's exactly why IMO PCs should not be 'invulnerable' to wandering monsters - it breaks my own suspension of disbelief.


You know the saying about knowing when to pick your fights? Yeah, this is a fight I'm not going to pick. Believe me, given the social situation, I think it would be more harmonious, short-term and long-term to keep her PC out of the line of fire. If she stumbles into the line of fire, I would avoid killing her character. Way, way, way too messy.

See: I hate that. I hate favouritism. And playing a favourite because of their negative behaviour is appalling to me. I can understand cutting a little slack if someone is massively contributing to the game and is playing a weaker character than others, but rewarding bad behaviour just isn't my bag.

[Jayabalard]

Yeah. I'm not going to cheat someone into living just because they throw a fit when they die. Nobody gets special treatment, especially not for reasons like that. Did someone say that, or is this just a straw man? I couldn't find it in the thread, but I might have just missed it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Did someone say that, or is this just a straw man? I couldn't find it in the thread, but I might have just missed it.
Yeah... someone did :smallsigh:

For the record - just create another character - that doesn't always work. One player I know hates creating characters. Hates, hates, hates it. And she's extremely poor at communication - more likely to quietly glare at you if she is unhappy with you (even worse, she usually is justified in being unhappy with you if she is).

And since she is married to one of the other players, it quickly becomes a situation where if her character died, game would grind to a halt while we tried to get her interested in another character. If we played without her, she would be unhappy. If we rushed her, she would be unhappy.
My advice would be to have her make a couple characters in advance (or make them for her), but if everyone at the table is OK with it, I guess that's what you have to do.

As I said in a different thread - don't fight S.O.'s. Ignore them if you can, and avoid them if you must.

[Jayabalard]

Yeah... someone did :smallsigh:While I agree her behavior is kind of sad, it doesn't really sound like she's throwing a fit (more opposite: the silent angry treatment). So the lack of any sort of quote makes it kind of hard to tell that there's supposed to be some sort of relationship between those 2 posts, if that is indeed the case.

[Oracle_Hunter]

While I agree her behavior is kind of sad, it doesn't really sound like she's throwing a fit (more opposite: the silent angry treatment).
IMHO, a player who causes the game to "grind to a halt" is throwing a tantrum - or at least being disruptive, which is the same in my book. In any case, character death is on my list of impermissible reasons to disrupt a game.

I try to accomodate player preferences when possible, but there is a point beyond which it is simply better to remove the disruptive player.

[The Big Dice]

IMHO, a player who causes the game to "grind to a halt" is throwing a tantrum - or at least being disruptive, which is the same in my book. In any case, character death is on my list of impermissible reasons to disrupt a game.

I try to accomodate player preferences when possible, but there is a point beyond which it is simply better to remove the disruptive player.
That's not always an option. There are always conditions in someone else's gaming life that you are unaware of. These are people that are mentioning their situation. Trust me, there are some things you're just better off not commenting on. And saying things like "Well just get rid of the person who is causing problems" could be kicking out the person co-hosting the game you're playing at their house.

Or any of hundreds of other possible situations.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, situations differ, and talking to them about it might be a good first step before kicking them out, but "solving" the problem by treating them unequally to everyone else irks me. That kind of behavior is how you get stuff like DM's GF syndrome.

It's a social game. If you're there, play it for entertainment, and without spoiling the entertainment of those with you.

[Umael]

Yeah. I'm not going to cheat someone into living just because they throw a fit when they die.

1) Never said she should ever been in a game with you.
1a) My basis as been, "sparring, only with certain circumstances, etc."... you and her don't fit that description. It is probably likely that "you" period will never allow that circumstance.
2) Wasn't a fit. If you want to criticize it semi-blindly (hey, it's the Internet, the term is accurate), call it a sulk. A subtle sulk, if there is such a thing. Like the GM did something she didn't expect and she doesn't know how to take it.
2a) Like I said, in my games, I keep most of the spotlight off her. Which she seems to appreciate.



Nobody gets special treatment, especially not for reasons like that.

Huh. Okay.

I play that way sometimes. Other times, depending on the group and the game and all, it's "everyone gets spectial treatment... but the treatment varies accordingly... and it works out in the end".

*shrug*


When a player dies,

Minor nitpick.

PC. Character.

Not player.

Please don't tell me you actually had a player die at one your games.

That's a little morbid, even for me.



Generally, someone at the table will happily help you build a char. A couple of us can stat out a wide variety of builds purely from memory. It won't take long.

Um, yeah. See, with her? Doesn't work like that. She is one of the difficult players. Low maintenance, once she gets involved in the campaign, doesn't complain... doesn't complain even when she should (*sigh*).

But we have done the whole "Hey, we can help you" thing before. Doesn't work. She wants to do things her own way, not have someone create the character or even the framework for the character for her.

Yes, it's frustrating. No, she's not the ideal player. Yes, I would invite her to join one of my games again if that was expected if I got her husband to join the game. I just file another exception under "cost of doing role-playing games."

[Tyndmyr]

Huh. Okay.

I play that way sometimes. Other times, depending on the group and the game and all, it's "everyone gets spectial treatment... but the treatment varies accordingly... and it works out in the end".

*shrug*

It's probably the worst justification for cheating I've heard so far. The whole premise of games is that people are playing under the same set of rules. Favoritism can be incredibly disruptive to a campaign. Are your players aware of this, and your reason for it? If so, how do they feel about it?


