If a DM changes things during a game is it cheating?

[jedipotter]

The obvious answer to the question of ''if a DM changes things mid game is it cheating?'' would be ''yes''. But that answer only works for the simple vague question. But an RPG is much more complex then that. Changing things is vague.

Set up: Some orc guards around a doorway. Now there are three basic ways to set this up, depending on the DM's stlye.

1. The DM carefully writes down every last detail of the orc guards.
2. The DM jots down a couple notes, but does not do a full write up.
3. The DM has nothing written down at all, and just makes anything up needed on the spot.

So the Player Characters approach the orc guards. So if the game has been very easy for the PC's and the DM wants to make the orc guards a bit more of a challenge. Or if the game has been a bit hard for the PC's and the DM wants to make the orc guards a bit more of an easy target.

So only the one type DM has a full description of the orc guards. And on the paper it says ''club'' for their main weapon. So if the DM makes that ''great sword'', that is an change from what was written. Or if the DM adds a ''potion of healing'' to the blank spot under possessions. Type two might or might not have the detail written down. So the DM might have thought ''the orc guards have three potions each'', but has not written anything down. And the type three DM has nothing written down at all. So this DM is not changing things, as there is nothing to change. This DM is just making up things on the spot.

So, if any of the three types of DM's change anything.........is it cheating?

And what about the idea that things are only ''official'' if the players know about them. So once the PC's meet Torg and he has the feat blindsight, then that can't be changed. So the DM can't change out the blindsight feat for toughness. But if the players don't know that Torg has the feat, say power attack, then the DM is free to change it. And equipment can be very vague, as if given more then a couple hours a NPC can get and change equipment.

[OldTrees1]

No. This is not cheating. These are tools the DM can (not must) use to tweak encounters to maximize the enjoyment of the group.

[Coidzor]

Yeah, what you seem to be describing should be fine. Fudging HP to drag out fights a little longer is a bit more iffy but has instances where it would be acceptable and instances where it would generally not be.

As long as you're not actively penalizing the players or give them something to make up for it, there's even ways to write-in an escape route for a BBEG that you don't want getting offed but they've clearly shown that they're going to off it without DM intervention.

Though generally it's better to remember such things in advance so they can be pulled off more smoothly during the sticking point.

[Calimehter]

You've basically already hit the nail on the head . . . nothing's official as far as encounters until it is actually used in the game. Notes in a GMs notebook are naught but scribblings and ideas in the ether until they hit the table.

Once they've hit the table and been actively used, changing them is a form of cheating.

[VoxRationis]

I must agree. The aspects of the world the DM spins only become realized once he or she speaks them aloud to the group; everything else can be edited. Now, just because it's not cheating doesn't mean it can't be done maliciously, but this sort of on-the-spot editing is useful for making sure encounters are fun.

[gr8artist]

The DM changing the stuff his players shouldn't know about anyway is never cheating.
Changing the way things work can be. For example, if his creatures ignore penalties that the players impose on them, then that's a problem. You want to fudge a roll or two to make it more interesting, go ahead, but don't magically escape from a grapple or spot a character who's gone out of his way to stay hidden.
The DM's job is to make the PC's feel challenged, so they feel good about what they've done. He's not their enemy, he's their guide. He just takes the scenic route, over the thorns and hot asphault, so they can get to the mountain-top and see the amazing sights that he wanted to show them.

[Jeff the Green]

I clicked this thread expecting to say "It's not cheating because of Rule 0, but it is generally bad practice and unfair." However, that's not the case for what you're talking about. In general, as long as you're allowing the PCs agency (i.e. their choices actually matter) and aren't changing things that they know about, it's okay. I still prefer to not deviate from my plans as much as possible because of my OCness, but it's not mandatory.

[Phelix-Mu]

The universe exists at the whim of the DM. The only thing that the DM can't change with impunity are the players characters, and much of what they are depends on the DM having okayed them to begin with. Obviously, a DM that abuses this power will quickly diminish fun, and since that is the point of the game, this power is more theoretical than practical.

But the RAW of it is that the DM decides which rules of the game stand, which fall, which bend, and which apply. The DM can't cheat. The only thing that mitigates the DM's power is the DM, usually by self-contradiction (which diminishes fun), lording it over the players (which diminishes fun, and is also just stupid), or otherwise overusing DM fiat in ways that diminish fun (which diminishes fun).

Basically, as long as the DM isn't diminishing the fun, anything goes.

[BrokenChord]

Maybe it's because I'm a "type 3" but I don't consider that cheating at all.

[Yawgmoth]

Do whatever it takes to make the game fun. If it means that the orcs need an extra 3hp or whatever, give it to them. If the fight is dragging on, then they suddenly have [next hit]-1hp. Fun is the point of the game, do whatever you think will make everyone the happiest.

