PDA

View Full Version : Cheating the end of your game?



Balain
2011-03-30, 09:18 PM
Okay I know there has been posts about this. But For some reason I thought I would start up another one. I was reading a post about "rule Zero" and if the GM cheats so can the players and the game falls apart or something.

In our group the gm cheats a little here and there. A bad roll is good, a good roll is bad. Once in awhile. Our players also cheat here and there. "oh look a critical" when he rolled a 17 or "Yeah using such and such a rule from whatever book with this item from that book I can totally do that"

If we catch someone cheating we call them on it and they re-roll or what have you. Normally none of us cheats so bad to ruin the game for each other and we all have fun still.

holywhippet
2011-03-30, 09:24 PM
Nobody I've played with has ever cheated full out per se. At worst I've seen people misremember rules - but whatever decision was made stands and we know better for next time.

dsmiles
2011-03-31, 04:40 AM
Really, according to the DMG, the DM can't cheat. It says so right in the book. I'm AFB, so I can't quote you the page number, but it's there.

As far as players cheating, I don't have to worry about it. I only game with mature adults. Well...as mature as gamers ever get...:smalltongue:

Iceforge
2011-03-31, 05:02 AM
I usually only cheat to make myself worse if I feel the encounter is easy enough that a little failure from me doesn't negatively affect my team and I feel my character is kind of outshining others.

EDIT: Above is when Im a player, and actually not cheating, as I think somewhere says you can purposefully lower your own roll if you want, or maybe that you can choose to fail if you so desire, so if I say I choose to fail or lie about what my die said, I cant see the big difference.

As a GM, I will "cheat" more often

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 05:11 AM
I don't cheat in any regard, as a player or as a DM. No "just warming up the dice" or any of that. If I roll poorly, eh...joke about it and move on. It's not that important. Sometimes, a string of unusually terrible luck can even be hilarious.

I've caught other people cheating, and called them out on it before. One player, I still watch pretty closely in case he slips back into his bad old habits. He still occasionally tries things like leaving a feat "unpicked" and picking it in combat.

In general, though, cheating is pretty easy to detect. The scooping up a die quickly before others can see it...the rolling it slightly as they move the die in front of them, etc. I've never had baked dice come up, but we did test a bunch once out of curiosity to see if any of our lucky or unlucky dice really were weighted.

Kumori
2011-03-31, 05:17 AM
The closest thing I do to cheating as a player is sometimes when I roll a natural 1 I'll just announce that I missed instead of asking for the critical fumble. I hate those things...

dsmiles
2011-03-31, 06:21 AM
I don't cheat in any regard, as a player or as a DM. No "just warming up the dice" or any of that. If I roll poorly, eh...joke about it and move on. It's not that important. Sometimes, a string of unusually terrible luck can even be hilarious.

See? Mature adults don't cheat.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 06:27 AM
See? Mature adults don't cheat.

Well, I'm an adult, anyhow. =)

In the end though, cheating just isn't satisfying. Consider video game cheats as an example. Sure, you can turn on god mode, and it's entertaining for about...ooh, five minutes. Then you turn the game off, and never play it again since it stops being interesting or challenging.

Malevolence
2011-03-31, 08:04 AM
If the DM cheats, I walk.

If a player cheats, and I'm the DM I call them on it, and if they don't stop they can walk out or be thrown out.

If a player cheats, and I'm a player I point it out, and if they aren't made to stop, and actually do so I walk.

Obviously, doing any cheating myself is out of the question. Yes, sometimes that means 75% of my rolls are 5 or less on a D20. That's what optimization is for.

Grogmir
2011-03-31, 08:29 AM
"If the DM cheats, I walk."

In DnD at least - a DM can't cheat. We fudge :smallamused:

If I thought the DM was doing so for negative reasons, either in game or for personal reasons against a player than that would annoy me.

But most of the time I trust our DMs (and they trust me) that we are doing it for the good of the encounter / game.

Players cheating really pee's me off though - I don't game with a guy because of this. He see's it as 'helping the team' and 'i'm only rerolling' for me, as players the rules are the ONE limit to what you can do, and what story will unfold, without them you're just writing story how you want it.

dsmiles
2011-03-31, 08:31 AM
If the DM cheats, I walk.
You realize, of course, that by the definition given in the DMG, the DM can't cheat. (Not trying to start that argument again, just pointing it out for those listening in at home.)

Sarco_Phage
2011-03-31, 08:33 AM
If the DM cheats, I walk.

If a player cheats, and I'm the DM I call them on it, and if they don't stop they can walk out or be thrown out.

If a player cheats, and I'm a player I point it out, and if they aren't made to stop, and actually do so I walk.

Obviously, doing any cheating myself is out of the question. Yes, sometimes that means 75% of my rolls are 5 or less on a D20. That's what optimization is for.

Man, you take your gaming way too seriously.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 08:34 AM
You realize, of course, that by the definition given in the DMG, the DM can't cheat. (Not trying to start that argument again, just pointing it out for those listening in at home.)

The DMG says that, sure. I wouldn't apply that to all games though...or even all games of D&D. Most games are, in practice, governed by a social contract, and players can feel cheated by actions that might even be entirely legal.

That said, I view fudging as equivalent to cheating. They have similar effects on the game, and I dislike them all. I don't immediately walk the first time I see it in a game(either by GM or player), but I do make it known that I have a strong preference against it, and won't hesitate to call out cheaters.

LansXero
2011-03-31, 08:35 AM
You realize, of course, that by the definition given in the DMG, the DM can't cheat. (Not trying to start that argument again, just pointing it out for those listening in at home.)

If you roll in the open like me, its trickier :P

I dont fudge, and I expect other DMs under who I play (not that there have been many) to not fudge either. If I realize they are doing so, I complain and if It keeps happening (or worse, they start bragging, like: "heh you guys only made it because I fudged, otherwise you were toast") Id walk too.

If I catch a player cheating (and it would be pretty hard, considering all rolls are made in the open in plain sight of everyone) Ill call them out on it once, if they keep it up its disrespectful to me and the rest of players, so Id ask them again harsher. Third strike? Out.

dsmiles
2011-03-31, 08:37 AM
Most games are, in practice, governed by a social contract, and players can feel cheated by actions that might even be entirely legal.I'm not disagreeing. Social contracts in the gaming group are far more important than what any books say. I was just pointing out that it isn't, technically, cheating.

EDIT:
If you roll in the open like me, its trickier :P

I dont fudge, and I expect other DMs under who I play (not that there have been many) to not fudge either. If I realize they are doing so, I complain and if It keeps happening (or worse, they start bragging, like: "heh you guys only made it because I fudged, otherwise you were toast") Id walk too.

I roll behind a screen, and I do fudge (but only if it benefits the story that the players are telling). To hell with the plot I wrote, the players generally come up with better stuff, and I don't want them to have to stop mid-plotline because orc #5 TPKd the group on a lucky roll. To each his/her own, though.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 08:40 AM
I'm not disagreeing. Social contracts in the gaming group are far more important than what any books say. I was just pointing out that it isn't, technically, cheating.

That is of course, technically correct. Which is the best kind of correct.

As a general rule, I find it's much easier to not fudge in a group that allows fudging than vice versa. At most, the fudging group doesn't entirely understand why you're passing up a possible advantage.

Malevolence
2011-03-31, 08:46 AM
{Scrubbed}

dsmiles
2011-03-31, 08:47 AM
As a general rule, I find it's much easier to not fudge in a group that allows fudging than vice versa. At most, the fudging group doesn't entirely understand why you're passing up a possible advantage.I never saw it as an advantage, of course, I don't think I've ever fudged against the party, either. If the bad guys are losing, so what? If orc #5 TPKs the party because of a lucky roll, that I have a problem with. I absolutely hate random TPKs, both as a DM and a player. I prefer the "cooperative storytelling" aspect of the game rather than the "DM vs. Players" aspect.

Sarco_Phage
2011-03-31, 08:51 AM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

:smallamused:

This is not really a good tangent to start on, bro. Not cheating is a personal preference for your gaming groups, that's fine, but vitriol is unnecessary!:smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 08:55 AM
I never saw it as an advantage, of course, I don't think I've ever fudged against the party, either. If the bad guys are losing, so what? If orc #5 TPKs the party because of a lucky roll, that I have a problem with. I absolutely hate random TPKs, both as a DM and a player. I prefer the "cooperative storytelling" aspect of the game rather than the "DM vs. Players" aspect.

I've honestly never had a problem with random TPKs. They've never arisen...at least, not in D&D. Sure, I've had random deaths. I've even had TPKs. But those TPKs had very clear and logical reasons for their occurrence(please people, don't poke the sphere of annihilation. Really.) I will grant that my players have learned to run from things that are too nasty, and to plan for an escape mechanism if things go south. I agree that random TPKs are generally not a good goal...but they're fairly avoidable in most systems.

And yeah, I don't get the worry of some people that a given fight may end too quickly. It's not as if the DM is going to run out of NPCs to use.

dsmiles
2011-03-31, 09:01 AM
I've honestly never had a problem with random TPKs. They've never arisen...at least, not in D&D. Sure, I've had random deaths. I've even had TPKs. But those TPKs had very clear and logical reasons for their occurrence(please people, don't poke the sphere of annihilation. Really.) I will grant that my players have learned to run from things that are too nasty, and to plan for an escape mechanism if things go south. I agree that random TPKs are generally not a good goal...but they're fairly avoidable in most systems.

And yeah, I don't get the worry of some people that a given fight may end too quickly. It's not as if the DM is going to run out of NPCs to use.
I was actually referring to a specific instance in a game I ran. Orc #5, with 2 levels of wizard (and at EL-4 compared to the party, which had two wizards) had a string of lucky rolls, and managed to TPK the group. I swear, we just sat there looking at each other for about 5 minutes saying, "I can't believe that just happened!" Orcs #1-4 and 6 (a cleric) went down in, like, three rounds, but orc #5, crit after crit after crit (versus the party's fumble after fumble after fumble)...I still get a little shocked when I think back on it.

Quietus
2011-03-31, 09:02 AM
As a DM, I've cheated my face off so many times, because at the time I didn't understand how the system worked as well as I do now. Or, I'd go "Hey, that'd be a really neat ability, I'll base an encounter around that!", and then put it against my players who play roughly around tier5. The only time their actions are more interesting than deciding how much to power attack for on their next full attack, or where to play their fireballs, is when I give them other unique abilities just so I don't get bored running the game for them.

That being said, I haven't run a game in ... a year and a half, to two years, as I moved away from that group. And next time, I'm going to have open discourse with my group beforehand, and set the lethality level at that point. They want kid gloves, I'm okay with that, though I won't hold back in important encounters. They want brutality, I'm okay with that, too. The harsher they want things, the less I'll fudge rolls, and if they can't build characters capable of surviving, then that's their problem. They know I'll gladly help them optimize their characters to be more useful and interesting, mechanically. Thankfully, I rarely have problems with them being interesting individuals.

Vladislav
2011-03-31, 09:07 AM
But if that is a remotely unrealistic standard to anyone, at any time that means I am fully justified in being elitist. Don't worry, you're not being elitist. Just different.

Sipex
2011-03-31, 09:15 AM
As a DM I'll fudge ("cheat") when necessary but it's always in the name of making the game fun for the players and I'll never admit it when it happens because that just kills it for some players.

I do try to keep it to a minimum though.

Cyrion
2011-03-31, 09:26 AM
The only thing I ever fudge as a DM is the occasional damage roll. If I feel the need to avoid a player death, I'll drop it enough that the player has a hit point or two left and gets another action to get out of trouble. If you stick around to get hit again, well, that's a different matter.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 09:45 AM
The only thing I ever fudge as a DM is the occasional damage roll. If I feel the need to avoid a player death, I'll drop it enough that the player has a hit point or two left and gets another action to get out of trouble. If you stick around to get hit again, well, that's a different matter.

I'll admit that I tend to notice if DMs tend to drop players to similar, low, health values frequently. If this is coupled with the "how many hp do you have left?", or a pause while the DM looks up the hp number before stating it, it's pretty much a dead giveaway.

Sipex
2011-03-31, 09:47 AM
Yeah, this is why you should always have player HP, defense and save (3.5) totals written down.

edit: And also why you need to know your players. If you know a player is a number cruncher (ie: Does their best to deduce monster HP and notices patterns like that) you need to keep things sparse or fudge in places which are harder to see.

potatocubed
2011-03-31, 09:50 AM
If you roll in the open like me, its trickier :P

Yeah, I used to do my dice rolling behind a screen and fudge here and there, but these days I find it more satisfying to roll in the open.

Quite apart from anything else, it helps offset the 'GM vs. Players' mindset - if the dice says 'critical hit, you die', then it isn't my fault, and if the dice says 'flub flub flub you get to walk away from a deadly encounter with nary a scratch and a bag of loot' that works too.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 10:11 AM
Yeah, this is why you should always have player HP, defense and save (3.5) totals written down.

Eh. It's also trivial to deduce that the DM is writing things down. Especially if you ever use buffs. And again, it's easy to notice when a DM is consulting them...


edit: And also why you need to know your players. If you know a player is a number cruncher (ie: Does their best to deduce monster HP and notices patterns like that) you need to keep things sparse or fudge in places which are harder to see.

I'm a number cruncher certainly, but pattern recognition is a fairly basic skill. If the "Oh, he almost killed me" becomes at all common, players will assume it's intentional, at least at a subconscious level. I've outright heard players(when their DM wasn't around), discussing things along the lines of ignoring SoD defenses because the DM wouldn't try to kill them anyway. Well...if he never uses SoDs...they're not wrong.

I do agree that there is going to be more suspicion of DM fudging automatically when the DM uses a screen. Sure, it's possible to fudge things without a screen...but much less so.

valadil
2011-03-31, 10:25 AM
As a player I don't cheat. I don't see the point. I don't referee other players either. By some strange coincidence all the players I've suspected of cheating have been players I don't want to game with. So I game with people I like and I don't believe they cheat.

As a GM I've been known to fudge dice. I don't do it in the game I run now because the group (myself included) has more fun running by the book. I'll probably fudge again in the future, but it depends on the group I'm with at the time.

Reverent-One
2011-03-31, 10:27 AM
Eh. It's also trivial to deduce that the DM is writing things down. Especially if you ever use buffs.

Well, yes, it is, but why would a DM need to hide it? One DM I play with has each player fill out a 3x5 card with the basic information for their character on it (Hp, defenses, initiative, some skills) for easy reference. It's a pretty good idea actually, the DM doesn't need to continually ask questions about <random stat> when it comes up.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 10:30 AM
Well, yes, it is, but why would a DM need to hide it? One DM I play with has each player fill out a 3x5 card with the basic information for their character on it (Hp, defenses, initiative, some skills) for easy reference. It's a pretty good idea actually, the DM doesn't need to continually ask questions about <random stat> when it comes up.

They usually don't, in my experience. And they generally don't need to. It's a good habit for a few things.

The only point is that doing so isn't really going to guarantee the player is oblivious to fudging.

Jay R
2011-03-31, 11:04 AM
The DMG says that the DM may fudge the dice when necessary, for the sake of the story.

It follows that a DM who obeys this rule is not cheating.

If somebody doesn't like this rule, it is legitimate and honest to say, "I don't like that rule." You can even say, "That rule is bad and I won't play by that rule." This kind of honest statement leads to a reasonable opportunity to exchange differing ideas.

But there is no point in telling nasty lies about people who disagree with you. A DM who obeys that rule is not cheating, and claiming that he is, is a deliberate falsehood that does not further the discussion in any useful way.

Goober4473
2011-03-31, 11:26 AM
When I DM, the dice are a device for generating arbitrary situations for me, and nothing more. If I decide I don't like the result, then I'll change it, as if it were a decision of my own that I later decided wasn't good. Deciding that the troll actually missed, or actually hit, despite the dice, is the same as if I decided the players would be ambushed on the way to some town, but then changed my mind before it happened, or vice versa. So long as I'm not changing anything the players already know about, which would ruin the experience, it's all good.

My only goal is for everyone to have fun, and not to "win" or help the players "win." Thus, the only "good" dice rolls are ones that make the game better, and the only "bad" dice rolls are ones that don't. Outside of that, I have no result that I specifically wanted. Since making the game better is good for everyone, there's no reason to use a roll that makes the game worse (or not as better).

That said, I usually go by the dice, since I'm pretty good at setting up balanced encounters that will be fun given most sets of die rolls, but sometimes, the dice tell me to do something that won't be fun, and in those cases, I tell the dice "no."

As for players cheating, in most games, it's not okay, because "good" and "bad" have a more obvious meaning for player rolls, rather than just being arbitrary. In the right game, with the right players, I could see it being okay, but usually the players want their characters to succeed.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 11:31 AM
The DMG says that the DM may fudge the dice when necessary, for the sake of the story.

Actually, that's not quite what it says.