Minor nitpick.

PC. Character.

Not player.

Please don't tell me you actually had a player die at one your games.

That's a little morbid, even for me.

C'mon. You can only possibly get that meaning by reading half the sentence. Unless you routinely have players die in RL, then sit around rolling new characters afterward.

You say she's passive...but she's controlling the actions of the entire gaming group. She's getting special treatment. You can be disruptive without being loud about it.

[bokodasu]

Yes, there will always be edge cases (e.g. tantrumy players who can't be removed for political reasons) but you don't have to base your whole policy around the potential for meeting one of them; you decide what to do about them when they come up. (See earlier comment about continuing to fudge for preteens.)

In general, I think it comes down to the story you're telling. In the example that was given before, a character is trying to rescue his sister, but a rock falls and he dies. And the question was: so the sister doesn't get rescued? To which my answer is yeah, so what? It's a big world. It's mind-boggling to me that there could be nothing else in this world to tell a story about. But if your concept is that the world is the background where THE STORY takes place, then anything that interrupts THE STORY is an unrecoverable tragedy.

It's the difference between The Wrestler and professional wrestling. If Mickey Rourke had died in the first scene, you wouldn't have had a movie. But if the Undertaker gets injured and has to sit out a few weeks, or the nWo defects to WCW*, you write around them and keep going; it's not like your fed implodes. Different modes of storytelling.

*Why yes, I am ancient.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's probably the worst justification for cheating I've heard so far. The whole premise of games is that people are playing under the same set of rules. Favoritism can be incredibly disruptive to a campaign. Are your players aware of this, and your reason for it? If so, how do they feel about it?
The important part of his post was "this is the cost of doing business."
You're not going to get anywhere trying to change someone else's S.O. - at best they ignore you; at worst they'll complain about you to your friend. Even asking the friend to change his S.O.'s behavior is risky - he'll resent you for forcing him to take an action which is going to piss off his S.O. It's not like he doesn't notice that the S.O. is behaving badly; pointing it out to him just makes that behavior an issue he'd rather not deal with.

Of course, you can't force the Player to choose between his S.O. and you either. Invite only the Player and you're doing the same thing as criticizing the S.O. - it'll only end badly.
So, you're left with the following choice - accomodate the S.O. to keep the Player or don't game with either. Here, Umael has chosen to keep gaming with the Player and it seems like he and his group are willing to pay the "cost" associated with this. It's not a choice to be criticized in the abstract - it's pragmatism, pure and simple.

EDIT: @Umael - I prefer "Accomodation" to "Special Treatment" in that context. "Accomodation" conotes an overall change in the game (e.g. more hack 'n slash to satisfy the hack 'n slasher) while "Special Treatment" sounds more like particularized intervention (e.g. cheating to keep a particular character alive).

It sounds like you do more of the former (e.g. keep her out of harms way) than the latter (e.g. misreport the dice rolls to keep her from dying); IMHO one should Accomodate the wishes of the players as much as is feasible avoid Special Treatment unless it is absolutely necessary.

[Umael]

It's probably the worst justification for cheating I've heard so far. The whole premise of games is that people are playing under the same set of rules. Favoritism can be incredibly disruptive to a campaign. Are your players aware of this, and your reason for it? If so, how do they feel about it?

:smallsigh:

Tyndmyr, please stop reading things into my posts.

I'm not saying "special treatment" as a codeword for "cheating". I'm saying "special treatment" in that sometimes the group is compromised of individuals with different wants (and/or needs). For example, one guy wants the gory-fest of hack-n-slash, the next wants to make his mark on the game world, and a third wants to just role-play character drama.

In no way did I say "special treatment" was favoritism, so the next time you are tempted to go off half-cocked, could you please ask for clarification? Thank you.



C'mon. You can only possibly get that meaning by reading half the sentence.

I knew what you meant, and you knew that I knew what you meant.

But saying "player" when you mean "character" is sloppy.

That is all.

(Like I said - minor nitpick. As in, not that big a deal.)

[Tyndmyr]

:smallsigh:

Tyndmyr, please stop reading things into my posts.

I'm not saying "special treatment" as a codeword for "cheating". I'm saying "special treatment" in that sometimes the group is compromised of individuals with different wants (and/or needs). For example, one guy wants the gory-fest of hack-n-slash, the next wants to make his mark on the game world, and a third wants to just role-play character drama.

In no way did I say "special treatment" was favoritism, so the next time you are tempted to go off half-cocked, could you please ask for clarification? Thank you.

Er, she gets upset and stops gameplay whenever she dies. So...you fudge rolls so she never dies.

So, the special treatment you are giving her is cheating, as we've been using the word in this thread. I don't think this is the equivalent of character drama. And one player being effectively immortal because she gets upset when she's not certainly sounds like favoritism.

[Umael]

So, you're left with the following choice - accomodate the S.O. to keep the Player or don't game with either. Here, Umael has chosen to keep gaming with the Player and it seems like he and his group are willing to pay the "cost" associated with this. It's not a choice to be criticized in the abstract - it's pragmatism, pure and simple.

Thank you, OH. I think you got the idea perfectly.