[Axinian]

Yeah, this all sounds fine. At least, I do stuff like that all the time :smalltongue:

I also tend to waffle between #1 and #3. When I write stuff down... I WRITE STUFF DOWN! But other times I just wing it. None of this "only the essentials" crap :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

And what about the idea that things are only ''official'' if the players know about them. So once the PC's meet Torg and he has the feat blindsight, then that can't be changed. So the DM can't change out the blindsight feat for toughness. But if the players don't know that Torg has the feat, say power attack, then the DM is free to change it. And equipment can be very vague, as if given more then a couple hours a NPC can get and change equipment.

Basically, it's the idea of "Schrodinger's Campaign": Until the moment the PCs observe something, it can change to anything else which is plausible. At that point however, it's more or less locked in.

[BrokenChord]

Basically, it's the idea of "Schrodinger's Campaign": Until the moment the PCs observe something, it can change to anything else which is plausible. At that point however, it's more or less locked in.

Wait, I thought the fallacy happened because if you open the box the cat is guaranteed to be dead. So, wait... Could you algorithmically predict the contents of the NPC's inventory before the DM has even made the NPC? Wait, no, that's not what it means... Are the potions all going to be broken? Funny, but probably not logically sound...

Wait... So, would that mean that a Schrodinger's campaign is necessarily dead on account of uncertainty as to whether or not the campaign is dead!?

Sweet baby horcrux, I need to stop.

[Coidzor]

So, wait... Could you algorithmically predict the contents of the NPC's inventory before the DM has even made the NPC? Wait, no, that's not what it means... Are the potions all going to be broken? Funny, but probably not logically sound...

If we live in a deterministic universe then, yes, given enough data we could, in theory, predict the hypothetical DM's actions.

[BrokenChord]

If we live in a deterministic universe then, yes, given enough data we could, in theory, predict the hypothetical DM's actions.

Stop encouraging me, you madman.

[georgie_leech]

If we live in a deterministic universe then, yes, given enough data we could, in theory, predict the hypothetical DM's actions.

Sort of, at least. Given the uncertainty principle, what we could do with enough data and computing power is figure out the odds of any given action being taken. If we assumed some Base DM, and had several hundred clones, we could figure out that X% would change a feat, Y% fudge dice rolls, Z% would fling dice at their players and escape in the confusion... We wouldn't actually be able to predict what any given DM would do though.

[BrokenChord]

In this situation, doesn't the very example of Schrodinger's cat serve to effectively logically debunk the uncertainty principle?

... Holy crap guys, the path of the universe is already decided. Somebody just needs to open the box.

... I really should get some sleep.

[OldTrees1]

Wait, I thought the fallacy happened because if you open the box the cat is guaranteed to be dead. So, wait... Could you algorithmically predict the contents of the NPC's inventory before the DM has even made the NPC?

I like playing in/DMing these (Campaigns built by derivation from a limited set of premises) campaigns. It does mean the DM has less flexibility to do things like in the OP, even if they are a type 3, however they are great fun.

[Slipperychicken]

We wouldn't actually be able to predict what any given DM would do though.

As a data/business analytics major, I'll respectfully disagree, and I'll try to put this in layman's terms.


Basically, an organization (typically business and the government) will try to collect data about each person (stuff like marital status, birthdate, location, number of kids, education, income, homeownership, race, age, height, weight, etc) their past decisions (typically what you're googling, shopping patterns, facebook posts, what sort of youtube videos you watch, etc), and environmental factors (such as the time, unemployment rate, manufacturing index, etc). This creates the aggregate data you're thinking of (i.e. "such-and-such percent of married homeowners watch breaking bad at least once per month"). We don't know everything about everyone, but each person (or observation) is like a row on a table with only some of his boxes filled out. The idea is to make a computer guess the most likely values for the empty boxes.

All the information we know can be crunched by a computer to generate predictive models. A computer will often creates dozens (or thousands) of models, and only use the most accurate/computationally-feasible model among them. From the best models selected, we can use the items we do know to predict any items we don't know (and with shocking accuracy if the data is good), such as what products you're most likely to buy (and in what combinations, and at which times), which videos you are most likely to enjoy, your lifespan, what your future income and education level will be, and so on. This is why services like youtube, amazon, and netflix can recommend products you actually would be interested in, even if you personally would never have guessed that you'd like them.