It follows that a DM who obeys this rule is not cheating.

That, as it happen, it outright says. Amid paragraphs of information on how to use it.


If somebody doesn't like this rule, it is legitimate and honest to say, "I don't like that rule." You can even say, "That rule is bad and I won't play by that rule." This kind of honest statement leads to a reasonable opportunity to exchange differing ideas.

But there is no point in telling nasty lies about people who disagree with you. A DM who obeys that rule is not cheating, and claiming that he is, is a deliberate falsehood that does not further the discussion in any useful way.

It's not so much a "nasty lie" as it is a handy way of describing the practice. Fudging is a term I use often to describe it, but some prefer cheating. Meh.

I will note that in some systems, it IS cheating, so in a generic conversation such as this, discussing both players and GMs in a number of systems, referring to the practice at large as "cheating" is fairly reasonable.

Goober, why are you rolling dice at all if you know what you want the outcome to be? And why are you the final judge of what can be fun?

Sipex
2011-03-31, 11:35 AM
I can field that last one Tynd. It's because he's the DM and we have to assume he knows his players.

I'm sure if they demanded a bloody game, no bars held back that's how he'd fudge the dice or rather not fudge them. My guess is he has players who look forward to different aspects of the game than you do.

edit: To give an example. In my in person group I have four players. Three of the four love the idea of risk and are prepared if the worst were to happen. They wouldn't be happy about it but having the real risk there makes the game fun for them.

My final player is much the opposite, killing her character would ruin the game for her because what she cares about isn't the risk but the story her character is participating in. With this said, I will refrain from killing her character unless:
A) It's indisputable. She's been making death saving throws and she failed one too many, sorry.
B) She does something incredibly stupid.
C) There's an out, maybe we'll be able to revive her after the encounter? Our cleric can do that with the right reagents.

The important thing though is she's 100% convinced that given the opportunity she will die. I am acting as if there are no bars held back.

That said, her character is pretty sturdy as it is and we play 4th edition so she hasn't needed me to fudge anything yet.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 11:50 AM
But, see....the idea of fudging is that you hide the knowledge from your players. It may not always work...but that's generally the concept.

How do you know your players want something if you're hiding it from them?

Sipex
2011-03-31, 12:02 PM
By talking to them? I'm confused what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-31, 12:07 PM
By talking to them? I'm confused what you mean. Could you elaborate?

The point is that if you have to hide it, then there is a very good possibility that it is not, in fact, wanted.

If you asked them, and they said "sure, but hide it", then yeah. But if you didn't ask, and hide it because you feel you have to...then it's possible that it is unwanted.

Sipex
2011-03-31, 12:15 PM
Ah, I see what you mean.

In my situation I've done some probing and I know my players pretty well. I know that the one in question would feel bad (because she would feel like she can't play effectively) if she ever found out that this was in place but I also know that if she never finds out (and I intend to keep it this way, I don't go blabbing this around) she'll be perfectly content.

I also know that I can fudge for her and she'll never catch on unless I make things really obvious. I also know that if my current players ever caught on that they'd keep their mouths shut about it.

This is the whole knowing your players thing which, admittedly, is easier to do in person. Kind of funny because fudging your rolls is far easier in online games.

Goober4473
2011-03-31, 12:27 PM
Goober, why are you rolling dice at all if you know what you want the outcome to be? And why are you the final judge of what can be fun?

I usually don't actually know what I want the outcome to be (or any outcome is equally good), which is why I usually go by the result of the die roll. Random chance can come up with a lot of situations I couldn't have thought up on my own.

Sometimes I don't roll dice at all, or I pretend to and ignore it, if I'm very sure I know what the best result will be, but that's rare, and usually an NPC vs. NPC situation, with the PCs observing. Usually if I'm fudging dice, it's when I roll, I see the result, and then I realize that it's bad (it will kill a PC that I don't want dead, or will end an encounter in a very anti-climactic way, etc.) and change it.

And I'm the judge because everyone agreed I was when we started the game, whether implicitly or explicitly. In most games I run, the players understand that it's my responsibility to make these calls, because I'm in an impartial position, and I have the most relevent knowledge (about the setting, NPC stats, etc.).

If the players were mature enough, and told me they wanted to be more impartial in the story, then that would be another thing (and a fine way to play), but most of the time, my players want to immerse themselves in their characters, and not have to worry about making impartial story calls, but still want someone doing it. If they want no one doing it, because they're feeling cheated somehow (and for instance they wanted all dice rolled in front of everyone), that might be fine too, but it's not how I personally run games, and none of my players have ever felt that way.

big teej
2011-03-31, 01:10 PM
Really, according to the DMG, the DM can't cheat. It says so right in the book. I'm AFB, so I can't quote you the page number, but it's there.

As far as players cheating, I don't have to worry about it. I only game with mature adults. Well...as mature as gamers ever get...:smalltongue:

+1

on top of this, as a DM the only time I ever do something 'outside' the rules is to mess with my players.

I can't give examples because I don't wanna give things away.

Morghen
2011-03-31, 01:16 PM
I cannot relate to the people who think a little cheating is okay.

It's cheating.


You agreed to play a game that uses dice to determine the outcome of some events. If you don't like that, go play Amber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game)or The Ungame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ungame).
I don't want a game where I win everything simply by virtue of the fact that I'm THE HERO.


If there's no danger to your character, you're just playing a game called Count My Loot.

Sipex
2011-03-31, 01:33 PM
That's totally fine, you don't need to understand it, it's just a DMing style some of us choose.

As long as you aren't going to harp about how we're wrong or bad evil people we can maintain a truce.

Toofey
2011-03-31, 01:36 PM
So I'll go against the flow again and say merely this.

Cheating enriches the D&D experience. And frankly most of the time that it happens in the groups I play in, everyone knows, but it's just what's right for the situation (when players and DMs cheat alike)

I don't think there's been a time when as a DM I've seen a player "cheat" that I wasn't glad he did for the purposes of the story. Fudging a few hit points or a saving throw when you're on the brink of death isn't the end of the world.

Goober4473
2011-03-31, 01:47 PM
I don't want a game where I win everything simply by virtue of the fact that I'm THE HERO.

If there's no danger to your character, you're just playing a game called Count My Loot.

Just as a note, I fudge in the opposition's favor as often as I do in the player's. Obviously it's no fun when the DM makes the players win everything, or lose everything. But it's also lame when the BBEG crit fails all of his attacks in the final battle, and the campaign ends in an anti-climactic lame-fest, or when a random goblin TPKs the party in the middle of a good story. These are fine in a board game, but the benefit of tabletop RPGs is that there's a GM there to step in and keep things fun.

And of course, a random death, or an easy fight due to good luck, aren't entirely terrible things to be avoided all the time. But sometimes they just wouldn't be fun.

Pisha
2011-03-31, 01:49 PM
When I (or, I suspect, most people) talk about trusting the GM, what we're trusting them to do is run a fun game. For me, story is king - if I'm playing in a game, yes, the combat is fun, but what I'm really interested in is the story. That's the higher law that supercedes the other rules. When I agree to play in someone's game, I'm trusting them to follow the basic rules and dice rolls as much as possible - but to make a fun game, a compelling story, their highest priority. If the GM decides that a roll has to be fudged to help with that priority, well, that's why they're the GM - to make those calls. If I, the player, find that they're fudging rolls for reasons I don't agree with, they may lose some of my trust (or even a player, depending on circumstances), but the disagreement will be about how they're fudging, not that they're fudging.

Also, sometimes fudging is the only way to correct a GM error. Let's face it, that level-5 party didn't come across those CR 9 monsters by sheer chance. You, the GM, set the encounter up, and if it turns out that you misjudged your party's capabilities, it's up to you to figure out a way to fix it.

As far as keeping fudging a secret from the players: the one thing most players seem to agree on when it comes to GM fudging is that they do not want to know about it. Even if it's fudged in their favor - especially if it is - they don't want to know. So yes, part of a GM's responsibility is to subtly suss out what kind of game their players want and how much fudging they need to do to make it happen, without ever asking their players about it.

Toofey
2011-03-31, 01:54 PM
Also, sometimes fudging is the only way to correct a GM error. Let's face it, that level-5 party didn't come across those CR 9 monsters by sheer chance. You, the GM, set the encounter up, and if it turns out that you misjudged your party's capabilities, it's up to you to figure out a way to fix it.

This Big I haven't ever seen a party that the DM didn't throw just a little too much heat at at least once. Frankly as DM it's hard not to have this happen from time to time because the line between the party dominating and getting wrecked is a lot smaller than people think. Making sure random encounters aren't game enders is a big reason why I think cheating is important. I've had DMs who were utterly inflexible in this regard who let it kill off parties and because of such their "turn" as Dm was cut short because we were tired of having to start over.

Shyftir
2011-03-31, 02:08 PM
The only time I ever got angry with a DM for cheating is when he killed my character by changing a 4 to a 14 right in front of my eyes! The sad thing was I was probably going down the next turn but was going to get one good shot in on the big nasty. all I had to do was survive that first attack as I entered his reach.

So he killed me, not made me unconscious KILLED me. then one of his pet DMPC characters came by and rezzed me and offered me really nice equipment that I could use. As long as I was willing to give up the weapon that was very much my characters signature. Basically he made it mechanically far to my advantage to become a specific type of character that he liked.

It's one thing to fudge a little to increase the tension or let the PCs not die, it's a whole 'nother thing to use cheating as a method of railroading a character into a niche.

The hard part is that this guy is a good friend who I've known outside of D&D for years, so I don't wanna lose his friendship but he cheats on both sides of the DM screen to the point where everyone in our group just mentally halves whatever damage he claims to do or ignores every other attack.


In conclusion, in my group, the DM gets to fudge the rolls a little bit, until the point where he abuses that right. The player does not get to fudge the rolls.

Pisha
2011-03-31, 02:15 PM
It's one thing to fudge a little to increase the tension or let the PCs not die, it's a whole 'nother thing to use cheating as a method of railroading a character into a niche.
...

In conclusion, in my group, the DM gets to fudge the rolls a little bit, until the point where he abuses that right. The player does not get to fudge the rolls.

Exactly. Basically, fudging rolls is a right of the GM, but being a GM is a privilege. If the players don't think you're doing it well (for reasons which may include bad fudging decisions), you may not be GM for very long.

Malevolence
2011-03-31, 02:18 PM
{Scrubbed}

Sipex
2011-03-31, 02:18 PM
As with all tools, anything in the hands of a bad DM can be used the wrong way.

Morghen
2011-03-31, 02:28 PM
I'm curious what the pro-cheating people have to say about the situation in this thread: Linky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192761)

Those players screwed up. What do you do as GM?

1. Fudge rolls to let 'em win?
2. Fudge rolls to let 'em escape?
3. Deus ex machina eats the guards to let the party win?
4. Deus ex machina Teleports the four away?
5. Let 'em get what they deserve?
6. Something else?


By and large, we're playing games of high adventure and heroism. If the bad guys are armed with Nerf bats and all the good guys get do-overs, it removes any sense of accomplishment. Yeah, it's inconvenient that your character died. Make a better plan next time. Run away next time.

Why not just set every roll to [median value + 1]?

Shyftir
2011-03-31, 02:33 PM
Malevolence, I fully agree that when a player cheats he is reflecting that he is not as trustworthy as he ought to be.

I maintain that a DM who uses "fudging" to enhance the game is not being untrustworthy as long as the social contract he is playing under allows this. Because he is not being trusted to follow the rules like a straitjacket, he is being trusted to make the game fun for everyone. If the group prefers no DM fudging that is fine as well. So long as the DM is following the social contract that the group has agreed on.

For instance the game Settlers of Catan has a rule that if someone asks you if you have a certain resource they are technically asking if you have it to trade and that you are fully allowed to say you do not have it if you are unwilling to trade. Because the social contract allows this you are not lying. even though you are sharing an untruth.

I don't object to your decision/preference to not "cheat" as a DM. I object to your continued insistence that DMs in groups that allow this are dishonest.

You are coming across as the definitive "Stick-in-the-butt" Paladin right now. I too highly value people who stick to their word, do not lie, and do not cheat. That does not mean that in the framework of a game I might not backstab, lie and steal to win, As long as that is appropriate behavior under the social contract.

Sipex
2011-03-31, 02:34 PM
@Morghen

This is a situation of 'players did something stupid' and I actually posted there. My take was to have them arrested if possible (or encourage them to try to escape) because they weren't 100% stupid about it (but still pretty stupid). Afterwards, explain how you thought they would've used X, Y and Z resources to aid them and let them know that the battle was winnable if they had prepared properly.

Basically they lose but they don't have to all die to lose.

...

If they continue fighting? Then kill the lot of them.

Shyftir
2011-03-31, 02:39 PM
Don't forget in D&D its quite possible to fight to the bitter end and have the ones who are only unconscious afterward captured and healed. If any of the others truly die during this time, well "thems da breaks."

Malevolence
2011-03-31, 02:58 PM
{Scrubbed}

Goober4473
2011-03-31, 03:32 PM
Even if the group flat out says that it's ok to cheat, it is still objectionable on the grounds the DM is presumptuous enough to think that he knows the desires of others better than they themselves do.

In most games, the DM chooses or makes the setting, or at least the exact details even if the players all agree on which setting to use (what happened to the Mournlands for example). The DM decides what the adventure is, what the challenges are going to be, and who the NPCs are. The DM even decides how to use the content players have created (plot hooks from character background for instance, or content added with Plot Points in the Serenity RPG). When the players take an action the DM wasn't expecting, it's the DM's job to figure out where to go from there, and what new situation has arisen from their actions. It's the DM's job to balance and pace encounters. In many groups, it's the DM's job to decide what characters are acceptible and balanced, what books are allowed, what house rules are being used, etc.

In this context, it doesn't seem too presumptuous to say that the DM is largely in charge of deciding what will be fun for the players, beyond character creation and the players' own decisions about actions they're taking. This doesn't mean they should just make up whatever they want and the players have to deal with it. With great power comes great responsibility. All of these tools and powers are ultimately in the name of providing an enjoyable experience for the players.

LansXero
2011-03-31, 03:47 PM
In this context, it doesn't seem too presumptuous to say that the DM is largely in charge of deciding what will be fun for the players

Yeah but, see, call it metagaming if you will, but players join in with certain expectations about how mechanics will work and spend time and effort in making characters able to surmount these mechanical expectations. They choose classes and feats and equipment and stuff into improving the dice they roll so that the outcomes are positive a higher % of the time.

Fudging makes all that meaningless. The DM now needs not to put effort into making monsters consistent with the party, just arbitrarily decide if it hits or it doesnt; players need not worry because as long as they mantain good intentions and "tell a good story" the mechanical side of their characters (that they invested in) is irrelevant. And that is fine, if you were playing freeform or a more rules-lite system, but if both parties agree to an equal set of rules, it should be equally binding, to keep expectations consistent. Whats the point of taking a class with a higher HD if your monsters will always leave me with 1 - 2 HP, regardless of how much they should hit for or how much HP I have? Whats the point of investing in AC / miss chance / etc. if your BBEG will never fumble a whole round, because you as the DM consider it "very lame"? It throws the whole system to the trash bin, and thats just bad.

Quietus
2011-03-31, 03:53 PM
I'm curious what the pro-cheating people have to say about the situation in this thread: Linky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192761)

Those players screwed up. What do you do as GM?

1. Fudge rolls to let 'em win?
2. Fudge rolls to let 'em escape?
3. Deus ex machina eats the guards to let the party win?
4. Deus ex machina Teleports the four away?
5. Let 'em get what they deserve?
6. Something else?


By and large, we're playing games of high adventure and heroism. If the bad guys are armed with Nerf bats and all the good guys get do-overs, it removes any sense of accomplishment. Yeah, it's inconvenient that your character died. Make a better plan next time. Run away next time.

Why not just set every roll to [median value + 1]?


In that case? I offer them the option of surrender. If they dont' take it, they fight. No fudging, either, because they had the choice.

The only time I fudge is A) When a random encounter was poorly balanced, and it was MY fault, or B) MMmmmmaybe if the BBEG is gonna drop from rolling a nat 1 vs. slay living/whatever on round one and it's gonna feel lame. But even then, that could make for a really good story, so there's a good chance I'd not fudge that latter. If the PCs are in a bad place *because of their own actions*, they bear the weight of that. If things are going poorly because *I* did something wrong, I fix a die or two in order to set the situation straight.

Sipex
2011-03-31, 03:53 PM
I think you're making the assumption that the fudging/cheating/whatever is occuring during every instance possible (ie: EVERY time a monster would drop a PC to 0 hp, or EVERY time the BBEG misses the entire round).

From the sounds of it this is more along the lines of "I follow the rules most of the time."

In addition, if you have players who are heavy optimisers then you should recognise this, I have a PbP thread full of them. These types of players you don't cheat against because a big part of the fun, for them, is seeing just how well they can do.