For the record, she does not hold the group hostage. We are the others who approach her and convince her to play THIS game, which she doesn't care for, but it is better than being excluded and being felt ignored. She isn't asking anyone to play with kid gloves with her or treat her different - she just really hates creating characters and is horrible about opening up and communicating what is bothering her. Put those flaws aside and she's okay. Like I said, low maintenance, doesn't contribute a lot, but doesn't ask a lot either.

(If it matters, we tend not to play games where ressurrection is an option, nor do we play games where death is a strong possibility. So it's not like I've had ample opportunity to play amateur psychologist with her and her reactions to character death.)

[Umael]

Er, she gets upset and stops gameplay whenever she dies. So...you fudge rolls so she never dies.

So, the special treatment you are giving her is cheating, as we've been using the word in this thread. I don't think this is the equivalent of character drama. And one player being effectively immortal because she gets upset when she's not certainly sounds like favoritism.

Tyndmyr - please drop it.

You are going off a semi-blind perception of her and her interactions, as well as that of our gaming group.

You've been making assumptions left and right, and by the time I post to correct you, you're already off on another assumption from the last post I made.

Please. Drop it.

[Tyndmyr]

*shrug* You brought it up in the context of a reason for cheating.

"If she stumbles into the line of fire, I would avoid killing her character. Way, way, way too messy."

You can defend it if you think it is a valid reason for cheating, and explain why. Or, if you're not interested/don't think it is one, you could take that route too. But tossing out a reason, then telling others not to discuss it is a bit odd in a discussion forum, isn't it?

[Umael]

But tossing out a reason, then telling others not to discuss it is a bit odd in a discussion forum, isn't it?

In this case, no.

I am asking you not to continue it because you keep on making assumptions and blowing things out of proportion. If we cannot communicate effectively in regards to something, I don't think we should waste our time trying.

[Ashiel]

In this case, no.

I am asking you not to continue it because you keep on making assumptions and blowing things out of proportion. If we cannot communicate effectively in regards to something, I don't think we should waste our time trying.

I tend to agree with Tyndmyr. Every one of your posts I read made her sound like a bad apple in an otherwise good gaming group; so while we might not be seeing the whole picture, we are seeing what you're showing us; which makes it less than blindness and more "going on what you got".

This is what your example sounds like to me.
1) I have a player who pouts/sulks when her character dies, and causes problems if I don't cheat to keep her PC alive.
2) I make special considerations - including but not limited to - cheating the dice to keep her PC alive.
3) I don't want to upset her because she's the Significant Other of another player in the party and getting her back into the game can be a hassle.
4) I don't cheat and keep everyone alive because they don't possess these personality flaws; so I'm cheating and favoring a problem player.

That's a summary what it sounded like to me, reading over your posts; so I can't really blame Tyndmyr for reacting as such.

In that sort of situation I would expect her to grow up. People are supposed to learn that pouting doesn't get you your way, and they should have probably learned it before the age of 7, or at the very least their teens. If this were me I'd let 'em suck it up, build a bridge and get over it.

I have a problem player like that too from time to time. He comes to my games and has heavily optimized characters who borderline on munchkin-like, who are often some of the first characters to die - not because I kill them, but because in his quest for ever more ways to kill or ruin his opponents he tends to forget stuff like getting his AC higher than 10 at level 14 as a caster. He even recognizes when his character is in deep bantha poo-doo. I had a game where a group of characters (level 14+) were traversing a tower controlled by a powerful necromancer and her servants. The party was beset by shadows (CR 3) from the floor rising into the room they were in. He realized that his character had 4 shadows in range to hit him and his 10 AC; and pleaded for them to forget about his character and go attack someone else; since he also had a strength of 8. Shadows ended up attacking him anyway (rolling 9 points of Str damage and killing the PC).

He didn't like it, and even left the room for a little while; but he came back. He continues to come back. If I run a game, he's always ready to jump back into it. Other GMs bemoaned his presence because he didn't RP with the other parties and only RPed with NPCs, whined when his character died, or got diseased, or suffered ability damage, or got hit with a charm or dominate effect, etc, etc. All of that's just about weeded out by just making him suck it up and grow up. :smallamused:

[Umael]

I tend to agree with Tyndmyr.

:smallsigh:

Look, I noticed your assumptions. I also note that you skipped over some of the other qualities about her that I mentioned, and you also jumped to a few conclusions from information that wasn't there (but you filled in).

She's a low maintenance player.
We have to convince her to get involved in the game.
Our games don't have ressurrection and don't have a high chance of death.
She never asked for any of us to treat her with kid gloves.

Now, given this information (again), I would hope that it would revise your estimate of her and my gaming group.

Apparently, it does not.

It feels like whatever reason I give, Tyndmyr and you already have your mind made up about what kind of person she is, what exactly I am doing, and why I am doing it.

{Scrubbed}

[Mnemnosyne]

Note: Responding to the original post, I have yet to read through the entire thread, which I will probably do later and then make any other comments on replies.

I would say it seriously depends on the situation. Was it a choice or decision by the players that led them to be wiped out? If so, then they die. End of story. If their choices and actions led them to that conclusion, such as if they made poor tactical decisions in the fight, then they must bear the consequences of their own actions. To do any less is to take away their ability to affect their own fate, and if they see through your ruse even once, it will diminish the fun in this game and every future campaign you have with them, because they will always suspect, when they have a close call, that they didn't really come through it because they were that good, they came through it because you cheated in their favor.