This can apply to literally any decision a human makes, including how you're going to play a game and which choices you will make inside of it (indeed, most games are basically a series of decisions within a constrained framework, which is easier for computers to model). Obviously, no model will be 100% accurate. However, we can come quite close if enough resources go into it. Something like GMing is open-ended and unimportant enough that it's doubtful the resources will exist to study it in sufficient depth, though (unless we data-mine almost every insignificant aspect of peoples' lives anyway, which is possible).

I hope this is comprehensible, given the fact it's 2AM, just let me know if something needs clarifying :smalltongue:

[BWR]

It's a continuum of stuff. DM's change stuff all the time. Fudge a few hit points, one guy suddenly had a slightly better or worse Perception or Sense Motive score than you had intended, that guard had drunk his healing potion earlier this week, etc. That hardly counts, imo.
It really only starts becoming cheating when you actively sabotage the situation in response to player actions in order to force a situation into a predetermined conclusion. E.g. the party sets up a distraction and drug all the guards' meals so they can sneak in, but the guards skipped dinner because they suddenly weren't hungry and ignored the dancing girls because they were suddenly all gay, and then they all decide to go check on the McGuffin exactly when the PCs are there.

[NichG]

As a data/business analytics major, I'll respectfully disagree, and I'll try to put this in layman's terms.


Basically, an organization (typically business and the government) will try to collect data about each person (stuff like marital status, birthdate, location, number of kids, education, income, homeownership, race, age, height, weight, etc) their past decisions (typically what you're googling, shopping patterns, facebook posts, what sort of youtube videos you watch, etc), and environmental factors (such as the time, unemployment rate, manufacturing index, etc). This creates the aggregate data you're thinking of (i.e. "such-and-such percent of married homeowners watch breaking bad at least once per month"). We don't know everything about everyone, but each person (or observation) is like a row on a table with only some of his boxes filled out. The idea is to make a computer guess the most likely values for the empty boxes.

All the information we know can be crunched by a computer to generate predictive models. A computer will often creates dozens (or thousands) of models, and only use the most accurate/computationally-feasible model among them. From the best models selected, we can use the items we do know to predict any items we don't know (and with shocking accuracy if the data is good), such as what products you're most likely to buy (and in what combinations, and at which times), which videos you are most likely to enjoy, your lifespan, what your future income and education level will be, and so on. This is why services like youtube, amazon, and netflix can recommend products you actually would be interested in, even if you personally would never have guessed that you'd like them.

This can apply to literally any decision a human makes, including how you're going to play a game and which choices you will make inside of it (indeed, most games are basically a series of decisions within a constrained framework, which is easier for computers to model). Obviously, no model will be 100% accurate. However, we can come quite close if enough resources go into it. Something like GMing is open-ended and unimportant enough that it's doubtful the resources will exist to study it in sufficient depth, though (unless we data-mine almost every insignificant aspect of peoples' lives anyway, which is possible).

I hope this is comprehensible, given the fact it's 2AM, just let me know if something needs clarifying :smalltongue:

Of course since these predictions only use observable data, and not the DM's mental state when designing the adventure, for the purposes of the OP's question I don't think this makes much of a difference. The predictors would predict not what the DM had originally designed to be there, but what the DM would end up putting there after making the internal decision to change what they had in mind. So its not like when the DM behaves in a way inconsistent with the prediction you can conclude that its because the DM changed their adventure mid-stream, since the model should also predict the outcomes of those mid-stream changes.

To the computer, the Schroedinger nature of the campaign is as opaque as it is to the players.

Now, I'd say if you took it a bit further you might be able to discover an indicator of decision-changing behavior, but its not as simple as just predicting the DM. You'd have to do some sort of after-action analysis to see whether your predictive model thinks that the DM would make different decisions as to encounters/etc on the basis of variables whose values are determined only right at the start of the encounter. So e.g. if your model derived from your DM's behavior predicts that if you had less HP left, the CR of the next encounter would be lower with all else the same, that could be an indicator that your DM is performing that sort of on-the-fly adjustment. However you'd need to carefully control for the various biases (e.g. if the DM always runs encounters as CR +2,+0,-2 in that order, then the fact that you'd tend to have less HP at the end of the night than the beginning would create this correlation without there being a causal relationship) - so its likely that the simple measurement I proposed needs a lot of work to actually be able to reliably detect this sort of behavior without too many false positives.

[HighWater]

Wait, I thought the fallacy happened because if you open the box the cat is guaranteed to be dead.
Huh? What fallacy would that be, enlighten me, I must have missed it. Wasn't the point that you don't know whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box (which reveals it to be either dead ór alive...)

And to respond to the OP:
The DM never cheats, he only fixes mistakes he hasn't revealed yet. If half the encounters otherwise turn into a TPK while every other encounter turns into an anti-climax, the DM needs to adjust stuff on the fly. This isn't cheating, this is keeping the game fun.