Compared to my other group who creates characters from flavour and stats are just another mark on their character sheet and not something they wholly care about until relevant.

Goober4473
2011-03-31, 04:06 PM
Yeah but, see, call it metagaming if you will, but players join in with certain expectations about how mechanics will work and spend time and effort in making characters able to surmount these mechanical expectations. They choose classes and feats and equipment and stuff into improving the dice they roll so that the outcomes are positive a higher % of the time.

Fudging makes all that meaningless. The DM now needs not to put effort into making monsters consistent with the party, just arbitrarily decide if it hits or it doesnt; players need not worry because as long as they mantain good intentions and "tell a good story" the mechanical side of their characters (that they invested in) is irrelevant. And that is fine, if you were playing freeform or a more rules-lite system, but if both parties agree to an equal set of rules, it should be equally binding, to keep expectations consistent. Whats the point of taking a class with a higher HD if your monsters will always leave me with 1 - 2 HP, regardless of how much they should hit for or how much HP I have? Whats the point of investing in AC / miss chance / etc. if your BBEG will never fumble a whole round, because you as the DM consider it "very lame"? It throws the whole system to the trash bin, and thats just bad.

Part of the job of a DM is to make sure the players are having fun mechanically as well as in a story capacity. I wouldn't suggest fudging dice to the point that mechanics don't matter. I try to build encounters that will challenge the players' mechanics, tactics, creativity, etc. in addition to telling good stories.

But that doesn't mean everything works out to be fun ultimately. Sometimes the encounter is over, and the one remaining monster has a lot of hit points left, but is no real threat. So I'll fudge it and say the next attack kills it. Sometimes I want a villain to be terrifying, but she just keeps failing, so I'll fudge a roll to make her more interesting.

It doesn't mean the players are wasting their time building the mechanics of their characters. It doesn't mean that if you have low AC, you'll be hit just as much as someone with high AC. In fact, I rarely actually fudge the dice or make other changes like that. I just reserve the right to do it when I feel it's needed, because sometimes I need to adjust something behind the scenes, and if I'm restricted from doing that in the rare case that it matters, the game will be less fun, as a statistical game and as a story.

Toofey
2011-03-31, 04:11 PM
I'm curious what the pro-cheating people have to say about the situation in this thread: Linky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192761)

Those players screwed up. What do you do as GM?

1. Fudge rolls to let 'em win?
2. Fudge rolls to let 'em escape?
3. Deus ex machina eats the guards to let the party win?
4. Deus ex machina Teleports the four away?
5. Let 'em get what they deserve?
6. Something else?


By and large, we're playing games of high adventure and heroism. If the bad guys are armed with Nerf bats and all the good guys get do-overs, it removes any sense of accomplishment. Yeah, it's inconvenient that your character died. Make a better plan next time. Run away next time.

Why not just set every roll to [median value + 1]?
if they didn't retreat when it's clear that they should I wouldn't be against killing them off. In that case they dug their own graves, it would be a shame if the effort were wasted.

Especially if there's a way they could have gotten in and out without taking the fight head on.

prufock
2011-03-31, 04:22 PM
Some games have "cheating" mechanics built in.

Paranoia! - GM fudging is not only okay, it's encouraged! It gets even more fun when a player makes the mistake of asking if you're cheating :belkar: Hell, even the players are encouraged to cheat (if they can figure out what the rules are). Hello Perversity Points!

Mutants & Masterminds - The system has a mechanic built in specifically to allow the GM to fudge. It's called the GM Fiat. When it happens, the player negatively affected gets a Hero Point.

For any game that doesn't have a mechanic built in, my rule is: if it makes for a more dramatic, more entertaining, or more exciting scene, I have no problem with it. I would go even further and say it's part of the GM's job. However, this applies only to in-game decisions, usually by dice rolls, not "made up on the fly" rules - because if the rules work differently than they're written, I may have built my own character differently. This doesn't mean the GM can't homebrew feats or spells or templates or whatever (though if he does, those should be balanced). It DOES mean that an NPC shouldn't have 12 feats at level 6, or be mysteriously immune to Necromancy if he's a halfling wearing no magical items.

Besides, you can always just claim they had some miscellaneous circumstance modifier.

dsmiles
2011-03-31, 05:27 PM
I'm curious what the pro-cheating people have to say about the situation in this thread: Linky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192761)

Those players screwed up. What do you do as GM?

1. Fudge rolls to let 'em win?
2. Fudge rolls to let 'em escape?
3. Deus ex machina eats the guards to let the party win?
4. Deus ex machina Teleports the four away?
5. Let 'em get what they deserve?
6. Something else?


if they didn't retreat when it's clear that they should I wouldn't be against killing them off. In that case they dug their own graves, it would be a shame if the effort were wasted.

Especially if there's a way they could have gotten in and out without taking the fight head on.Exactly. This is not another orc #5. This is a planned encounter that the players expected to get involved in, knowing full well that it would be dangerous. This is their own fault, and if any get out alive, that's great, but I wouldn't expect any to get away.

Jay R
2011-03-31, 05:34 PM
I'm curious what the pro-cheating people have to say about the situation in this thread: Linky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192761)

First of all, "pro-cheating" is not an appropriate term to describe following the DMG as written.

Secondly, there's no call to make here. What happened was the reasonable result of the players' decisions. The result was a reasonable one based on the encounter, so there's nothing calling for a DM judgment call here.

The examples in which I changed the rolls in my last campaign were as follows:

1. A party has just had a long, major fight with serious enemies, and came out of it with a few characters at 2 or 3 hit points. (This was original D&D, in which 0 hit points means dead.) The party was about third level; they have no way to cast resurrections. They then hit a nuisance slippery floor trap for 1-3 points of damage, and I rolled a 3. I decided against a completely anti-climactic death of half the party right after the major battle, and called it as one point.

2. Giant spiders attacked the party. That's when I found out one of the players was horribly afraid of spiders and couldn't look at the minis. So the first spider died on the first hit, and the others ran.

3. The PCs arrived at the site of a ruined temple, with a last sole priest. Since it was an encounter with an NPC, I automatically rolled a reaction roll, before remembering that they were carrying the seven staffs that could re-build the temple and re-invigorate the priest. As soon as I rolled it, I realized that there was no point -- he'd been waiting for three decades for them to arrive. I even has his dialog already written out. So I ignored the negative reaction roll.

The scenario you showed us had nothing like this, so I wouldn't have changed it. I don't prevent players from dying; I prevent them from dying (or winning) in unsatisfying ways.

Jay R
2011-03-31, 05:49 PM
Goober, why are you rolling dice at all if you know what you want the outcome to be? And why are you the final judge of what can be fun?

Please don't make up nonsense about me. I don't "know what I want the outcome to be". Putting this hypothetical insult in your question to make me sound bad doesn't forward the discussion in any useful way.

Also, words like "goober" don't serve the purpose of actually exchanging ideas.


How do you know your players want something if you're hiding it from them?

Please don't make up nonsense about me. I'm not hiding anything from the players other than what their characters don't know. I certainly haven't hidden the DMG or any subset of it from them. Putting this hypothetical insult in your question to make me sound bad doesn't forward the discussion in any useful way.

I will now restate the questions without the implicit insult and answer those.

1. Why do I roll the dice? To get a random result. Only in a very rare circumstance, in which the die roll completely messes up the story, will I change it. In the game I ran from 2007 to 2009 I only did this three times. (And in one case I immediately asked myself why I rolled that NPC's reaction, since I already knew that the PCs were bringing what he needed most in the world.)

2. Why do I know my players want me to run the game the way I do? Because they keep coming back, and when I'm not running a game they keep asking me to start one.

I've known Glen for thirty years; he stood up for me at my wedding. We've played role-playing games in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. We've talked about how games run many times.

I've known Rob and Val for twenty years. They were both in my wedding party, and their son is my godson.

I've known Nolen for twenty years. He, Rob and I have run a game together, and carefully worked out the details in advance.

I've known Wil about ten years. We had some differences about how the game should be played, which we carefully worked out. (And this issue wasn't part of it.)

April's the newbie in the group. I've only known her about six years, and only gamed with her for about four. But she seems happy, keeps coming back, and is involved in the discussions about how to run a game.

Yes, I really do know what they want in a game. I trust them all completely, and they trust me. They received the four-page description of how the game will be run, with all the deviations from the printed rules I use. I answered all questions about how the game would be run.

You appear to be confusing hiding how the game runs in general with hiding a specific action during play. In the extremely rare situation in which I roll a die and get an unplayable result, I don't tell them about it, for the same reason I don't tell them that there's a hidden trap or ambush. That doesn't mean I hide from them in general what the DMG says about how to run the game, or how I actually run it.

Kylarra
2011-03-31, 06:00 PM
Please don't make up nonsense about me. I don't "know what I want the outcome to be". Putting this hypothetical insult in your question to make me sound bad doesn't forward the discussion in any useful way.

Also, words like "goober" don't serve the purpose of actually exchanging ideas.
Tyndmyr was probably addressing the person right below your post, Goober4473, for whom "Goober" would be an accurate shorthand reference of sorts, without making it clear that the statement in question was not intended to be part of a response to you.

Shyftir
2011-03-31, 06:29 PM
By the way to answer the question, "Why does the GM think he is the final judge of what is fun?"

BECAUSE HE'S THE GM! (the judge/referee/storyteller/game designer of the game) It's his job to decide what he thinks will be most fun, for his group.

If your group wants "cut-throat" mechanics-only gaming, then your job as DM is to provide that. If they want epic storylines with the fate of the world in the hands of the heroes who somehow always come out on top, then provide that. If they want a hack-n-slash Monty Haul, beat them over the head with the PHB a few times provide that.

Also make sure you too are having fun. (I for one really enjoy showing others a good time occasionally, even if their idea of fun and mine are different.)

P.S.
Yes I intended that line above to be yelled, it may not be nice etiquette, but it is part of my rhetoric.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-03-31, 06:39 PM
GMs dont cheat, we change that laws of in-game reality.

Pisha
2011-03-31, 07:14 PM
Yeah but, see, call it metagaming if you will, but players join in with certain expectations about how mechanics will work and spend time and effort in making characters able to surmount these mechanical expectations. They choose classes and feats and equipment and stuff into improving the dice they roll so that the outcomes are positive a higher % of the time.

Fudging makes all that meaningless. The DM now needs not to put effort into making monsters consistent with the party, just arbitrarily decide if it hits or it doesnt; players need not worry because as long as they mantain good intentions and "tell a good story" the mechanical side of their characters (that they invested in) is irrelevant. And that is fine, if you were playing freeform or a more rules-lite system, but if both parties agree to an equal set of rules, it should be equally binding, to keep expectations consistent. Whats the point of taking a class with a higher HD if your monsters will always leave me with 1 - 2 HP, regardless of how much they should hit for or how much HP I have? Whats the point of investing in AC / miss chance / etc. if your BBEG will never fumble a whole round, because you as the DM consider it "very lame"? It throws the whole system to the trash bin, and thats just bad.

I tried to make it clear in my previous statements that while fudging (which btw is starting to not even look like a word anymore) should be an option, it shouldn't be the first option - for the reasons stated above. There's lots of other tools in the GM's toolchest which should be used first; fudging should be reserved for when, despite your best efforts, everything's gone pear-shaped and you don't see any other out. It's not Plan A, in other words - it's like Plan M - but it is on the list.


I'm curious what the pro-cheating people have to say about the situation in this thread: Linky

Those players screwed up. What do you do as GM?

1. Fudge rolls to let 'em win?
2. Fudge rolls to let 'em escape?
3. Deus ex machina eats the guards to let the party win?
4. Deus ex machina Teleports the four away?
5. Let 'em get what they deserve?
6. Something else?


By and large, we're playing games of high adventure and heroism. If the bad guys are armed with Nerf bats and all the good guys get do-overs, it removes any sense of accomplishment. Yeah, it's inconvenient that your character died. Make a better plan next time. Run away next time.

Why not just set every roll to [median value + 1]?

Option 6: something else.

If the party knowingly, willfully did something that poorly-planned despite being warned against it, that is their own lookout. I will happily beat them bloody; while I dislike TPK's, I may even TPK them. But. The game isn't just about the players; I'm playing for my own fun too. If I'm heavily invested in a game I'm running, I'm not about to let it end just because the players screwed up. So, depending on other factors (and my mood), I'd go with:

Option 1) I'd have all but one of the party killed, and the last knocked to negative hit points and left for dead. Yes, I would fudge - both the damage and the guard's Heal check - to make this happen. Let him come to a few hours later, alone and surrounded by the bodies of his friends. (Paint a REAL vivid picture for him.) He can either shell out a lot of money for a resurrection, or he can recruit replacement characters - either way, the mission continues.

Option 2) Kill 'em all - and bring the "mysterious benefactor" mentioned in the other thread into play. The characters awake in the temple of their respective gods - with a Geas (or Quest) placed on them! Someone paid for their resurrection, but now they not only owe the temple some service (hence the Quest), they're also indebted to a mysterious stranger. Play it up, make 'em really wonder if their mysterious benefactor - to whom they owe their lives - is really all that, y'know, benevolent. (Not to mention, now they're personas non grata in the city, which should make life interesting.)

Those are just two ideas. One involves minor fudging, one does not, both send the message that doing dumb things has consequences.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 07:42 AM
It doesn't matter if cheating happens very often, somewhat often, or even occasionally. Once it happens even a single time, a line has been crossed that should not be crossed. Even if you never, ever cheat again, you will always be suspected of cheating henceforth. In other words, you have violated the trust agreement. Doesn't matter if you are a DM or a player. Doesn't matter if you have the presumptuous idea to think to know a person better than they know themselves or not. You're on the wrong side of once bitten, twice shy. And all you had to do to avoid it is avoid turning your D&D game into a Mother May I game of freeform. All you have to do is avoid the very arrogant idea of blocking ideas and outcomes simply because you do not like them. Because that's exactly what it is. "Oh, I don't want my BBEG dying because he rolled a 1 vs Slay Living! But I didn't bother giving him a buffed Fortitude save + Steadfast Determination, or a simple Death Ward so he would have the actual abilities to not die because he rolled a 1 vs Slay Living! So now I'm going to no sell PC abilities that they've invested in because I DON'T LIKE IT!" Protip: Try giving BBEGs the actual abilities to survive combat if you would like for them to survive combat. If they have the actual abilities to still be standing even if they roll a 1, you neatly avoid all of these pitfalls, and in turn make the BBEG someone to respect and fear, instead of an obvious DM pet.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 08:26 AM
If there's no danger to your character, you're just playing a game called Count My Loot.

I wish to play this game only when it occurs in real life. I call this game "poker".


Just as a note, I fudge in the opposition's favor as often as I do in the player's. Obviously it's no fun when the DM makes the players win everything, or lose everything. But it's also lame when the BBEG crit fails all of his attacks in the final battle, and the campaign ends in an anti-climactic lame-fest, or when a random goblin TPKs the party in the middle of a good story.

If this ever came up, I'd probably just quit the game. Because, see...it's not at all fun for EVERYTHING that happens to be determined by the GMs whim. And realistically, the GM can already set up the world, the encounters...nearly everything. If he insists on micromanaging the results of "random" rolls and the fate of my character as well, then why are we bothering rolling? You might as well just read us a bedtime story.

And if you have to cheat to make the story "compelling"....if it would cease to be a good story solely because one guy misses all his attacks, then you didn't really have a good story in the first place.


The only time I ever got angry with a DM for cheating is when he killed my character by changing a 4 to a 14 right in front of my eyes! The sad thing was I was probably going down the next turn but was going to get one good shot in on the big nasty. all I had to do was survive that first attack as I entered his reach.

So he killed me, not made me unconscious KILLED me. then one of his pet DMPC characters came by and rezzed me and offered me really nice equipment that I could use. As long as I was willing to give up the weapon that was very much my characters signature. Basically he made it mechanically far to my advantage to become a specific type of character that he liked.

This is not merely bad, this is downright terrible. I can think of nothing that could possibly excuse such actions on the part of a DM. If a DM did this in my group, he would immediately be stopped by everyone and it would be explained to him that this is not how the game works.


I'm curious what the pro-cheating people have to say about the situation in this thread: Linky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192761)

Those players screwed up. What do you do as GM?

As an anti-cheating person...the players screwed up. Now, they will most likely loose as a result. This is...completely appropriate. The level of loss(death or capture) depends on what is appropriate in the encounter. If they just slaughtered a bunch of guards, the guards will likely be less enthused about capturing them alive.

Consider than an equal CR encounter is already 4 to 1, which makes the odds heavily in favor of the characters. The players have more brains to put together than the GM, because there are more of them. They should thus be better able to strategize as well. D&D is already weighted overwhelmingly in favor of the PCs. Random deaths should not be a major problem unless the DM is repeatedly making rather large errors.