On the other hand, if the situation comes about entirely because you made a mistake (either in deciding which monster to throw at them or something else) then it might be appropriate to cheat in their favor. But even then in my eyes it's a good idea to do something other than just fudging the roll, unless that's the only option remaining. Have the enemy make a tactical blunder if it's on the verge of wiping them out, or have something random happen. Just enough to give them a chance. Don't make it free. Give them the opportunity to get away. If they almost died, then that's the best they should hope for - immediately escaping the situation. If you give them the opportunity to get away, they can then take it or not, and it's their decision.

[Ashiel]

:smallsigh:

Look, I noticed your assumptions. I also note that you skipped over some of the other qualities about her that I mentioned, and you also jumped to a few conclusions from information that wasn't there (but you filled in).

She's a low maintenance player.
We have to convince her to get involved in the game.
Our games don't have ressurrection and don't have a high chance of death.
She never asked for any of us to treat her with kid gloves.

Now, given this information (again), I would hope that it would revise your estimate of her and my gaming group.

Apparently, it does not.

It feels like whatever reason I give, Tyndmyr and you already have your mind made up about what kind of person she is, what exactly I am doing, and why I am doing it.

{Scrubbed}

Once again. I'm merely going by what you posted. My open mindedness has little to do with it, and that is an assumption. She's a low maintainence, she has to be convinced to get involved - which sounds to me like she doesn't really want to play but that's just an observation on limited information - and she hasn't asked to be treated with kid gloves despite being in a group that doesn't have resurrection, and has a low (no?) mortality rate.

I'm not really getting how this is different. Are you saying it is convenient to have her play, and thus favor her? Are you saying that she's a really great person otherwise so you favor her? Are you saying she sulks and it gets messy, so you favor her (actually, you already said this)? Exactly what is it I'm missing? :smallconfused:

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm not really getting how this is different. Are you saying it is convenient to have her play, and thus favor her? Are you saying that she's a really great person otherwise so you favor her? Are you saying she sulks and it gets messy, so you favor her (actually, you already said this)? Exactly what is it I'm missing? :smallconfused:
For the love of...

Here. Bullet points.
(1) Player Awesome and Player Problem are married.
(2) Umael wants to game with Player Awesome.
(3) Player Awesome will not play without Player Problem.
(4) Player Problem is not a problem unless her character dies.

Therefore, in order to keep the game running smoothly, Umael makes sure that Player Problem's characters do not die. Wisely, he does this by keeping the action focused away from her and only cheats when all else fails.
But really, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand. Umael has explained that he only cheats in limited circumstances; this is one of those circumstances and these are his reasons. There's not much left to explain, nor is Umael suggesting other people should generalize from his particular situation.

[Shatteredtower]

Exactly what is it I'm missing? :smallconfused:

Umael's goals and priorities, as Oracle Hunter pointed out. There is an easy way to avoid an unnecessary hassle that does no one at the table any favours, and it lets the GM concentrate on players who appreciate the challenge more.

Some call it cheating. I look at it and remember one of Robert A. Heinlein's observations about how often mature wisdom looks similar to being too damned tired.

Ideally, Umael will figure out how to engage this player more fully in the game, but unless that happens, harmony doesn't cost anyone anything. Really, the other players are in a position of finding out that one of them only came for the tea, not the cake, leaving more cake for them.

So, if the players do not feel cheated by the arrangement, there is no cheating involved here.

[Ashiel]

For the love of...

Here. Bullet points.
(1) Player Awesome and Player Problem are married.
(2) Umael wants to game with Player Awesome.
(3) Player Awesome will not play without Player Problem.
(4) Player Problem is not a problem unless her character dies.

Therefore, in order to keep the game running smoothly, Umael makes sure that Player Problem's characters do not die. Wisely, he does this by keeping the action focused away from her and only cheats when all else fails.

But really, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand. Umael has explained that he only cheats in limited circumstances; this is one of those circumstances and these are his reasons. There's not much left to explain, nor is Umael suggesting other people should generalize from his particular situation.
Emphasis mine.

Hence my confusion. You'll notice that in my previous post I said:

Every one of your posts I read made her sound like a bad apple in an otherwise good gaming group; so while we might not be seeing the whole picture, we are seeing what you're showing us; which makes it less than blindness and more "going on what you got".

This is what your example sounds like to me.
1) I have a player who pouts/sulks when her character dies, and causes problems if I don't cheat to keep her PC alive.
2) I make special considerations - including but not limited to - cheating the dice to keep her PC alive.
3) I don't want to upset her because she's the Significant Other of another player in the party and getting her back into the game can be a hassle.
4) I don't cheat and keep everyone alive because they don't possess these personality flaws; so I'm cheating and favoring a problem player.

That's a summary what it sounded like to me, reading over your posts; so I can't really blame Tyndmyr for reacting as such.
Emphasis Mine.

To which he responded:

Look, I noticed your assumptions. I also note that you skipped over some of the other qualities about her that I mentioned, and you also jumped to a few conclusions from information that wasn't there (but you filled in).

She's a low maintenance player.
We have to convince her to get involved in the game.
Our games don't have ressurrection and don't have a high chance of death.
She never asked for any of us to treat her with kid gloves.

Now, given this information (again), I would hope that it would revise your estimate of her and my gaming group.

{Scrubbed}
Emphasis mine.