I find that games in which DMs fudge significantly(ie, say, at least 10% of player deaths), defensive options tend to be devalued. Things like having a bigger hd become increasingly less important. If the DM doesn't use save or dies, fort saves become less important. Consider which classes have these things. Yup...fudging and such worsens class imbalance.



The only time I fudge is...or B) MMmmmmaybe if the BBEG is gonna drop from rolling a nat 1 vs. slay living/whatever on round one and it's gonna feel lame.

This is the entire point of SoD spells. If they won't work on the first round(actually, tracking first round vs subsequent round failure rates on SoDs is one of the best ways to catch fudging DMs), they are fairly pointless. Using a SoD when the enemy is going to die from hp damage anyways is a terrible decision. Just nuke them. So, as a DM, if you really hate SoD spells...just tell your players that up front. Don't have them invest in them, and have them fail when they need them most. If you're not going to let something work, at least have the courtesy to ban it.



Paranoia! - GM fudging is not only okay, it's encouraged! It gets even more fun when a player makes the mistake of asking if you're cheating :belkar: Hell, even the players are encouraged to cheat (if they can figure out what the rules are). Hello Perversity Points!

Mutants & Masterminds - The system has a mechanic built in specifically to allow the GM to fudge. It's called the GM Fiat. When it happens, the player negatively affected gets a Hero Point.

I actually have no problem with any of these mechanics. At that point, it's no longer the GM making up stuff that may or may not be appropriate, it's part of the game.

Hero points, drama dice, action dice...these are ways for the GM to affect the narration or compensate for mistakes...but they come with built in limits to avoid abuse, and they often provide compensation to players in a balanced fashion. This avoids the issue of negating player investment. Paranoia is of course, a sufficiently unique game that many RPG issues do not apply to it.


Please don't make up nonsense about me. I don't "know what I want the outcome to be". Putting this hypothetical insult in your question to make me sound bad doesn't forward the discussion in any useful way.

Also, words like "goober" don't serve the purpose of actually exchanging ideas.

I was responding to someone named Goober. The response will probably make more sense in that light.

Morghen
2011-04-01, 08:39 AM
Whats the point of taking a class with a higher HD if your monsters will always leave me with 1 - 2 HP, regardless of how much they should hit for or how much HP I have? Whats the point of investing in AC / miss chance / etc. if your BBEG will never fumble a whole round, because you as the DM consider it "very lame"? It throws the whole system to the trash bin, and thats just bad.This.

First of all, "pro-cheating" is not an appropriate term to describe following the DMG as written.I keep seeing people in this thread say that. Could somebody give me the actual quote? (I haven't played any version of D&D for years. I'm a HackMaster guy.)

1. slippery floor trapWhy not just scrub the trap entirely? Or kill the guy and then you've got an adventure hook because they owe the local church for rezzing him.

2. one of the players was horribly afraid of spiders and couldn't look at the minis. So the first spider died on the first hit, and the others ran.I'm actually okay with that. But why not just change the minis?

3. The PCs arrived at the site of a ruined temple, with a last sole priest.No problem here. You rolled an unnecessary dice. No reason to even consider that in a "changing the dice rolls" thread.

Once it happens even a single time, a line has been crossed that should not be crossed. Even if you never, ever cheat again, you will always be suspected of cheating henceforth. In other words, you have violated the trust agreement.Okay. So we know where this end of the spectrum stops.

Protip: Try giving BBEGs the actual abilities to survive combat if you would like for them to survive combat. If they have the actual abilities to still be standing even if they roll a 1, you neatly avoid all of these pitfalls, and in turn make the BBEG someone to respect and fear, instead of an obvious DM pet.QFT.

Having read through the last three pages, I've come to a better understanding of my feelings on this subject.

1. It is never, ever okay for players to change their dice.
2. I suppose in some very rare hypothetical circumstance I could be okay with a GM changing the outcome of a roll, but I can't come up with any concrete examples of this.
3. The GM may, RARELY, change the reality of the game. Think of the black cat in the first Matrix. "They changed something." Don't let your players know, but if they played well and still got wrecked by some rolls going against them, go ahead and decide that the fighter in the lead has a chance to spot the trap because of the shoddy workmanship. He still missed it? Well, he should've worked on his [Seeing Stuff Skill].

Sipex
2011-04-01, 08:47 AM
It doesn't matter if cheating happens very often, somewhat often, or even occasionally. Once it happens even a single time, a line has been crossed that should not be crossed. Even if you never, ever cheat again, you will always be suspected of cheating henceforth. In other words, you have violated the trust agreement. Doesn't matter if you are a DM or a player. Doesn't matter if you have the presumptuous idea to think to know a person better than they know themselves or not. You're on the wrong side of once bitten, twice shy. And all you had to do to avoid it is avoid turning your D&D game into a Mother May I game of freeform. All you have to do is avoid the very arrogant idea of blocking ideas and outcomes simply because you do not like them. Because that's exactly what it is. "Oh, I don't want my BBEG dying because he rolled a 1 vs Slay Living! But I didn't bother giving him a buffed Fortitude save + Steadfast Determination, or a simple Death Ward so he would have the actual abilities to not die because he rolled a 1 vs Slay Living! So now I'm going to no sell PC abilities that they've invested in because I DON'T LIKE IT!" Protip: Try giving BBEGs the actual abilities to survive combat if you would like for them to survive combat. If they have the actual abilities to still be standing even if they roll a 1, you neatly avoid all of these pitfalls, and in turn make the BBEG someone to respect and fear, instead of an obvious DM pet.

I think you're assuming that just because we use the option to flub a result every now and then that we don't actually build worthwhile enemies because you seem to assume we'll just go "Why bother? I can just flub in what I need." and this isn't really a fair mindset. You're heavily stereotyping in what we're trying to make a reasonable discussion and it's not helping at all.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 08:52 AM
Why not just scrub the trap entirely? Or kill the guy and then you've got an adventure hook because they owe the local church for rezzing him.


My guess is the idea behind it was "Oh, they'll find the trap, pass it and feel awesome." then they don't or maybe he just didn't think of it quick enough?

This is when flubbing how he did is really useful. Instead of retconning the trap (which would be really really obvious) he just lies about the roll. Nobody knows better.


I'm actually okay with that. But why not just change the minis?

I've got a player like this too, I can't even call enemies spiders. This makes for some interesting re-skins since centipedes are far more creepier in my opinion yet are totally ok.


Having read through the last three pages, I've come to a better understanding of my feelings on this subject.

1. It is never, ever okay for players to change their dice.
2. I suppose in some very rare hypothetical circumstance I could be okay with a GM changing the outcome of a roll, but I can't come up with any concrete examples of this.
3. The GM may, RARELY, change the reality of the game. Think of the black cat in the first Matrix. "They changed something." Don't let your players know, but if they played well and still got wrecked by some rolls going against them, go ahead and decide that the fighter in the lead has a chance to spot the trap because of the shoddy workmanship. He still missed it? Well, he should've worked on his [Seeing Stuff Skill].

I think you're actually thinking along the line most of us consider 'okay cheating/flubbing.'

When I bring it up I've done it no more often than Jay here, it's not a tool you abuse often. If you're changing results often then you need to evaluate what you're doing wrong that's causing the need for the constant use.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 09:04 AM
I think you're assuming that just because we use the option to flub a result every now and then that we don't actually build worthwhile enemies because you seem to assume we'll just go "Why bother? I can just flub in what I need." and this isn't really a fair mindset. You're heavily stereotyping in what we're trying to make a reasonable discussion and it's not helping at all.

It's a stereotype, yes...but it's one I have seen very frequently in play, so there's at least correlation. Talking with other GMs, I have in fact heard that stated. In fact, on threads on here about building NPCs, MANY people responded that they didn't really build them so much as just invented a coupla numbers that sounded about right, and fudge whatever they needed for it to work.

I don't take quite as extreme of a stance as Mal does...but I do view it as a troubling problem, either in a GM or a player, and one that you should highlight and try to fix. If they are a generally problematic GM/player with a pile of other issues, or that one issue is pretty bad and they are unwilling to fix it, getting rid of them becomes a very logical step to take.

LansXero
2011-04-01, 09:06 AM
When I bring it up I've done it no more often than Jay here, it's not a tool you abuse often. If you're changing results often then you need to evaluate what you're doing wrong that's causing the need for the constant use.

I think the problem I and maybe other people have with it is that its pointed to as a valid DM tool to be used, while imho it should be more of a "well, I didnt plan properly/overstimated the party/understimated the party and regretfully had to fudge a dice". Its being made out to be something reasonable and well thought of, when it should be, again imho, a regrettable ocurrence.

If it was valid then, why not again? As long as no one finds out, whats the difference? And then things just go downhill.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 09:13 AM
I've got a player like this too, I can't even call enemies spiders. This makes for some interesting re-skins since centipedes are far more creepier in my opinion yet are totally ok.

I have to admit, I also really, really hate spiders. I can deal with minis. I'm not going to touch them, but I can deal with them. I will admit that the monster manuals seem to be absolutely stuffed with spiders, and they can occasionally disturb me a bit.

Thankfully, most minis are sufficiently unrealistic that they're not *that* bad.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 09:25 AM
I think you're assuming that just because we use the option to flub a result every now and then that we don't actually build worthwhile enemies because you seem to assume we'll just go "Why bother? I can just flub in what I need." and this isn't really a fair mindset. You're heavily stereotyping in what we're trying to make a reasonable discussion and it's not helping at all.

If you have such a serious objection to the BBEG being rofflestomped by Slay Living, give him an actual ability that makes him immune to [Death]. It's the second most common immunity in the entire game after [Mind Affecting], so if you can't do it either you aren't familiar enough with the system to be running it, or the enemy doesn't deserve to be a BBEG. Any BBEG worth the acronym already has high saves. Two feats and you don't have to worry about that.

If you did do those things you would not need to make him a DM pet to make up for his lack of actual abilities to be a BBEG. Therefore, you are making him a DM pet to make up for his lack of actual abilities to be a BBEG. QED. And even if you don't cheat every time, you will still be suspected of cheating every time beginning immediately after the first time. Not to mention, if you did know how to make BBEGs worthy of the title, you could just do that all the time, which would completely eliminate any and all need to make him a DM pet. Which means the only possible motivations for not doing so all the time, other than not knowing how is being too lazy to do so. Lack of experience or lack of willpower, either way the cheating DM is missing something of critical importance to a solid gaming experience. And while there is nothing wrong with a lack of experience due to being new, that's something fixed by learning and improving. Not cheating and turning D&D into the very Cops and Robbers it was designed to get away from.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 09:29 AM
And even if you don't cheat every time, you will still be suspected of cheating every time beginning immediately after the first time.

This is a fair point. Of course, it applies to players as well. If you catch a guy cheating, and later, he has a hot streak, and you weren't watching him as he rolled, well...it's gonna be in the back of your mind.

Sure, trust can be eventually regained, but it takes some time.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 09:30 AM
I think the problem I and maybe other people have with it is that its pointed to as a valid DM tool to be used, while imho it should be more of a "well, I didnt plan properly/overstimated the party/understimated the party and regretfully had to fudge a dice". Its being made out to be something reasonable and well thought of, when it should be, again imho, a regrettable ocurrence.

If it was valid then, why not again? As long as no one finds out, whats the difference? And then things just go downhill.

As another poster brought up it's the 'Plan M' of the DM toolbox. Although, yes, it's incredibly tempting to make it 'Plan B' (or even A) because it's just so easy. I've used it as Plan A once and I will say this, NEVER AGAIN. It completely killed the battle from my POV. It actually made more work since I had to keep referring to arbitrary numbers I came up with and really didn't make the game feel like a game.

Only someone with no concern for balance, tension or strategy would have no problem completely flubbing it.

Britter
2011-04-01, 09:31 AM
I'm with Malevolence on this one. If you are interested in preventing a rules-legal outcome, you should prevent it in a rules-legal way. As the GM, you still get the same effect - the player fires up their big killer wotsit to wipe out the BBEG, but it doesn't work because you used the rules to counter it, as opposed to fudging a die roll.

I do realize that you can't prepare for all PC innovation, but you can learn the system and be conversant enough in it to achieve your goals of challenging encounters, done by the rules.

and sometimes the PCs will slip a good one through and end a battle quickly or whatever, and they will know they earned it legitimately, because you are playing by the rules. It is a powerful generator of trust, knowing your GM is not going to cheat you, as well as knowing he is trying to legitimately challenge you.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 09:44 AM
This is a fair point. Of course, it applies to players as well. If you catch a guy cheating, and later, he has a hot streak, and you weren't watching him as he rolled, well...it's gonna be in the back of your mind.

Sure, trust can be eventually regained, but it takes some time.

But of course. It applies to everyone and everything. Fool a person once, and they'll suspect you of doing so every single time after. Don't lie to a person, and they'll generally trust you. Either immediately, or once their wariness runs out upon seeing that you aren't going to lie to them depending on how trusting they are of people. The biggest keywords here are Player Agency. That's the ability of the players to both do stuff, and know what they can do. And it shatters the moment anyone cheats for any reason. There are other things that can break it, and there is a lot more to Player Agency than that, but suffice it to say the more Player Agency a game has the better it is, and vice versa.

Morghen
2011-04-01, 09:47 AM
@Malevolence:

This is wildly off-topic. Is your avatar a close-up of Book?

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 09:50 AM
@Malevolence:

This is wildly off-topic. Is your avatar a close-up of Book?

I am not sure who it is supposed to be. I simply made my avatar a picture of a man with his hands steepled in a vaguely evil manner.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 09:50 AM
If you have such a serious objection to the BBEG being rofflestomped by Slay Living, give him an actual ability that makes him immune to [Death]. It's the second most common immunity in the entire game after [Mind Affecting], so if you can't do it either you aren't familiar enough with the system to be running it, or the enemy doesn't deserve to be a BBEG. Any BBEG worth the acronym already has high saves. Two feats and you don't have to worry about that.

If you did do those things you would not need to make him a DM pet to make up for his lack of actual abilities to be a BBEG. Therefore, you are making him a DM pet to make up for his lack of actual abilities to be a BBEG. QED. And even if you don't cheat every time, you will still be suspected of cheating every time beginning immediately after the first time. Not to mention, if you did know how to make BBEGs worthy of the title, you could just do that all the time, which would completely eliminate any and all need to make him a DM pet. Which means the only possible motivations for not doing so all the time, other than not knowing how is being too lazy to do so. Lack of experience or lack of willpower, either way the cheating DM is missing something of critical importance to a solid gaming experience. And while there is nothing wrong with a lack of experience due to being new, that's something fixed by learning and improving. Not cheating and turning D&D into the very Cops and Robbers it was designed to get away from.

See, you're assuming again. You have a valid concern, in the hands of a bad DM who isn't willing to know his players and prepare appropriately, flubbing is a horrible tool. It's a gateway to say "Why bother? I can just wing it."

If you prepare well and a player still manages to surprise you then you don't flub, you let it work and act incredibly surprised when it does work. Make a big deal out of it, suddenly the anticlimactic battle has turned into a story the players will tell for years.

Flubbing it doesn't have to be in rolls, a good example (imo) of a final battle flub would be bringing in extra mooks to ward off for the players who are having trouble contributing because your first wave of mooks got trounced really quickly. You didn't originally have these mooks prepared because you didn't expect a string of crits but here they are, ready to make sure the entire party feels like they're contributing to the final battle.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 10:06 AM
So... the party does well, and kills some mooks quickly, and you punish them by making up more mooks? You're not helping yourself here.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 10:10 AM
I did have a caveat.

'Members who aren't able to contribute effectively.' in more or less words.

If the party is all still having fun and able to play, don't worry about it.

If you have two players who can't effectively do anything and are sitting around bored while the others bash the BBEG then give them something to do (ie: More mooks is just the easiest example, coming up with a timed challenge or something helps too.).

edit: I will add, again, that you NEVER NEVER NEVER tell a living soul who could get back to your players that you did any of this. You're 100% right about the whole 'never trust again thing'. If they found out you used DM Fiat once they'll suspect it forever.

So while you may judge me and act all superior and such I just have a group of players at home who have an awesome time and think that everything is all planned ahead, even in the one or two cases where I've needed to pull this into effect.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 10:15 AM
And why are these others not also beating up the BBEG? Unless that's also part of the slippery slope you are cascading down at LUDICROUS SPEED?

Sipex
2011-04-01, 10:18 AM
Because they're separated, they've specced into characters who don't handle single targets well (4e multi-target controllers are a good example), the BBEG is their brother and they don't want to actually attack him, they're "Going to wait here and hold the next wave of guys off while you take care of the boss!". Take your pick.

Seriously, I can have a discussion without assuming you're a horrible person so lets see if you can do the same for me, ok?