I went on to respond:

Once again. I'm merely going by what you posted. My open mindedness has little to do with it, and that is an assumption. She's a low maintainence, she has to be convinced to get involved - which sounds to me like she doesn't really want to play but that's just an observation on limited information - and she hasn't asked to be treated with kid gloves despite being in a group that doesn't have resurrection, and has a low (no?) mortality rate.

I'm not really getting how this is different. Are you saying it is convenient to have her play, and thus favor her? Are you saying that she's a really great person otherwise so you favor her? Are you saying she sulks and it gets messy, so you favor her (actually, you already said this)? Exactly what is it I'm missing?

As I noted in the first post, which addressed what Umael had wrote about the problem which was the reason behind cheating, he said my notes on the situation - such as her significant other aspect - were off base. So I wanted to know what is on base. I didn't see where what I had wrote was different; but I was getting called close minded, dishonest with myself, and so forth; and frankly that kinda ticks me off. I did nothing but stand of for Tydamyr who was evaluating the case that he brought up as a point for a topic about cheating.

Even your post when you go "Oh for the love of..." "Bullet points!", your list is pretty much like mine and includes the significant other notation. Umael said I had made a bunch of assumptions and jumped to conclusions, so I wanted clarification. I wanted to know what exactly caused him to favor her over the rest of the players; which he never actually answered. He goes off about "you don't know what kind of person she is" and "I would hope that it would revise your estimate of her and my gaming group. Apparently, it does not".

I have no estimate of Umael's gaming group. That's far too personal than this conversation is. I was talking about what he presented. I don't know her or Umael's gaming group from the guys down the street; so complaining that I don't know how she is as a person and likely will never (I don't know her). All I know is somebody (Umael) brought it (her) up as an example, citing the problematic things about her as a player as a point in a discussion and/or debate; and then started telling Tydamyr to stop talking about it.

I didn't do anything.
So back off.

[Umael]

I didn't do anything.
So back off.

Whoa!

Ease off there.

Look, given what all I wrote, the only thing I feel I did wrong in regards to this player is probably misrepresent her. Let's try it this way.

We use dice to generate our character's stats. No, we do not use the point-buy system, so forget it.

When we roll, we use four dice, keeping the top three. Except for her.

She rolls six dice, keeping the top three.

By definition, she gets special treatment. From everyone.

Why?

Her luck is just that bad.

If anything, I understate how bad her luck is. I recall once her rolling eight dice to actually get a character whose attributes compared to the attributes of the rest of our characters.

[dsmiles]

Ideally, Umael will figure out how to engage this player more fully in the game, but unless that happens, harmony doesn't cost anyone anything. Really, the other players are in a position of finding out that one of them only came for the tea, not the cake, leaving more cake for them.

That one person must have already figured out that the cake is a lie.:smallcool:

[Tyndmyr]

Whoa!

Ease off there.

Look, given what all I wrote, the only thing I feel I did wrong in regards to this player is probably misrepresent her. Let's try it this way.

We use dice to generate our character's stats. No, we do not use the point-buy system, so forget it.

When we roll, we use four dice, keeping the top three. Except for her.

She rolls six dice, keeping the top three.

By definition, she gets special treatment. From everyone.

Why?

Her luck is just that bad.

If anything, I understate how bad her luck is. I recall once her rolling eight dice to actually get a character whose attributes compared to the attributes of the rest of our characters.

*shrug* If the goal is to get characters with roughly equal stats, perhaps a purely roll method isn't the best way to get there?

Point buy isn't bad for equal stats. If the "all stats are equal" thing bugs you, just flip a coin to see if each stat should get a +1 to it after a slightly lower point buy. Half the stats are now odd.

[Killer Angel]

Just to cut the particular discussion


It's a social game. If you're there, play it for entertainment, and without spoiling the entertainment of those with you.

So, given that is a SOCIAL game, please tell me why cannot we accept the social interaction of peoples in Umael's group, including the problematic player, and live with it?
We are discussing DMs cheating for reasons in play.
If they cheat for reasons outside the game, and those reasons are justified and approved by all the players, we really should accept that.

[Ashiel]

Whoa!

Ease off there.

Look, given what all I wrote, the only thing I feel I did wrong in regards to this player is probably misrepresent her. Let's try it this way.

We use dice to generate our character's stats. No, we do not use the point-buy system, so forget it.

When we roll, we use four dice, keeping the top three. Except for her.

She rolls six dice, keeping the top three.

By definition, she gets special treatment. From everyone.

Why?

Her luck is just that bad.

If anything, I understate how bad her luck is. I recall once her rolling eight dice to actually get a character whose attributes compared to the attributes of the rest of our characters.

Fair enough man. :smallsmile:
By the way, have you ever tried the re-roll 1s and 2s method? My group has used it many times (we're currently using Pathfinder point buy) and while it often results in slightly stronger characters it takes your bad luck and turns it around.

Basically, everytime you roll a 1 or 2 during ability score generation, you re-roll that die until you get a 3 or higher. This generates scores between 9-18 before racial modifiers; so you don't have to worry about a character with a 3 intelligence or strength or whatever.

Thought I'd mention it. :smallsmile:

[Caphi]

Fair enough man. :smallsmile:
By the way, have you ever tried the re-roll 1s and 2s method? My group has used it many times (we're currently using Pathfinder point buy) and while it often results in slightly stronger characters it takes your bad luck and turns it around.

Basically, everytime you roll a 1 or 2 during ability score generation, you re-roll that die until you get a 3 or higher. This generates scores between 9-18 before racial modifiers; so you don't have to worry about a character with a 3 intelligence or strength or whatever.

Thought I'd mention it. :smallsmile:

Or you could roll 3d4+6, which is exactly the same probability distribution with less time wasted.

[The Big Dice]

Or you could roll 3d4+6, which is exactly the same probability distribution with less time wasted.

I've seen 2d6+6 used to generate stats. I've also seen 20d20 and pick the best 6 being used. But I came to hate random rolls when I saw one player regularly roll nothing lower than a 15 for his stats, while another rolled nothing higher than a 13. And this happend in several different campaigns with the same players. Luck of the dice once again affecting one person's fun at the expense of another's.

[Tyndmyr]

That's why I use point buy now. As a player, I personally don't mind rolling stats, because I have no problems optimizing away a bad roll or three. For some people, some bad rolling will entirely screw up their character concept. You're also nearly guaranteed to have one player with significantly better scores than another.

At a minimum, a mixed system, with a bit of randomness along with a bit of point buy works out decently well. I've used a couple different ones.

[Caphi]

I've seen 2d6+6 used to generate stats. I've also seen 20d20 and pick the best 6 being used. But I came to hate random rolls when I saw one player regularly roll nothing lower than a 15 for his stats, while another rolled nothing higher than a 13. And this happend in several different campaigns with the same players. Luck of the dice once again affecting one person's fun at the expense of another's.

I hate rolling too. We've been using pointbuy and I won't go back to dice. I'm just pointing out there's a more efficient way to get exactly the same statistical distribution.

[Kylarra]

When I used to play 3.5, I'd use a rolling or pointbuy system. I forget the exact specs but it was something like 5b3 in order, swap two, or 32 pt buy, defaulting to the pointbuy if your total modifier was below a certain point.

[Killer Angel]

With AD&D, I loved to roll 4d6, discarding the lower dice.
With 3.5, i favour point buy, with different amounts of points, depending ot the different tiers of the character's class.

[dsmiles]

4d6 drop lowest, or 3d6 in order if I'm feeling a bit evil. :smalltongue:

[Amphetryon]

3d4 + 6 with a 29 point fallback if the dice hate you. :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

When I used to play 3.5, I'd use a rolling or pointbuy system. I forget the exact specs but it was something like 5b3 in order, swap two, or 32 pt buy, defaulting to the pointbuy if your total modifier was below a certain point.

Ah, I've used that one too. It's nice. Provides a bit of variety, without completely screwing anyone up.

[Shatteredtower]

In 3.5, I rolled abilities for special NPCs, then adjusted the results by shifting points around until I'd a close approximation of the point by. It helped guide the creation process to make more distinct individuals, without always having to reach for the prestige listings.

See? The dice are just guides, not rulers. :smallwink:


That one person must have already figured out that the cake is a lie.:smallcool:

Well played.

[tcrudisi]

I'm not a fan of rolling. Basically, two of the players always end up with no stat less than 15 (and usually two or three 18's) whereas myself and another player rarely get a stat over 13.

And to get this back on track... it always makes me wonder if they are "cheating." The answer? Yeah, they have to be. And this is why I don't play in games that they run.

Further proof they are cheating? When they throw a fireball, they roll average on the d6's. You can't tell me that you never roll lower than a 15 for stat generation, yet on a 10d6 fireball you do 30-40 damage. Yeah, right.

The other guy that rolls poorly got tired of the huge discrepancy and started telling people to just "pick your own stats, all 18's will get you shot." So we started showing up with 18, 18, 18, 16, 16, 16. It worked and we were all equal.

I also stopped using the dice roll method and just told players, "use the point buy." They friggin' hate it since their stats are obviously more "normal".

[Ridureyu]

I would do whatever makes the game the most interesting and genuinely fun.

[Psyx]

I hate tropes. They turn everything into "Oh its just a..." and I find that approach takes the fun out of things.


Erm... but the point of tropes is that you can't avoid them. Every story anyone will ever tell has -essentially- already been told. Tropes are a handy way for describing plot in very simple terms. I saves a lot of faffing around at script-writer's meetings.



Please don't tell me you actually had a player die at one your games.

Sure I did. Everyone immediately turned out his pockets and took his stuff.



Yes, it's frustrating. No, she's not the ideal player.

I'm just not keen on negative reinforcement. It tends to annoy the other players, too.
I tend to prefer people to generate new characters between sessions, if someone is struggling for a character idea.
I tend to finish off the encounter or whatever, and then -if they are sitting there blankly- we'll play cards or something for the rest of the evening. It lightens the mood and sometimes an innocent conversational topic will spark a character idea.

I sympathise that you have a huffy player sometimes. It's a lot worse when they are part of a 'set' for some reason.



He didn't like it, and even left the room for a little while; but he came back.

See: Players who play heavily optimised characters in my games don't even get the little 'fudge' leeway that I might give others who have more 'sensible' characters. I consider it fair handicapping ;)
If you play ruthlessly by the rules, to the point of munchkining, then you should expect to be ruthlessly killed by them.