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 10:23 AM
Because they're separated, they've specced into characters who don't handle single targets well (4e multi-target controllers are a good example), the BBEG is their brother and they don't want to actually attack him, they're "Going to wait here and hold the next wave of guys off while you take care of the boss!". Take your pick.

Seriously, I can have a discussion without assuming you're a horrible person so lets see if you can do the same for me, ok?

In order: Catch up, instead of continuing to violate the primary rule of gaming - Do not split the party, don't get me started on 4th edition, attack him via non lethal means, why would they say this if there aren't actually any others there?

And I said you were sliding down a slippery slope incredibly fast because you are. You said yourself you're lying to them, and then covering up that lie. Which means they WILL find out, and they WILL trust and respect you far less when they do. Might happen immediately after this post, might happen in a week, might happen in a year. It will happen though.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 10:32 AM
edit: I will add, again, that you NEVER NEVER NEVER tell a living soul who could get back to your players that you did any of this. You're 100% right about the whole 'never trust again thing'. If they found out you used DM Fiat once they'll suspect it forever.

Well, then, it will work until you get found out. The world is filled with people who lied, assuming it could never be found out, then later discovered differently. While D&D distrust is hardly the worst of possible consequences to learn this on...I don't think any of us can predict the future well enough to be completely certain that they'll never be found out. Hell, one of your players could stumble onto OOTS tomorrow, be interested in a comic based on the game he plays, and end up browsing to the forums. It's a popular site.

So then, the fallback plan becomes, what do you do when you get found out? It's a plausible possibility, and just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it'll never happen in the future.

MountainKing
2011-04-01, 10:32 AM
As a DM, I do the majority of my rolls in the open, especially during combat. I find that being able to actually see the dice roll out does incredible things for dramatic tension, even in the midst of a fight. Seeing me roll a series of low rolls brings excited glances and encouraged grins; seeing me roll a 20 fills the entire table with dread.

I have a question for the thread though; I've noticed an awful lot of hate for DMs who "flub" it, and I'm curious if that's meant to apply only to dice rolls, or if it extends beyond to the story itself. At the table, I've seen far, FAR too many encounters/storylines get totally wiped out/derailed/shanghai'd by a PC thinking outside of the DM's box when the DM didn't expect it. It's been as minor as the party wizard using Invisibility Sphere to infiltrate a whorehouse with the party ranger, to as significant as one-shotting a dragon withOUT a SoD spell. In a game that is designed to be open and creative on both sides of the table, I've found that there's no such thing as a plan that survives the first round.

So I improvise.

I'll work out the skeleton of the game, figure out my NPCs and whatnot, but as far as my encounters, quests, and stories go? If I'm not running a PBP game, where I have time to plot and connive, I've got a pool of NPCs I pull from, a general idea of what I want to do today, my list of important NPCs (subject to change, obviously), and I make it up from there. I pride myself on my flexibility, and I reward out of the box thinking from my players. The price of that, is that I do not fudge my dice. The only time I roll dice that my players cannot see, it's either to play with their heads a little, or it's for something that the players don't know about (and half the time, I'll do it where they can see it anyway, so that I can enjoy *both*).

A perfect example: in one game, the party had a run-in with an orc warband's scouting party. To this day, the player in question cannot explain what he was thinking when he did what he did: his halfling rogue charged the nearest orc barbarian. The orc rolled two 20s and a 12 for his AoO; he didn't just knock the rogue out, he instantly killed him (the attack put the rogue at exactly -10 HP). I looked at the player and said, "I'm sorry. "Halfling Rogue" has died."

The atmosphere at the table? So intense.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 10:42 AM
I draw a distinction between improvisation and fudging. If the players do something entirely unexpected(and sure, it does happen), you may have to take a few seconds or minutes to consider the possible reactions to their plan and adjust accordingly.

Often, it means nothing more than the PCs advancing the plot at a faster or slower pace...but sometimes they'll come up with something that has significant repercussions, even if they don't realize it. Like leaving that decanter of endless water on in the dungeon beneath the town.

I consider these events great, as they make DMing a lot more interesting, and give me fun things to ponder. If everything always went exactly according to plan, the game wouldn't be as much fun.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 10:52 AM
In order: Catch up, instead of continuing to violate the primary rule of gaming - Do not split the party, don't get me started on 4th edition, attack him via non lethal means, why would they say this if there aren't actually any others there?

And I said you were sliding down a slippery slope incredibly fast because you are. You said yourself you're lying to them, and then covering up that lie. Which means they WILL find out, and they WILL trust and respect you far less when they do. Might happen immediately after this post, might happen in a week, might happen in a year. It will happen though.

Before we continue is there any situation you're going to consider a reasonable situation for 'two of the players being bored'? In fact, are you willing to listen to anything I have to say and actually consider it? I'm interested in going on about this but if you just want to be right we might as well end this discussion.


Well, then, it will work until you get found out. The world is filled with people who lied, assuming it could never be found out, then later discovered differently. While D&D distrust is hardly the worst of possible consequences to learn this on...I don't think any of us can predict the future well enough to be completely certain that they'll never be found out. Hell, one of your players could stumble onto OOTS tomorrow, be interested in a comic based on the game he plays, and end up browsing to the forums. It's a popular site.

So then, the fallback plan becomes, what do you do when you get found out? It's a plausible possibility, and just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it'll never happen in the future.

Of course, I'm not crazy enough to believe that there's no chance I'll be found out. It's a risk I take when flubbing is needed and part of the reason it's pretty much last resort (last resort is total retcon which is flubbing but out in the open pretty much).

If one of my players came on this forum and found out I'd have to wait for them to tell me. I trust that I have good players though, they'd let me know they found out (or hint at it with "Hey, I joined giantitp forums yesterday and saw you posting...") and we'd discuss it. I trust they'd understand and appreciate why I did it and then go from there.

Maybe they say they won't tell the others about it and are fine with the occasional flub? Maybe they suggest we tell everyone and come to a group conclusion?

A big part of being a DM is being flexible and able to change and this isn't any different.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 11:01 AM
Sipex, I think we're actually fairly close on our opinions of this...the main difference is how I value the risk of them finding out. As such, if I make a mistake with unfortunate consequences(the main acceptable reason for fudging anyway, at least as described by people so far), I'll admit it and fix it in the open. The way I see it, there is then no risk of distrust from doing the same thing but hiding it.

Honestly, though, retconning is an extremely rare event. It's only used in cases like "oh, I forgot to mention that you see x, y and z. Knowing that information, would you like to change your action?". We've never had to retcon anything major, and I'm pretty sure that the players would also prefer to avoid doing so.

I also just assume that anything said on the internet is public info, and can be traced back to me personally. After all...if someone is motivated enough, it can be. So, nothing I say on here is really going to be a problem if someone from one of my games stumbles across it. The easiest way to keep secrets is not to have them.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 11:14 AM
I agree, this is one thing where you make a choice on. Yours is to make things open and that works for you. You don't have to worry about secrets or being found out.

I've chosen the other path which carries greater risk but at the immediate reward of making the flubbed event (roll/whatever) more intense and real feeling.

Mind, I've done it all of twice, once was because I had been a DM for all of 3 hours and threw too much at my level 1 party for them to handle.

The second? I don't even remember but I don't want to be so presumptious to say I've only flubbed once when I don't think that's true.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 11:28 AM
I have a question for the thread though; I've noticed an awful lot of hate for DMs who "flub" it, and I'm curious if that's meant to apply only to dice rolls, or if it extends beyond to the story itself. At the table, I've seen far, FAR too many encounters/storylines get totally wiped out/derailed/shanghai'd by a PC thinking outside of the DM's box when the DM didn't expect it. It's been as minor as the party wizard using Invisibility Sphere to infiltrate a whorehouse with the party ranger, to as significant as one-shotting a dragon withOUT a SoD spell. In a game that is designed to be open and creative on both sides of the table, I've found that there's no such thing as a plan that survives the first round.

It's even more offensive in such a case.


Before we continue is there any situation you're going to consider a reasonable situation for 'two of the players being bored'? In fact, are you willing to listen to anything I have to say and actually consider it? I'm interested in going on about this but if you just want to be right we might as well end this discussion.

There are situations in which two players can be bored. None of them justify punishing the party for being effective though. And that's the real problem here. The party was effective, by killing the enemy quickly, and you are discussing punishing them by inventing more enemies.

valadil
2011-04-01, 11:36 AM
Which means the only possible motivations for not doing so all the time, other than not knowing how is being too lazy to do so.

Lack of time is also valid. If I only have a couple hours to write game, I'm going to spend that time on plot and skim through combat. Sometimes that means I have to correct the combat when we actually start playing. How often that happens depends on the system.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 11:36 AM
Mind, I've done it all of twice, once was because I had been a DM for all of 3 hours and threw too much at my level 1 party for them to handle.

The second? I don't even remember but I don't want to be so presumptious to say I've only flubbed once when I don't think that's true.

This would be an example in which, while I'd rather have it in the open, I feel it's so rare that it's unlikely to be an issue. After all, the odds of you fudging even one roll involving my character in a campaign are going to be slim, and if there's no fudge, there's no possibility of a problem with fudging.

When people view fudging as a tool to be used with regularity, well...that's when it's extremely likely to come up. I've known people who seemed to regard the DMs dice as merely noisemakers. Those invariably have problems arise with it. So, I don't view it as merely "fudgers" and "non-fudgers". There's a whole spectrum of possibilities, with the extreme fudging side being the biggest issue.

Goober4473
2011-04-01, 11:38 AM
Protip: Try giving BBEGs the actual abilities to survive combat if you would like for them to survive combat. If they have the actual abilities to still be standing even if they roll a 1, you neatly avoid all of these pitfalls, and in turn make the BBEG someone to respect and fear, instead of an obvious DM pet.

But only if you have the time to prepare, thought of everything, and are very good at encounter design. Usually I have the time, think of everything, and am good at encounter design. But once in a while I'll pull some stats out of a book because I didn't have the time to write up my own, and sometimes those stats don't really work how I thought they would. Or maybe I wrote up some stats, but miscalculated. It happens.

If I wrote the encounter successfully, then I won't need to fudge a single thing about it. This is usually how it goes. But if I didn't, and I made a mistake, why should the game suffer for it when I can easily fix that mistake?


And if you have to cheat to make the story "compelling"....if it would cease to be a good story solely because one guy misses all his attacks, then you didn't really have a good story in the first place.

A similar (and more interesting) point. If I set everything up right, then the story will be fine no matter what gets rolled. Usually I set things up right. But every now and then I miss something, and I realize too late (often after I see the result of a roll) that if something happens, then the story will get messed up, or the encoutner will become lame. Again, I would like to retain the ability to correct my mistake in this rare case.

It's not about pet NPCs, or making the party invulnerable, or forcing the story that I want no matter what the players do. It's about correcting for DM error, and dealing with occasional extreme fringe cases that will ruin everyone's fun (and I've explained already why I feel that the DM is responsible for this).


As such, if I make a mistake with unfortunate consequences(the main acceptable reason for fudging anyway, at least as described by people so far), I'll admit it and fix it in the open. The way I see it, there is then no risk of distrust from doing the same thing but hiding it.

From a player's perspective, I hate it when a DM does this except when it concerns a character's abilities directly ("it turns out that combo I let you use is way too powerful, so I need to nerf it a little to keep it in line with the rest of the party" for instance). I know the DM can fudge dice, and if they're good, I trust them to do it only to keep things fun for us players. But it ruins the immersion for me to hear about it directly. Knowing they can do it doesn't invalidate my choices, so long as I trust them to do it right.

What do I care if the goblin I'm fighting is a weakling that goes down in one hit because those are its stats, or because the DM decided later that the encoutner was basically over, and dropped its hp so the next hit kills it? I kill it in one hit with not much damage either way. Same thing in my eyes, as long as the DM doesn't tell me about it. I know that the DM could have fudged that, or it could have been the way it was all along. But that doesn't really invalidate my choice to attack, my character build, etc.

What do I care if the BBEG actually prepared Teleport this morning, or the DM decided that this enemy will be really interesting later, and has it teleport even though it wasn't prepared? Either way, it didn't invalidate my choices or actions.

But if the DM told me, "yeah, this goblin has lots of hit points, but y'know what? You kill it anyways," or "well, this guy didn't really prepare teleport, but I want to use him later, so he teleports," then I'd feel bad, because immersion has been broken. It's not like I'd feel like the DM actually cheated, or I couldn't trust that DM anymore. I know the DM can do these things, and I want them done, but I just don't want to hear about them, if possible.

Of course, it's not always possible to keep this stuff hidden, but it won't ruin the game for me. I'd just rather not know. If I find out two years later that the BBEG didn't actually prepare teleport, whatever. I can easily see why the DM did it.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 11:48 AM
But only if you have the time to prepare, thought of everything, and are very good at encounter design. Usually I have the time, think of everything, and am good at encounter design. But once in a while I'll pull some stats out of a book because I didn't have the time to write up my own, and sometimes those stats don't really work how I thought they would. Or maybe I wrote up some stats, but miscalculated. It happens.

If I wrote the encounter successfully, then I won't need to fudge a single thing about it. This is usually how it goes. But if I didn't, and I made a mistake, why should the game suffer for it when I can easily fix that mistake?

Most mistakes don't actually require fixing. So, the players managed to flatten a guy they knew was tough in one round? They will now be cheering and congratulating themselves on their awesomeness.

I just have to not make the same mistakes all the time. If the bosses ALWAYS die in one round, the game will become a joke, sure...but if that is happening, then I didn't make just one mistake...I made mistakes every time. The correct fix to that is not "fudge them away", it's for me to analyze what I'm doing wrong and fix that.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 11:50 AM
Lack of time is also valid. If I only have a couple hours to write game, I'm going to spend that time on plot and skim through combat. Sometimes that means I have to correct the combat when we actually start playing. How often that happens depends on the system.

Then in that case the problem is that you are overbooking yourself, in which case you either need to make time to do it, or not do it. Or work faster. That works too.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 11:55 AM
But only if you have the time to prepare, thought of everything, and are very good at encounter design. Usually I have the time, think of everything, and am good at encounter design. But once in a while I'll pull some stats out of a book because I didn't have the time to write up my own, and sometimes those stats don't really work how I thought they would. Or maybe I wrote up some stats, but miscalculated. It happens.

If I wrote the encounter successfully, then I won't need to fudge a single thing about it. This is usually how it goes. But if I didn't, and I made a mistake, why should the game suffer for it when I can easily fix that mistake?

You are discussing a major encounter where the party is minimum level 9, which means the BBEG is minimum level 11. If you have not, at the very least considered basic information (and yes, immunity to [Death] is basic) about a major, mid to high level encounter, you should not be surprised or offended when said encounter is rofflestomped in half a turn. If you choose to do so anyways, you are being lazy. And if you then try and make up for that laziness by cheating... Well, you know how it goes.

It doesn't require a great deal of skill or effort.

MountainKing
2011-04-01, 12:01 PM
It's even more offensive in such a case.

Sooo... you'd rather the DM fudge their rolls and force you into a railroad, because if they've planned for it, then by God, you're gonna play it exactly the way they planned it, and so help you, you are absolutely NOT going to see a planned out plot go the way it's not "supposed" to? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that a DM fudging dice rolls in order to keep things to plan instead of improvising is offensive? Is it the ability to be flexible and roll with the PCs, keeping the game moving and preventing the worst parts of being a DM (such as losing hours, if not days, worth of work and planning to something as simple as a PC picking up on a detail you overlooked, and the stress and frustration that causes) from being a problem the thing you take issue with?

...Seriously dude (or lady, whatever), your response is uh... a little lacking. Could you elaborate on what you're trying to convey?

valadil
2011-04-01, 12:19 PM
Then in that case the problem is that you are overbooking yourself, in which case you either need to make time to do it, or not do it. Or work faster. That works too.

That's not always under my control though. If I have to work late for a couple days before my game, that's going to cut into prep time regardless of how I booked myself.


I just have to not make the same mistakes all the time. If the bosses ALWAYS die in one round, the game will become a joke, sure...but if that is happening, then I didn't make just one mistake...I made mistakes every time. The correct fix to that is not "fudge them away", it's for me to analyze what I'm doing wrong and fix that.

Is fudge the first one and then analyze between sessions not also acceptable? I agree that if all the bosses die easily something is wrong and needs fixing. I don't have a problem with a GM fudging their way around a misunderstanding once, and then fixing it in the future.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 12:21 PM
There are situations in which two players can be bored. None of them justify punishing the party for being effective though. And that's the real problem here. The party was effective, by killing the enemy quickly, and you are discussing punishing them by inventing more enemies.

You see it as punishing, I see it as giving the bored players another route to contribute.

There would be additional rewards for the effort taken of course, if it's a mid-game battle then you give additional treasure and XP, maybe even additional plot stuff.

If it's the end game battle you still give that stuff (but it's more to see their final totals and less to actually be useful) but also emphasize the reward of...well, I can't think of the proper name.

Essentially you let them know how awesome they're being and make the final battle seem just as epic (and fun!) for them as it is for those players battling the BBEG directly.

edit: If the situation allows, maybe add in something like routes to aid the party that don't involve attacking the BBEG directly, like disabling his world destroying device or somesuch.

valadil
2011-04-01, 12:30 PM
If it's the end game battle you still give that stuff (but it's more to see their final totals and less to actually be useful) but also emphasize the reward of...well, I can't think of the proper name.


Even an additional challenge may be appreciated. Last week I ran a few combats and didn't drop anyone. After the game the players complained that it was too easy and I should go harder than that. I think that in this case, those particular players would have preferred that I fudge in some reinforcements, rather than let the fight be too easy.

My players want their characters to function at full capacity. They don't see the point in a 2000xp combat if they can handle a 2400xp one. Yes, they feel awesome when they one shot a boss. They feel awesomer when they one shot a boss and then have a grueling fight to take down two of his lieutenants who happened to be counting treasure in the back room.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 12:45 PM
Is fudge the first one and then analyze between sessions not also acceptable? I agree that if all the bosses die easily something is wrong and needs fixing. I don't have a problem with a GM fudging their way around a misunderstanding once, and then fixing it in the future.

It's unnecessary, usually. So one boss dies easily. Not a problem. You can even look shocked and say that you didn't expect the party to take him down so rapidly. In the players minds, this translates to "You are awesome."

So, then, you get home, make a note of what happened and why, and make sure to keep it in mind in the future. And some variability in toughness of fights is a good thing. The DMG encourages this for a reason. Sometimes you roll over them, and sometimes you snag the loot, and run like hell, hoping the dragon doesn't find you. It's easy for players to get in a rut and expect more of the same, but in the long run, you need some variety to keep things interesting.

valadil
2011-04-01, 12:59 PM
It's unnecessary, usually. So one boss dies easily. Not a problem. You can even look shocked and say that you didn't expect the party to take him down so rapidly. In the players minds, this translates to "You are awesome."


I definitely agree that this is the preferred method. But I don't have a problem with a GM who extends the fight just this once and then corrects his mistake for future sessions. I give that GM a C+ and I wouldn't raise a fuss about it. A GM who corrects his mistake by silently rolling a natural 20 against whatever killed his boss from then on would be a GM I couldn't play with.

Pisha
2011-04-01, 01:01 PM
Then in that case the problem is that you are overbooking yourself, in which case you either need to make time to do it, or not do it. Or work faster. That works too.

You are discussing a major encounter where the party is minimum level 9, which means the BBEG is minimum level 11. If you have not, at the very least considered basic information (and yes, immunity to [Death] is basic) about a major, mid to high level encounter, you should not be surprised or offended when said encounter is rofflestomped in half a turn. If you choose to do so anyways, you are being lazy. And if you then try and make up for that laziness by cheating... Well, you know how it goes.

It doesn't require a great deal of skill or effort.


Well, gosh, if only we were all perfect like you.

Yes, Malevolence, your rigid honesty, attention to detail, planning skills and time management make you a superior human being. Feel free to bask. In the meantime, we lesser, fallen mortals will be over here, having fun.

Seriously, I hate to be snippy, but we could do with a little less of the "If you ever, even once and for any reason, use a GM tool that is specifically mentioned in the DMG as an option, you are a terrible person and should not be allowed to run a game" attitude. Ok, so you don't enjoy games where DM fudging is an option. Maybe the people you game with don't either. Good for you. Don't use it. But many other people here have categorically stated that, as both players and GMs, they find occasional fudging adds to the fun of the game. And since we're playing for our own enjoyment (and our fellow players'), rather than for your approval, we're going to keep doing so. I'd appreciate not being belittled for having fun, thanks.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 01:33 PM
Sooo... you'd rather the DM fudge their rolls and force you into a railroad, because if they've planned for it, then by God, you're gonna play it exactly the way they planned it, and so help you, you are absolutely NOT going to see a planned out plot go the way it's not "supposed" to? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that a DM fudging dice rolls in order to keep things to plan instead of improvising is offensive? Is it the ability to be flexible and roll with the PCs, keeping the game moving and preventing the worst parts of being a DM (such as losing hours, if not days, worth of work and planning to something as simple as a PC picking up on a detail you overlooked, and the stress and frustration that causes) from being a problem the thing you take issue with?

...Seriously dude (or lady, whatever), your response is uh... a little lacking. Could you elaborate on what you're trying to convey?

Straw man argument. The comparison is between a cheating DM and a railroading DM. The latter is more offensive because it lasts more than a few moments.


That's not always under my control though. If I have to work late for a couple days before my game, that's going to cut into prep time regardless of how I booked myself.

How many seconds does it take to give the guy a freakin' Death Ward? All BBEGs worth anything are casters anyways, so it is not as if accessing it is hard.


You see it as punishing, I see it as giving the bored players another route to contribute.

There would be additional rewards for the effort taken of course, if it's a mid-game battle then you give additional treasure and XP, maybe even additional plot stuff.

No, it's punishing. By adding more enemies because the PCs were effective, you raise the chance of people dying. What's more, it wasn't even that they were effective because they were good. It's because they were lucky. Why even roll dice if a series of good rolls results in a negative outcome, one that's likely as bad or worse as a series of low results?


Well, gosh, if only we were all perfect like you.

Yes, Malevolence, your rigid honesty, attention to detail, planning skills and time management make you a superior human being. Feel free to bask. In the meantime, we lesser, fallen mortals will be over here, having fun.

Yes, truly I am a paragon of... wait a damn minute. I'm just a normal decent guy with actual standards. If that's anything special, at all, then something is very wrong with the world. Because it isn't anything special. It's just something that should be done.

But aside from fully justifying my elitism by proving its necessity, what are you trying to accomplish here?


Seriously, I hate to be snippy, but we could do with a little less of the "If you ever, even once and for any reason, use a GM tool that is specifically mentioned in the DMG as an option, you are a terrible person and should not be allowed to run a game" attitude. Ok, so you don't enjoy games where DM fudging is an option. Maybe the people you game with don't either. Good for you. Don't use it. But many other people here have categorically stated that, as both players and GMs, they find occasional fudging adds to the fun of the game. And since we're playing for our own enjoyment (and our fellow players'), rather than for your approval, we're going to keep doing so. I'd appreciate not being belittled for having fun, thanks.

Even if that is true, and it probably isn't Pun Pun is a part of the game too. That doesn't mean it should be allowed in though.

So, some people prefer relying on a crutch rather than improve themselves and their abilities. Or perhaps they are just inherently dishonest, as you might expect from something that involves lying to your friends and treating them as if they were young children. Whatever their motivation, just because they do it doesn't make it good.

There are people out there who find it fun to steal from others after all. And while the cheater is stealing time rather than physical possessions, that's actually worse because time is not replaceable. More to the point it illustrates that one person's right to extend their fist ends at the other person's face. And no, you are not entitled to hurt others. No matter how enjoyable you might think it is. You are also not entitled to make the hobby worse, which promoting cheating does for any gaming community.

Morghen
2011-04-01, 01:35 PM
you are being lazy. And if you then try and make up for that laziness by cheating... Well, you know how it goes.

It doesn't require a great deal of skill or effort.
Then in that case the problem is that you are overbooking yourself, in which case you either need to make time to do it, or not do it. Or work faster. That works too.

Good grief, Mal.

I agree with you, but your total lack of ability to see this as anything but good vs. evil is making me dislike my whole side of the argument.


Yes, I agree that tinkering with the outcome of the rolls is bad, but if you're actually trying to convince somebody in an argument, then outright condemning them as A) An incompetent, lazy, cheating GM; and B) A bad person isn't going to actually win anybody to your side of the argument.

I refuse to tolerate evil-doers.I know, I know. But the world isn't black and white.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 01:37 PM
Aaaaand reported again. Really.

edit: Mal, not Morghen. You're fine.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 01:40 PM
Good grief, Mal.

I agree with you, but your total lack of ability to see this as anything but good vs. evil is making me dislike my whole side of the argument.

Hey, look at it this way. By taking a stance so much more extreme than us, he makes us look ever so reasonable in comparison.

My ideal game has no fudging/cheating by anyone, true. I'm aware not all games are ideal, and people generally have to make mistakes and learn from them. So, while I dislike fudging, I wouldn't jump from someone doing it once to calling them evil. That's a bit far.

Vladislav
2011-04-01, 01:42 PM
Upon review of the argumentation, sign me up as an evil-doer :smallbiggrin:


...something is very wrong with the world...Nah, the world's fine. Well, not all aspects of it, but the D&D gaming is pretty cool.


But aside from fully justifying my elitism by proving its necessityI said it once, I'll say it again. You're no more of an elitist than a cheesburger is "elitist" to chicken nuggets. You are entitled to your opinion, but putting "elite" and "protip" in there is just nonsense.

evirus
2011-04-01, 01:46 PM
I skipped over to the end of this thread after reading the first page so please excuse my cheat to get here.

I GM a bi-weekly 4th ed game and made it clear to my players that we wern't playing a video game. My goal is to tell a story, not -my- story but a story that the players will build with my help. If the help that I give my players to tell a more compelling story is considered as cheating, I'm fine with that.

However we have a good time and boy do they enjoy my game, even when they die.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 01:55 PM
Good grief, Mal.

I agree with you, but your total lack of ability to see this as anything but good vs. evil is making me dislike my whole side of the argument.

If it were good vs evil I'd be on the dark side. If you must make it an alignment thing, it's law vs chaos. Robots vs giant frogs. That's still rather foolish though. Having standards, and expecting others to have and meet standards too is not some unreasonable or extreme outcome. It's something that should just happen, with incidents where it does not happen being the exception rather than the norm.


Yes, I agree that tinkering with the outcome of the rolls is bad, but if you're actually trying to convince somebody in an argument, then outright condemning them as A) An incompetent, lazy, cheating GM; and B) A bad person isn't going to actually win anybody to your side of the argument.
I know, I know. But the world isn't black and white.

I don't expect to change their mind. This is the Internet after all, and even if it wasn't such people rarely come back up once they slide down that slippery slope. I do intend to make it very clear what, exactly it is they are doing and why, for the benefit of other people. And that is exactly what is happening. Some people hinder the gaming community, you teach people how to avoid those people. Simple damage control.

TheCountAlucard
2011-04-01, 01:59 PM
Sorry, when you said, "Cheating the end of your game," I was imagining something akin to a horror movie ending, in which the PCs defeated the big bad and all... yet as the epilogue to the campaign, you reveal to them that the menace is not truly gone... :sabine:

Actually, I ended a Halloween NWoD game that way. :smallamused:

valadil
2011-04-01, 02:03 PM
How many seconds does it take to give the guy a freakin' Death Ward? All BBEGs worth anything are casters anyways, so it is not as if accessing it is hard.


Slapping on a buff is one thing. Prepping a whole combat is another matter. Over the course of building 4-6 enemies, some of whom have powers I'm not familiar with just so the players can see some variety, I expect to make a mistake or two. Some combats can survive a mistake. Others can't. If I think a mistake will ruin a combat, I try and correct it. I'd love to have time to playtest every combat I write, but my prep time is limited. And I get more value out of writing plot than playtesting combats anyway.

I don't fudge in the game I'm running now. I don't need to because the combats play out at the right difficulty. Maybe it's because I'm using 4th ed. But the other reason they might be calibrated right is because I'm running bi-weekly instead of weekly. Perhaps it takes me two weeks to find the time to write combat, and rushing it to one week is just asking to have to fudge.

Vladislav
2011-04-01, 02:03 PM
Some people hinder the gaming community, you teach people how to avoid those people. Simple damage control.Amen bro! You seem to have put a very good example of the kind of people to avoid.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 02:10 PM
Slapping on a buff is one thing. Prepping a whole combat is another matter. Over the course of building 4-6 enemies, some of whom have powers I'm not familiar with just so the players can see some variety, I expect to make a mistake or two. Some combats can survive a mistake. Others can't. If I think a mistake will ruin a combat, I try and correct it. I'd love to have time to playtest every combat I write, but my prep time is limited. And I get more value out of writing plot than playtesting combats anyway.

If a mistake makes for an easy win, so what? It is not as if there is a shortage of enemies. There will always be more of those. Always.

valadil
2011-04-01, 02:16 PM
If a mistake makes for an easy win, so what? It is not as if there is a shortage of enemies. There will always be more of those. Always.

That's one kind of mistake. What if the mistake makes for an impossible fight? Do I have my NPC pull his punches or do I swap out Combat Expertise for a different feat, so that the PCs have a chance of hitting?


I do intend to make it very clear what, exactly it is they are doing and why, for the benefit of other people. And that is exactly what is happening. Some people hinder the gaming community, you teach people how to avoid those people. Simple damage control.

Well you may be hindering your own message. I find your rhetoric so offensive that I feel obliged to take the other side, even though I prefer not to fudge. There are more effective stances to take if you want to spread a message. I know you said you don't consider yourself elite, but if everyone in the thread reads you as elitist, it means you're coming off that way regardless of how you feel about it.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 02:19 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 02:19 PM
That's one kind of mistake. What if the mistake makes for an impossible fight? Do I have my NPC pull his punches or do I swap out Combat Expertise for a different feat, so that the PCs have a chance of hitting?

That actually doesn't bother me much either. I'm comfortable with the DMG recommended 5% overwhelming fights. In fact, by strict CR, my group tends to run all fights at +4 CR and up.

Knowing when to run, and making preparations for same is part of the game. This can lead to interesting complications depending on when and where this happens, but that generally makes the game more challenging and fun, not less. Doing this tends to kill a few players at first, but leads to much smarter play afterward, as players learn that they can't just hack their way through all problems.

Goober4473
2011-04-01, 02:26 PM
Most mistakes don't actually require fixing. So, the players managed to flatten a guy they knew was tough in one round? They will now be cheering and congratulating themselves on their awesomeness.

I just have to not make the same mistakes all the time. If the bosses ALWAYS die in one round, the game will become a joke, sure...but if that is happening, then I didn't make just one mistake...I made mistakes every time. The correct fix to that is not "fudge them away", it's for me to analyze what I'm doing wrong and fix that.

Sure, most don't. Some do.

Real life example:

I was running a 3.5 D&D one-shot, which I had prepared ahead of time, but I had little time to do so, so I used all canned monsters.

Since this was a group I was unfamilair with, and it had been a while since I last did 3.5, I threw two semi-weak enemies at them, to see how they did, with the intention of having more come around the corner if they proved too weak of enemies. A couple rounds into the fight, I decided two more of the weaker enemies would be added, and a round or two later a spellcaster enemy woudl show up. By dynamically readjusting the fight, I determined the general power level of the party, while still giving them a good fight. There was no "well, that fight sucked. Guess I'll do better next time." That one fight worked well. Which isgood, since it was one of two in the whole one-shot.

Later, they encountered the boss-monster I had planned. It turned out the players had no real tank or healer types at all. An archer, a psion, a monk-type, and a rogue/lurk, most with LA at level 4. It wasn't a big problem at all in the last fight. The tankiest people had enough AC/hp to do fine, and they hadp icked up some potions to recharge after the fight.

But it turned out the boss monster I chose dealt way too much damage, and pretty much auto-hit anyone in the party. The CR was right, but because I didn't have time to tailor it to this specific group, it became obvious after one round that it was far more pwoerful than I had intended. So instead of killing the PCs because I made a dumb monster choice or because they hadn't had time to discuss party balance (not their fault; characters were made beforehand to save time), I fudged a couple attack rolls, then had it start using both of its claw attacks as a single attack, with a lower attack bonus. The fight turned out to be dramatic and interesting, where the players got to show off their characters' cool abilities and make meaningful decisions, rather than a hopeless TPK because I lacked the time and information I needed beforehand.

Had I chosen to not fudge anything, there would have been a boring time-wasting fight, followed by a decent one once I figured out everything's approximate power, at which point we would have been out of time, but had we managed more time somehow, there then would have been a TPK by no fault of the players. I intended them to fight this thing, alone, etc. They made no stupid decisions. A TPK would have been unfair.

Would it have been better if I had statted out the enemies msyelf, gotten the character sheets early, run a couple practise fights with them to get back into the flow of 3.5 D&D, and figured everything out ahead of time? Why yes, it would have been. But I didn't have the time for that. Instead, I had the ability to fix it on the fly, and keep things just as fun for the players as if it really were all extremely well planned out ahead of time.

What did I do wrong? Everyone was aware that I could fudge things, so I didn't lie to anyone. The rules say I can do it, and we didn't houserule that away, so I didn't cheat. And everyone had a great time, which is the whole point. Where's the down side here?

Forbiddenwar
2011-04-01, 02:27 PM
Yes, sometimes that means 75% of my rolls are 5 or less on a D20.