I tend to prefer random rolling for stats. And start again if you get an average result. Some people do get great stats: Lucky them. I just find that point buy characters are often honed killing machines, whereas an element of chance seems to make players work with what they've got more. There's really no such thing as 'bad luck' in the long-term as regards dice: It always evens out in the end... unless they're cheating.

[The Big Dice]

Erm... but the point of tropes is that you can't avoid them. Every story anyone will ever tell has -essentially- already been told. Tropes are a handy way for describing plot in very simple terms. I saves a lot of faffing around at script-writer's meetings.
The point of tropes is that it reduces story elements and plot devices to "It's just a Space Whale Aesop." Which are words I am absolutely certain never once got used in any script meetings for Star Trek IV. Or Buffy. Or Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.


See: Players who play heavily optimised characters in my games don't even get the little 'fudge' leeway that I might give others who have more 'sensible' characters. I consider it fair handicapping ;)
If you play ruthlessly by the rules, to the point of munchkining, then you should expect to be ruthlessly killed by them.
Which then begs the obvious question of, what happens if you don't play ruthlessly by the rules? You get treated in a more lenient way? Isn't that a concrete example of favouritism in action? "Play by these standards and I'll be nicer to you than if you play by those ones."


I tend to prefer random rolling for stats. And start again if you get an average result. Some people do get great stats: Lucky them. I just find that point buy characters are often honed killing machines, whereas an element of chance seems to make players work with what they've got more. There's really no such thing as 'bad luck' in the long-term as regards dice: It always evens out in the end... unless they're cheating.
I'm pretty sure that rolling over and over again until you beat the averages isn't worth the time it takes. People will roll over and over and over again until they get a combuination of rolls that is as near to everything being 18 as they can get.

You may as well just use a points buy. It saves the hour or two of rolling dice before making a character.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm pretty sure that rolling over and over again until you beat the averages isn't worth the time it takes. People will roll over and over and over again until they get a combuination of rolls that is as near to everything being 18 as they can get.

You may as well just use a points buy. It saves the hour or two of rolling dice before making a character.

Ah, I've seen the "reroll as much as you like" in action, as well as "you can reroll up to x times, but then you're stuck with it". People will naturally try to get the best stats possible. Even if they aren't good at optimizing, or it's not particularly important to do so.

I agree, waste of a lotta time.

[Caphi]

The point of tropes is that it reduces story elements and plot devices to "It's just a Space Whale Aesop." Which are words I am absolutely certain never once got used in any script meetings for Star Trek IV. Or Buffy. Or Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

In the same way that you can reduce your cell phone to "just a chip and a battery and an antenna" and so on. It doesn't make the phone stop working. It just describes the parts in the phone that make it work.

[Psyx]

The point of tropes is that it reduces story elements and plot devices to "It's just a Space Whale Aesop." Which are words I am absolutely certain never once got used in any script meetings for Star Trek IV. Or Buffy. Or Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

But plot elements ARE just simple tools. Naming them saves time. It's nothing new: Chekov's Gun has been kicked around as a name for the last 100 years; and the actual plot device can be seen right back in Classical Greek poetry. 'TV Tropes' puts a lot of ridiculous names out there for those elements, but the occur everywhere and... they work as plot elements.

You'd be quite surprised exactly what gets said in scripting/writers meetings. Tropes are a standard point of reference that writers are familiar with. Carpenters don't waste time saying 'pass me the wooden tool with the blade that we use for shaving off the excess wood and making it nice and smooth', after all.




Which then begs the obvious question of, what happens if you don't play ruthlessly by the rules? You get treated in a more lenient way? Isn't that a concrete example of favouritism in action? "Play by these standards and I'll be nicer to you than if you play by those ones."


I'd be playing favourites if I didn't do something about it, in exactly the same way that inviting Mr. Bolt to an under 12's 100m race WOULD be showing favouritism if he wasn't handicapped in some manner.

I like to point out to players if their new character is too blaggy for the game. I seldom say 'No' but I do try to tell them I would rather the character wasn't played at my table, and I tell them why. Then they have a choice of if they want to play the character or not.

If a player is being a pain in the backside and outshining everyone else because of his blaggy encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules, and massively optimised character then they are trying to give themselves an advantage over the other players, and probably impacting their enjoyment of the game. I'm not playing favourites: I'm levelling the playing field and ensuring that the people with 'normal' characters have the same chance of surviving as those who are being munchkinlike.





I'm pretty sure that rolling over and over again until you beat the averages isn't worth the time it takes. People will roll over and over and over again until they get a combuination of rolls that is as near to everything being 18 as they can get.

I never said that I allowed them to do that. If you fail to get over average, you can re-roll from scratch until you do. Getting a little over average is NOT a row of 18s. Getting a little over average is getting a little over average.
Like I say: I roll up characters with my players. They don't cheat, and an 18 is a cause for celebration. You'd be surprised how much lower stats everyone gets if they roll dice under the GM's nose...

[Kylarra]

Ah, I've seen the "reroll as much as you like" in action, as well as "you can reroll up to x times, but then you're stuck with it". People will naturally try to get the best stats possible. Even if they aren't good at optimizing, or it's not particularly important to do so.

I agree, waste of a lotta time.S'why we give the pointbuy right after. You get all the joys of rolling for your stats, and if you rolled badly, well that pointbuy is still there. Maybe a little less than the luckier people, but hey, still good.