:smallconfused:
How does that work?


Yes, that meansEvery roll has a 25% chance of being 5 or less a D20.
fixed. Just got really confused, trying to figure the math.

Mr.Bookworm
2011-04-01, 02:29 PM
This thread has very high levels, of, well.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fSkxbE0Gv7I/TPKrcC3id_I/AAAAAAAAAFs/tFEbIO59Y4k/s1600/Youre_Doing-it-wrong.jpg

I mean, really, I'm surprised that no one here as pointed out that gaming groups are inherently different, and what works for one group might not work for another. If someone has actually said this, I retroactively apologize.

Vladislav
2011-04-01, 02:31 PM
What did I do wrong? Everyone was aware that I could fudge things, so I didn't lie to anyone. The rules say I can do it, and we didn't houserule that away, so I didn't cheat. And everyone had a great time, which is the whole point. Where's the down side here?There is no downside. You did well. *hugs from a fellow evil-doer*

evirus
2011-04-01, 02:31 PM
What did I do wrong? Everyone was aware that I could fudge things, so I didn't lie to anyone. The rules say I can do it, and we didn't houserule that away, so I didn't cheat. And everyone had a great time, which is the whole point. Where's the down side here?

*Clap clap*

I fully agree. Also, your players thanked you for a fun time I'm sure.

valadil
2011-04-01, 02:32 PM
That actually doesn't bother me much either. I'm comfortable with the DMG recommended 5% overwhelming fights. In fact, by strict CR, my group tends to run all fights at +4 CR and up.


CE was a tame example. Let's say that you were picking monsters and missed the tens digit in the CR. Now the enemy is unbeatable (short of rolling nothing but 20s for 8+ rounds) and unescapable because it's just plain faster or has flight or something the PCs have no means of dealing with. Yes, this example is extreme. I can think of a few times when I'd leave the enemy as it is, but more often than not I'll fix the error.

I'm not trying to say that too much AC is a problem that requires fudging to solve. My point is that a class of errors exists which the GM should probably try and fudge. The tolerance for those errors depends on the GM, the game he's running, and the group participating. Maybe that tolerance is beyond the range of math errors you make, and so you never have to fudge. In which case, congrats you're a better accountant than I. But other GMs deal with wider margins for error and with groups/games that don't tolerate errors as easily.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 02:33 PM
This thread has very high levels, of, well.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fSkxbE0Gv7I/TPKrcC3id_I/AAAAAAAAAFs/tFEbIO59Y4k/s1600/Youre_Doing-it-wrong.jpg

I mean, really, I'm surprised that no one here as pointed out that gaming groups are inherently different, and what works for one group might not work for another. If someone has actually said this, I retroactively apologize.

It's been said.

Some of us have made our peace on this while others need to talk it out more I guess. This is pretty much my view to all debates of this nature though.

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 02:43 PM
:smallconfused:
How does that work?

It means sometimes I roll very, very poorly. Sometimes I roll extremely well. As a general rule, if I am rolling dice for myself, the rolls are almost always 5 or less. If I am rolling dice for anyone else, be it another player, or when I am DMing and rolling for an enemy I treat D20s as D2s most of the time. Half the time it's a 20, half the time it's something that is not a 20.

As such, I make a point of optimizing my own characters both because it's a good idea anyways, and because they won't accomplish much otherwise due to all the 2-5s. And since I roll a lot of 20s as a DM, players make a point of optimizing both because it's a good idea anyways, and so they don't get rofflestomped by bad luck.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 03:02 PM
Sure, most don't. Some do.

Real life example:

I was running a 3.5 D&D one-shot, which I had prepared ahead of time, but I had little time to do so, so I used all canned monsters.

Since this was a group I was unfamilair with, and it had been a while since I last did 3.5, I threw two semi-weak enemies at them, to see how they did, with the intention of having more come around the corner if they proved too weak of enemies. A couple rounds into the fight, I decided two more of the weaker enemies would be added, and a round or two later a spellcaster enemy woudl show up. By dynamically readjusting the fight, I determined the general power level of the party, while still giving them a good fight. There was no "well, that fight sucked. Guess I'll do better next time." That one fight worked well. Which isgood, since it was one of two in the whole one-shot.

That isn't quite the same as fudging. Starting with weak stuff and feeling new players out is just...a good idea, generally. I don't do it exactly the same way, but your goal is essentially the same as mine.


Later, they encountered the boss-monster I had planned. It turned out the players had no real tank or healer types at all. An archer, a psion, a monk-type, and a rogue/lurk, most with LA at level 4. It wasn't a big problem at all in the last fight. The tankiest people had enough AC/hp to do fine, and they hadp icked up some potions to recharge after the fight.

Is this 3.5? The information seems like it Because tank/healers are not at all required roles in 3.5. They're often not even particularly helpful roles for a character to fill. That said, if most people have LA, I'll discount their ability to handle fights a bit. LA is usually overvalued.


But it turned out the boss monster I chose dealt way too much damage, and pretty much auto-hit anyone in the party....

Would it have been better if I had statted out the enemies msyelf, gotten the character sheets early, run a couple practise fights with them to get back into the flow of 3.5 D&D, and figured everything out ahead of time? Why yes, it would have been. But I didn't have the time for that. Instead, I had the ability to fix it on the fly, and keep things just as fun for the players as if it really were all extremely well planned out ahead of time.

What did I do wrong? Everyone was aware that I could fudge things, so I didn't lie to anyone. The rules say I can do it, and we didn't houserule that away, so I didn't cheat. And everyone had a great time, which is the whole point. Where's the down side here?

It's not a simple right/wrong. It's more of a better/worse. There are almost invariably many ways to handle any part of DMing, so dividing them up into the one right way and the wrong ways is...overly simplistic. I prefer to think of better ways to approach something. And you've picked out the better way yourself, to spend more time making sure the monster picked matches the party. No disagreement on that.

Generally, I tend to use several warning flags...for most fights, I try to avoid picking monsters that essentially auto-hit the party members, as well as monsters that have average damage higher than total hp of any party member. Others include AC or other defenses that entirely invalidate a party member. Certain situations call for exceptions to these rules of thumb, obviously, but if one or more of them are being violated, it generally indicates I need to evaluate a given encounter more carefully. Unfortunately, CR is mostly only useful as a rough starting point.


CE was a tame example. Let's say that you were picking monsters and missed the tens digit in the CR. Now the enemy is unbeatable (short of rolling nothing but 20s for 8+ rounds) and unescapable because it's just plain faster or has flight or something the PCs have no means of dealing with. Yes, this example is extreme. I can think of a few times when I'd leave the enemy as it is, but more often than not I'll fix the error.

Well, thankfully, I don't rely on CR alone to pick encounters. If you do that, sooner or later, you WILL have problems, because CR is a rough guide at best.

I *do* build worlds that have extremely high CR mobs in them at times...when I do, I tend to give appropriate warning. Tales of the ancient red dragon in an area should probably not be investigated when the party is level one. It is possible for a party to pick a fight they almost certainly cannot win...and in such a drastic example, they might not even be able to escape it....but there will be multiple clues in advance of what they're getting into. Chaotic stupid characters tend to die horrifyingly quick in my campaigns.

If you DO pick monsters entirely by CR, and do so carelessly enough that you don't notice the difference between a CR 4 creature and a CR 14 creature, well...you really only have yourself to blame. Admit your mistake. Your players will probably figure it out if they ever look at a monster manual anyhow.

valadil
2011-04-01, 03:14 PM
Well, thankfully, I don't rely on CR alone to pick encounters. If you do that, sooner or later, you WILL have problems, because CR is a rough guide at best.

...

If you DO pick monsters entirely by CR, and do so carelessly enough that you don't notice the difference between a CR 4 creature and a CR 14 creature, well...you really only have yourself to blame. Admit your mistake. Your players will probably figure it out if they ever look at a monster manual anyhow.

I don't. When I GMed 3.5, I had to spend a ton of time on combats because of how unreliable CR was. Mistakes were inevitable, although no, I've never lost a 10s digit. That was just the first example I could come up with quickly. Given a choice between playtesting fights so that I wouldn't feel I had to fudge and giving my NPCs personality, I opted for fudge and personality. If my boss lets me spend wednesday and thursday afternoons playtesting combats, I could probably make fights in 3.5 that play out nicely too. But that's not gonna happen and I will always prioritize NPC personality over a fudgeless combat.

Morghen
2011-04-01, 03:22 PM
If a mistake makes for an easy win, so what? It is not as if there is a shortage of enemies. There will always be more of those. Always.Hey! There you go! Totally reasonable. You didn't call anybody stupid or lazy, you made a very succinct, persuasive argument, and...
Anyone who lacks the maturity to separate messenger from message is also someone better avoided. Working as intended.Sigh. Never mind.

Shyftir
2011-04-01, 03:25 PM
I'm not angry with GMs who "fudge" because the trust I have in them is not to never fudge, its to not be a jerk and screw me over with no purpose. My entire group is fully aware that the DM might "fudge" occasionally. It doesn't hurt our trust of the DM because we all know and accept it. Until the moment he uses it to screw one of us over, because using Rule 0 to screw over your players IS what I trust my DM not to do.

Our group has DMs who fudge regularly. Players who cheat are shunned/dealt with. DMs are trusted with Rule 0. If they break that trust and use their power for evil, then we have a problem.

I once ran a campaign with NOTHING written down. I made snap decisions on the capabilities, hit points, etc. of every enemy they fought. Guess what? That didn't mean not letting their powers work, it meant adjudicating what happened by instinct, feel, and creativity. It was probably the most successful campaign I've ever run.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 03:30 PM
I don't. When I GMed 3.5, I had to spend a ton of time on combats because of how unreliable CR was. Mistakes were inevitable, although no, I've never lost a 10s digit. That was just the first example I could come up with quickly. Given a choice between playtesting fights so that I wouldn't feel I had to fudge and giving my NPCs personality, I opted for fudge and personality. If my boss lets me spend wednesday and thursday afternoons playtesting combats, I could probably make fights in 3.5 that play out nicely too. But that's not gonna happen and I will always prioritize NPC personality over a fudgeless combat.

CR is...probably one of the causes of this problem, actually. If it worked better, people probably wouldn't need to fudge a lot, especially when first learning the system. I don't mind assigning wizards some of the blame, since they probably deserve it anyway.

And actually, that's one of my beefs with rule 0/fudging. I feel that designers often use it to excuse shoddy rules, lack of playtesting, and lack of errata. Don't get me wrong...it can be hard to do all those things...but that's exactly what you expect from them when you pay them for rules.

That said, if you work at designing combats well, it quickly gets much faster. I know that doesn't help initially for the time issue, but it certainly helps a great deal in the long run. Eventually, you can assign CRs to pretty much any statblock with a glance...certainly with much greater accuracy than the WOTC folks did.


Hey! There you go! Totally reasonable. You didn't call anybody stupid or lazy, you made a very succinct, persuasive argument, and...Sigh. Never mind.

I'll admit I laughed quite a lot at that post.

Sipex
2011-04-01, 03:39 PM
Ah right, that was my other fudge/cheat/whatever you call it.

I pitted my PCs up against a dragon which wasn't too difficult for them in most ways (Damage/Health/Capabilities) except that only the rogue could hit it's defenses even remotely reliably. While this would make for a challenging encounter it also made for an incredibly boring encounter as people missed on rolls of 15 and 16 with well optimised characters.

So I lowered it's defenses by a few points on the fly, the rogue was still incredibly effective since he had a wider range of numbers to hit on yet everyone else felt like they could actually contribute as well.

valadil
2011-04-01, 03:56 PM
CR is...probably one of the causes of this problem, actually. If it worked better, people probably wouldn't need to fudge a lot, especially when first learning the system. I don't mind assigning wizards some of the blame, since they probably deserve it anyway.


Yep. That's why I prefer GMing 4e. Its combat guidelines work very consistently. If I stick to the budget and don't go too far above the PCs level (5 levels for normal creatures, 4 for elites, 3 for solos), the combats come out at a difficulty that seems reasonable. If I apply damage errata they come out at a difficulty I like (usually dropping but not killing someone). I can make a fight in 5 minutes, looking only at each monster's XP and level. There's just no need to fudge.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 04:35 PM
Yep. That's why I prefer GMing 4e. Its combat guidelines work very consistently. If I stick to the budget and don't go too far above the PCs level (5 levels for normal creatures, 4 for elites, 3 for solos), the combats come out at a difficulty that seems reasonable. If I apply damage errata they come out at a difficulty I like (usually dropping but not killing someone). I can make a fight in 5 minutes, looking only at each monster's XP and level. There's just no need to fudge.

Yeah, I vastly prefer 3.5...but I'm not gonna pretend that 3.5 is as balanced as 4e is. It isn't. Not even close.

I suspect the balance issues of 3.5 is part of the reason it was fudged so often...and more broadly, the reason I've seen so many terribly run games of it. I could see 4e being a lot easier for someone to make the jump to not fudging at all in.

dsmiles
2011-04-01, 04:38 PM
I'll admit I laughed quite a lot at that post.You're not alone, and, whoo-boy...I sure missed a lot of posts of opportunity today. :smallannoyed:

On the bright side, I probably would have been kicked out for the replies I would have posted. So, all's well that ends well.

I'm still not grasping where fudging = lazy or incompetent. It's a preference, like wanting to play in a RP-heavy game or wanting to play in a combat-heavy game, or wanting to play in a low-op-group.

EDIT:Oops. Missed one. In regards to rolling in the open, I hate it. There are some rolls that the players aren't meant to know the (numeric) results of. Yeah, there will be effects, but they don't need to know the actual numbers. I prefer that as both a player and a DM, so, does that make me weird? :smalltongue:

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 04:49 PM
Generally, I tend to use several warning flags...for most fights, I try to avoid picking monsters that essentially auto-hit the party members, as well as monsters that have average damage higher than total hp of any party member. Others include AC or other defenses that entirely invalidate a party member. Certain situations call for exceptions to these rules of thumb, obviously, but if one or more of them are being violated, it generally indicates I need to evaluate a given encounter more carefully. Unfortunately, CR is mostly only useful as a rough starting point.

So let's see...

That means no picking anything at level 11 or higher, even if the party is those levels, and if someone thought that Con was a dump stat every enemy now has an anemic damage output, and nothing has very good saves, so it dies in half a round to casters... Did I miss anything?


Hey! There you go! Totally reasonable. You didn't call anybody stupid or lazy, you made a very succinct, persuasive argument, and...Sigh. Never mind.

Says the guy who is also being insulting. But seriously. It takes a minute or two to do personality. It takes maybe one full hour for a highly in depth encounter.

Reverent-One
2011-04-01, 04:52 PM
So let's see...

That means no picking anything at level 11 or higher, even if the party is those levels, and if someone thought that Con was a dump stat every enemy now has an anemic damage output, and nothing has very good saves, so it dies in half a round to casters... Did I miss anything?


Yes, you did, specifically the fact that not everyone plays at the optimization levels you are apparently used to. As such, none of what you mention needs to be the case.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 04:56 PM
I'm still not grasping where fudging = lazy or incompetent. It's a preference, like wanting to play in a RP-heavy game or wanting to play in a combat-heavy game, or wanting to play in a low-op-group.

It's not quite so benign. Those are pure preference choices, in which the effects are solely limited to fulfilling their preferences. Fudging has the potential to skew quite a few areas of games, especially if done frequently.


EDIT:Oops. Missed one. In regards to rolling in the open, I hate it. There are some rolls that the players aren't meant to know the (numeric) results of. Yeah, there will be effects, but they don't need to know the actual numbers. I prefer that as both a player and a DM, so, does that make me weird? :smalltongue:

Well, there are certain rolls that are explicitly called out as being hidden. For instance, the roll on Contact Other Plane to see if the player gets a truth or a lie. In such situations, I and most other GMs I know would hide the roll. These are a minority of the rolls, certainly, but they definitely do exist.


So let's see...

That means no picking anything at level 11 or higher, even if the party is those levels, and if someone thought that Con was a dump stat every enemy now has an anemic damage output, and nothing has very good saves, so it dies in half a round to casters... Did I miss anything?

Yup. The part where these merited only a closer look. These are warning flags, not absolute "you can't use these". The point is that CR alone is insufficient to properly build a fight. You've got to look a touch deeper, and in some cases, consider carefully the possibilities when your players meet them.

That said, if someone used con as a dump stat, they'll probably regret it at some point anyhow.

dsmiles
2011-04-01, 05:01 PM
It's not quite so benign. Those are pure preference choices, in which the effects are solely limited to fulfilling their preferences. Fudging has the potential to skew quite a few areas of games, especially if done frequently. Yeah, if used poorly, it has great potential to screw up a game. Personally, I prefer the DM who will fudge to keep a good story going. I really hate it when a story ends prematurely because (again) of orc #5. If it ends because of players making poor choices, however, the story ending prematurely is fair game.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-01, 05:04 PM
Tell you what though, I bet everyone remembers Orc #5. Bad luck can make for fantastic stories.

Nobody in my main group remembers the many traps in the Tomb of Horrors that they disarmed perfectly. Oh no, they remember that after poking things into the orb, they all decided to leap in headfirst.

dsmiles
2011-04-01, 05:09 PM
Tell you what though, I bet everyone remembers Orc #5. Bad luck can make for fantastic stories.They remember it, but nobody tells awesome stories about it. My players tend not to tell stories about their failures, they take them kind of personally. (I on the other hand, love to tell stories about my spectacular failures, but not campaign-ending ones. Hence, the story of my red-dragon-slaying-drow-wizard lives on. "TELEPORT!!!" Also, not a campaign-ending failure, but it was EPIC.)

Malevolence
2011-04-01, 05:12 PM
Yes, you did, specifically the fact that not everyone plays at the optimization levels you are apparently used to. As such, none of what you mention needs to be the case.

Completely and utterly irrelevant. Even if it were true, which it is not.

TheCountAlucard
2011-04-01, 05:17 PM
Even if it were true, which it is not.So, you're saying everyone in the world plays at the same optimization level as you? :smallconfused: That's a pretty bold statement.

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-01, 05:18 PM
I don't cheat in the sense of fudging rolls. If there's a rule for something, I follow it to the letter - that's what the rules are there for. When it comes to things that aren't explicitly called out in the rules (and there are many, because I currently use rules-light systems), things get muckier - generally, I wing it.

This works because I've created an athmosphere where I don't need to fudge. I let my players set their own goals, and success and failure are both options. I keep my expectations low and get by with minimal planning, so I don't even have any other guideline than that which would happen in accordion to the rules.

What comes to my players cheating, I see them try every once in a while. I tell them "no, bad player!", then take my dice back and make the roll for them. (In our group, I own all the dice.) All rolls are made in the open - suspense is kept by me simply not telling what all rolls are for. Leads to funny situations when I pick up a handful of dice to roll HP for a huge mob of monsters, and my players piss their pants at the sight.

dsmiles
2011-04-01, 05:26 PM
(In our group, I own all the dice.) :smalleek: How do your players survive their day-to-day activities without a set of dice on their persons at all times??? What happens if, suddenly...GAMING? Talk about a horror movie. A day without dice is like a day without oxygen...:smalleek:

arguskos
2011-04-01, 05:38 PM
:smalleek: How do your players survive their day-to-day activities without a set of dice on their persons at all times??? What happens if, suddenly...GAMING? Talk about a horror movie. A day without dice is like a day without oxygen...:smalleek:
No kidding. O.O I have THREE complete sets on me atm, two nice ones for actual use and one "loldice" set for random purposes.

dsmiles
2011-04-01, 05:39 PM
No kidding. O.O I have THREE complete sets on me atm, two nice ones for actual use and one "loldice" set for random purposes.I keep a set in my glovebox. Not kidding.

onthetown
2011-04-01, 05:41 PM
I have a friend who "cheats". Just says one or two numbers higher or lower. I don't call her on it because it doesn't ruin the fun for me.

And we know when the DM is "cheating". But we don't call him on it because he never ruins the fun of the game. And also because we're not focused on how much we roll, we're focused on having a good time and keeping the story going.

Lord Thurlvin
2011-04-01, 05:46 PM
:smalleek: How do your players survive their day-to-day activities without a set of dice on their persons at all times??? What happens if, suddenly...GAMING? Talk about a horror movie. A day without dice is like a day without oxygen...:smalleek:

In my early days of DMing, I was the sole provider of dice thanks to the fact I was the only one who owned any. My friends in my old high school gaming group, with the exception of one person, still haven't bought their own dice.

On the topic of GMs fudging/cheating, I don't think there's a lot I can say that hasn't already been said, so I think I'll reiterate the idea of "different strokes for different folks" that has popped up a couple of times. I think that the acceptability of the practice depends entirely on what the players and the GM want from the game. Personally, I don't alter results because I don't see the point of rolling dice if you're just going to ignore results that you don't satisfactory. However, I don't see GMs who do this as people who are "doing it wrong." If everyone is having fun, it really doesn't matter whether you're GM is changing results or not.

Reverent-One
2011-04-01, 05:51 PM
Completely and utterly irrelevant. Even if it were true, which it is not.

The Count pretty much beat me to it:


So, you're saying everyone in the world plays at the same optimization level as you? :smallconfused: That's a pretty bold statement.

arguskos
2011-04-01, 05:51 PM
I keep a set in my glovebox. Not kidding.
Good man! I would... but they'd melt. My glovebox gets CRAZY hot, not even kidding. Paper crisps in that damn thing.


In my early days of DMing, I was the sole provider of dice thanks to the fact I was the only one who owned any. My friends in my old high school gaming group, with the exception of one person, still haven't bought their own dice.
The terrifying heathens. They scare me, they do. Please, for the love of all that's good, green, and holy, convince them to buy some dice!! :smalleek:

Hell, a buddy of mine couldn't find his one day, so he went and bought a new set. That's what I call dedication to an ideal (also, I've done that too, and because I wanted some new dice).

Frozen_Feet
2011-04-01, 05:54 PM
:smalleek: How do your players survive their day-to-day activities without a set of dice on their persons at all times??? What happens if, suddenly...GAMING? Talk about a horror movie. A day without dice is like a day without oxygen...:smalleek:

Many of my current group are new to the hobby, so they don't have all the esoteric dice because they haven't needed them for squat. Since I'm an old player, I have lot, and I always carry at least on full set with the game we use.

If they suddenly find someone else to be their GM, I guess they're SOL, then. Or they'll have to scavenge Monopoly for dice - I know I've done just that. XD

I don't even own all that many dice - I own two full sets, plus few extras and a dozen plain old six-sided ones I nicked from Yathzee. I'm not particularly attached to them, and I've never been to a game where the GM didn't have all requisite dice anyway, so in games I don't lead I rarely even use them.

Lord Thurlvin
2011-04-01, 05:55 PM
The terrifying heathens. They scare me, they do. Please, for the love of all that's good, green, and holy, convince them to buy some dice!! :smalleek:

Hell, a buddy of mine couldn't find his one day, so he went and bought a new set. That's what I call dedication to an ideal (also, I've done that too, and because I wanted some new dice).

Lending my dice out never really bothered me, because a couple of the other guys didn't have much in the way of disposable income.

arguskos
2011-04-01, 06:00 PM
Lending my dice out never really bothered me, because a couple of the other guys didn't have much in the way of disposable income.
That's pretty legit. Still, as a gamer, I'd find a way. If you deprived me of my dice tomorrow, I'd go get a ruler, some carving rules, and some wood, go to my dad's place, and carve myself some shiny new dice dammit. I need my dice!

prufock
2011-04-01, 06:35 PM
edit: I will add, again, that you NEVER NEVER NEVER tell a living soul who could get back to your players that you did any of this. You're 100% right about the whole 'never trust again thing'. If they found out you used DM Fiat once they'll suspect it forever.

I think this is nonsense, as a general rule. Perhaps this is how you feel, or how you think your players would feel, but my players know I do this from time to time. When I'm not the GM, I know that the GM does it from time to time. Nobody cares.

This isn't a sport. There's no money involved. It isn't competitive. It's a cooperative game, the goal being to have fun. If, at the end of the day, my players and I had fun, mission accomplished.

Serenity
2011-04-01, 07:24 PM
I cannot think of any RPG that I have ever seen which doesn't more or less explicitly give the local DM-equivalent the authority to fudge. Some have specific mechanics, like providing the local Action Points equivalent when you fudge against the players. But even the ones that don't, still have a sidebar saying the DM can sometimes misread the dice or such to prevent an ignoble and utterly banal death for a PC, or avoid an utter anticlimax. It's not cheating as far as I'm concerned. Every RPG I look at, it's part of the rules.

As I see it, the GM has absolute power. If he wants it to work that way, it works that way. But if he doesn't use that power wisely and responsibly, he won't have it very long. Call it the Mandate of Heaven Theory of GMing, perhaps.

Vladislav
2011-04-01, 07:41 PM
In complete agreement with prufock. I have known and played with DMs who used DM fiat or fudged a roll here or there, and didn't think any less of them. In fact, in real life, I don't know anyone who would mind, or at least would mind enough to outright walk. And I played with a lot of different people, trust me.

Magnema
2011-04-01, 08:06 PM
I cheat in a game I run. I run it in an after-school club. I do so because I can't afford to have one of the players die. If they were to die of a lucky roll, I let them live, because I don't have the time during the extracurricular to let them make a new character, and we don't play at high enough levels for resurrection to be an option, except towards the very end.Thus, I cheat (only slightly) on rolls to keep them alive; I will, however, let them fall unconscious.

Fortunately, this hasn't been an issue, because they have been highly lucky, but if it came up, I would do so. I would not cheat against significant odds, and if the players were stupid enough to try nevertheless, I would try to subtly advise them against the action, and if they nevertheless undertook it, then they would die, and I would come up with a character similar in style for them to play next session (assuming that it was not one of the two or three players who I actually trust to make up their own characters). I would not, however, punish them for being unlucky, because that would effect enjoyment of not only that character but all of the characters.

Thus, yes, I fudge, and I am proud to do so. I try to minimize it - I have seen the poor games it can bring, because I DM'ed one of them. It was one of my earlier games, and I fudged excessively, and my players knew it - I told them. It ruined the atmosphere of the game. Had I not, or even just told them afterwards, it would have been a much better game. Furthermore, it was very not-let-them-get-hurt style, because I was afraid of killing someone. So, I fudged in the players' favor, more than I should have and even beyond all reasonable limits. However, now I am wiser for it. Because of these experiences, I know when to fudge, and I know that fudging should not be done without due consideration - and fudging excessively is something to be avoided, except possibly at the lowest of levels (thus, I try to start at a level > 1 - this led to some of my death-fears).

However, now I fudge prudently, and by no means am I ashamed of it - in fact, I take pride that I know when and how fudging is better for the game. (Or at least that I know better than when I started - I'm not perfect, after all).

Oh, and btw, sorry for the wall of text, and if you've gotten to this point, thanks for reading.

TL;DR, I (would) fudge with a group that I run because I have limited time (if appropriate, but it hasn't been necessary), but I have observed how much excessive fudging can ruin a game experience. (OK, so it was already a pretty terrible game - I had NO IDEA how to DM - but it was definitely much worse because of the fudging). Thus, I fudge when I deem appropriate, and am proud to do so.

EDIT: To supplement an already long post (so as not to double post), and to reply to something to which I forgot to reply:


As I see it, the GM has absolute power. If he wants it to work that way, it works that way. But if he doesn't use that power wisely and responsibly, he won't have it very long. Call it the Mandate of Heaven Theory of GMing, perhaps.

Yes, I agree. Darwinian evolution applies to DMing, definitely.

Malevolence
2011-04-02, 07:19 AM
So, you're saying everyone in the world plays at the same optimization level as you? :smallconfused: That's a pretty bold statement.

Obvious straw man is obvious.

Volthawk
2011-04-02, 07:33 AM
Obvious straw man is obvious.

Well, I read it in exactly the same way he did. I mean, Reverent-One said:
Yes, you did, specifically the fact that not everyone plays at the optimization levels you are apparently used to. As such, none of what you mention needs to be the case.

Which you replied with:

Completely and utterly irrelevant. Even if it were true, which it is not.

Sounds like you're denying that others play at different optimisation levels to me.

Malevolence
2011-04-02, 07:52 AM
Well, I read it in exactly the same way he did. I mean, Reverent-One said:

Which you replied with:


Sounds like you're denying that others play at different optimisation levels to me.

Read the last line of what he said.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-02, 07:55 AM
Obvious straw man is obvious.

Calling someone's argument a strawman doesn't work if they have an actual valid argument. In fact, I daresay it does exactly the opposite.

Reverent-One
2011-04-02, 09:26 AM
Read the last line of what he said.

In that case, you need to be more specific in what you're referring to as opposed to making vague blanket statements.

And even if you were simply referring to my last sentence, you'll need to actually put forward some points supporting that claim rather than make baseless assertions. I'll say again, you can't guarantee that Tyndmyr can't use any of the things you listed off, and Tyndmyr seems to agree with me given his response to you. Since people play at different optimization levels, a DM can use similarly unoptimized NPCs. So even if nobody has good saves, a simple blaster wizard (an unoptimized blaster wizard even) isn't going to be killing PCs in half a round, nor is a healbot/turn undead focused cleric (unless the PCs are undead, of course). That's not to say that a DM couldn't make casters to kill PCs in half a round if they want to, but just that it doesn't have to be that way.

Lord Thurlvin
2011-04-02, 01:07 PM
Well, it looks like the argument is over. Too bad, really.

nolispe
2011-04-02, 07:55 PM
Well, I'm an adult, anyhow. =)

In the end though, cheating just isn't satisfying. Consider video game cheats as an example. Sure, you can turn on god mode, and it's entertaining for about...ooh, five minutes. Then you turn the game off, and never play it again since it stops being interesting or challenging.

Weellll... I remember, a while ago, one of my friends was playing morrowind, and after a hour or so, got bored. So he opened up the console and turned on godmode, and spent somewhere around four hours happily carving through everything in th game. So, I guess, some people seem to enjoy that.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-02, 09:02 PM
Weellll... I remember, a while ago, one of my friends was playing morrowind, and after a hour or so, got bored. So he opened up the console and turned on godmode, and spent somewhere around four hours happily carving through everything in th game. So, I guess, some people seem to enjoy that.

I guess it works for some...but it seems to be the exception. I generally don't bother with cheats for a game unless it's idle curiosity with a game I never plan to play again anyhow.

Goober4473
2011-04-02, 10:58 PM
In a game where I'm trying to win, cheating takes away most of the fun of playing a game for the game's sake. Maybe I'll cheat to see the story in a game I don't feel like putting the effort into beating, or cheat a little bit if the game is too hard to make it easier or go faster, but generally it takes the challenge away, and that makes victory less meaningful. I like the satisfaction of knowing I succeeded by my own skill.

This applies to D&D as well, as a player. I like to build characters that succeed mechanically. I like making choices that lead to victory. I like rolling high. It feels good. But only because I might roll low sometimes too, and because I had to build that character with restraints (such as character level, tier limits, point buy value, etc.). If I could cheat, it would take the fun out.

But as a DM, rolling high or low isn't a qualitative thing. A 20 or a 1 or a 13 are all just different random things that happen. The ability to fudge those rolls doesn't take away any sort of victory or invalidate my skill, since victory, and the test of my skill, is entirely based on telling a good story, providing good challenges, and making sure the players have a good time. If I feel that a specific result on a roll will help that along, I'll change it. If it's fine as is, which is usually the case, I'll leave it be.

It's sort of the same as how the fact that I could throw a CR 26 monster at a level 3 party doesn't take the fun out of giving them level-appropriate (and optimization-level apropriate, etc.) encounters.

Pisha
2011-04-03, 01:25 AM
I think this is nonsense, as a general rule. Perhaps this is how you feel, or how you think your players would feel, but my players know I do this from time to time. When I'm not the GM, I know that the GM does it from time to time. Nobody cares.

This isn't a sport. There's no money involved. It isn't competitive. It's a cooperative game, the goal being to have fun. If, at the end of the day, my players and I had fun, mission accomplished.

For me, this is less because I think the players would be upset, and more because I feel (as a GM and as a player) that it disrupts the immersion.

To draw an analogy: when I'm watching a movie, I know, intellectually, that the hero is not going to die in the first serious fight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeYouWouldReallyDoIt). I know it, because it would end the story and thus end the fun. If the hero dies in the first 15 minutes, then we've got at least an hour and a half or so of nothing happening, which will be very boring to watch - so I trust the filmmakers will not kill him off in that first fight.

However.

As a viewer, I had bloody well better believe that the hero might die. Even if my rational mind says it ain't gonna happen, my heart needs to be in my throat when I see the sword slam into the ground an inch from the hero's neck. If it isn't, then the filmmakers are not doing their job.

Similarly, while a part of me trusts the GM to not kill my character (or at least not kill her past any possibility of resurrection) in a meaningless side battle, the part of me that is fully engaged with my character needs to believe that death is a very real possibility.

I want my GM to fudge if necessary, in order to move the story along to a heroic climax, in exactly the same way that I want the screenwriters to write an improbable-but-awesome victory for the hero into those early battles. However, I don't want the GM to tell me "Hey, in that last battle, the bad guy actually rolled an 18 but I said it was an 8," any more than I want the movie to cut away to a shot of the actors laughing and relaxing behind the scenes at the most dramatic points. To me, knowing that the GM has fudged something is a harsh reminder that this is just a story being told, and when I'm fully into my character, I don't care to be reminded of that, thanks.