[tcrudisi]

I'd be playing favourites if I didn't do something about it, in exactly the same way that inviting Mr. Bolt to an under 12's 100m race WOULD be showing favouritism if he wasn't handicapped in some manner.

Uhh, you Bolt analogy doesn't fit.


1. the favoring of one person or group over others with equal claims
2. the practice of giving special treatment to a person or group

Since he does not have an equal claim in your analogy (racing against under 12's), I don't think the analogy fits.

So let's change it: We invite Mr. Bolt to a 100m race. We are obviously showing favoritism because if he wasn't handicapped in some manner.

That... doesn't work. It's obvious that if you handicap him, you are showing favoritism to the rest of the racers. It's not an equal claim at that point. In the case of your munchkins or optimizers, they are coming to the table with the same rules as everyone else. By handicapping them, you are showing the rest of the party favoritism. I understand why you do it, just as I understand why a DM will occasionally fudge a dice; I just do not agree with it any more.

[Alaesor]

A few thoughts on this as a player, on stories, and on RPGs as stories.

I haven't had many opportunities to DM, mainly because I don't actually own any RPG tabletop games. However, I can speak from a player's perspective. And I'm not a D&D veteran - the main RPG games I've played have been a highly customized version of HeroQuest and Battlestations...but I think the principle applies.

My heroquest DM annoys me sometimes. Although I don't think it's ever occurred to him to roll dice behind a screen, we sometimes don't know what he's rolling FOR. Perhaps because of this, I doubt he fudges, even on those occasions when we don't know the reason for the result. If he rolls, I think I believe he rolls for a reason. Even so, I have found that he tends to penalize success and innovation. On one occasion, he said "You found a way to cheat my system. Again." Bear in mind, I was keeping all the rules as they were stated, and the circumstance in which he said that, what I pointed out WAS allowed. But then, the one time I managed to have a success really worth getting excited over, he rendered it moot with (what I thought) was an arbitrary decision (which I should have expected since it gave the NPCs an advantage) aimed directly at nullifying my good fortune. He didn't fudge my dice-roll, he just nulled it. He's not an awful GM, but I do feel that the game would be more fun if he did more to encourage creative thinking rather than constantly "level the playing field" when someone does something that gives them an advantage.

He does share one thing, I think, with my Battlestations DM that I approve of. The campaigns they give us are free-form, as certain notables here have advocated to a degree. There's not a TON of starting preparation done on their parts - usually that's done as we gather and on the fly. They haven't plotted out the end result, since they react to what we'll do. For example, in my last game of battle stations, I talked to a man in a random escape pod who I planned to help - we received the hail, and answered. Later, I noticed a few fighters attacking a freighter, and thought I'd use that opportunity to call for reinforcements (just in case I'd need them). My reinforcements ignored me until they were past being useful, and between one thing and another I didn't get a chance to follow up on the escape pod lead, but my contact with the freighter DID draw the attention of the fighters to me, which adjusted the entire direction of the mission. The heroquest stories are similar, determined by playing by the rules, the dice results, and the unpredictable reactions of players to POTENTIAL plot elements...which both GMs have the good sense to go with. This doesn't affect their powers as GMs since they can always throw in this or that plot element to complicate or what-not. When we decide to do something, it has an effect...and when we throw the dice, the results have meaning. It's not a binary yes/no as to whether the campaign proceeds or fails - it's more akin to coming to a fork in the road and choosing a path partly because of our own wishes and partly because one of the roads gets washed out by a natural 1. (I will mention that there are luck points for heroes that allow rerolls in battlestations.)

As a PLAYER, after the game, I'll often send out an e-mail to the other participants, telling the story that occurred strictly from my character's in-game perspective. It's the comic failures from the natural one (As I began to search the forest, a branch smacked me in the face) to the heroic saves - the tough battles that last several rounds as well as the easy encounters - that make it a story worth hearing. And I imagine it's more fun for the GM as well - they too get to hear a story they didn't make up. Sure, they made up the start, but each of us made our contribution, with our character's backstory, their contributions, and their trials and triumphs - and even the DICE made their contribution to a story the GM couldn't have made up in their greatest moments of inspiration. In such an environment, the death of a character who lived well is NEVER pointless. Even the tragedy of a failure is meaningful, and a death-in-success isn't even tragic.

Which brings me to the subject of character turn-over in stories. By far the most well-written book series I've ever read is Song of Ice and Fire, by George R. R. Martin. For those who aren't familiar with it, main characters in THAT book die frequently. They aren't even decoy heroes. There is quite literally no way to judge from someone's contribution how long they'll live. But with proper development, again, the deaths are NEVER "Pointless." I don't mean "There are no pointless deaths" to say that the hero never gets over-run by minions (or whatever). I mean, whatever the cause of death, it's impossible to call it anti-climatic or stupid or lame. A character's death is only as lame as his life.

It's the process of letting the dice fall where they may, and letting those fortunes and challenges be added to the other obstacles of the goals and wishes of the other characters you're working with, and responding to those, that makes a fun story. The dice and miscellaneous POTENTIAL plot elements keep it unpredictable, whereas the desire of all characters to accomplish their personal goals and do well keeps it interesting. To those GMs who struggle to direct their heroes to a particular end goal, I might suggest trying to let go of the end goal, and seeing where vicissitude of fate takes you. You might be pleasantly surprised.