That said, sometimes an anti-climax is nice. A while back in a campaign I'm running, the Rogue Crit+SA'd the major monster in an encounter and reduced it to 0 hp precisely. I could've fudged and given it some extra hp, or just thrown in some extra "hidden" monsters, but sometimes luck is supposed to be on the side of the PCs. The encounter was trivialised and I laughed. Personally I don't enjoy having many BBEG's in a campaign nor am I fond of hyping them up (he's soooo badass, you need to be really prepared!) Just one or two every so often, and no recurring-villain stuff except when the dude (or dudette) keeps returning from the dead...

[prufock]

So only the one type DM has a full description of the orc guards. And on the paper it says ''club'' for their main weapon. So if the DM makes that ''great sword'', that is an change from what was written. Or if the DM adds a ''potion of healing'' to the blank spot under possessions. Type two might or might not have the detail written down. So the DM might have thought ''the orc guards have three potions each'', but has not written anything down. And the type three DM has nothing written down at all. So this DM is not changing things, as there is nothing to change. This DM is just making up things on the spot.

So, if any of the three types of DM's change anything.........is it cheating?

No. Until an event occurs in game, the event is malleable. The DM is making decisions on events, does it matter whether that decision is made 10 days, 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds before the event occurs? No.

Now, on the other hand, if an event occurs, and the players observe the event, and the DM THEN changes something... I don't like the term "cheating," because there is no rule governing it, but it is possibly unfair and not internally consistent. For example, if you're fighting Torg and he's using a club, then the club suddenly and for no reason becomes a greatsword, that's problematic.


And what about the idea that things are only ''official'' if the players know about them. So once the PC's meet Torg and he has the feat blindsight, then that can't be changed. So the DM can't change out the blindsight feat for toughness. But if the players don't know that Torg has the feat, say power attack, then the DM is free to change it. And equipment can be very vague, as if given more then a couple hours a NPC can get and change equipment.

NPCs can presumably retrain just as well as PCs can. They can also get psychic reformations and do the dark chaos shuffle. My NPCs regularly have extra skill points, hit points, feats, and wealth above what they should have for their level. This is not cheating as long as the players are rewarded for it - ie the encounter grants extra xp (nominal amount for a small change, or the EL could be increased when determining xp) and the additional loot belongs to the PCs now.


Huh? What fallacy would that be, enlighten me, I must have missed it. Wasn't the point that you don't know whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box (which reveals it to be either dead ór alive...)
The analogy is that the cat is either dead or alive or - at a certain point - both. Schroedinger's point was that this is absurd, and it was used to demonstrate a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely, at what point does superposition break down and become macroscopic reality? The Copenhagen interpretation is that it occurs at observation. As far as I know there is no solid answer to this question.

[Shining Wrath]

The DM can only cheat if the DM changes rules of the game after character generation in a way that breaks a PC. Changing details of an encounter on the fly because of how the session has gone? That's not cheating, that's the essence of good DMing. You are first and foremost telling a story, in cooperation with the players, and if giving the orcs potions (or removing them) makes for a better story, not only CAN you do that, you SHOULD.

[Vedhin]

Wait, I thought the fallacy happened because if you open the box the cat is guaranteed to be dead.

No, the cat is not guaranteed to be dead.

[Red Fel]

No. Until an event occurs in game, the event is malleable. The DM is making decisions on events, does it matter whether that decision is made 10 days, 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds before the event occurs? No.

Now, on the other hand, if an event occurs, and the players observe the event, and the DM THEN changes something... I don't like the term "cheating," because there is no rule governing it, but it is possibly unfair and not internally consistent. For example, if you're fighting Torg and he's using a club, then the club suddenly and for no reason becomes a greatsword, that's problematic.

Agreeing with both of these points.

Frankly, a DM who is married to his notes and can never adapt his preparations is going to be hit hard once his players start deviating from the beaten path. Being able to adapt is the hallmark of an exceptional DM.

I get that the justification "I thought it would provide a greater challenge" might give some people heartburn, but it's a fair cop. The DM's notes aren't a binding contract; they're a guideline. If, instead of confronting the guards, the PCs decided to blast their way through a wall into a portion of the castle the DM never designed, he would have to make things up on the fly anyway.

As to the second part, I agree; it's one thing if you change things before the PCs encounter them; quite another if you essentially call "backsies". The suspension of disbelief, the key to immersion, requires that the world be internally consistent. Once the DM inserts something into the world, it must remain internally consistent - a club must remain a club, and cannot become a greatsword (unless it has a magical shapechanging property); an PC cannot be told that his powers suddenly stop working because the DM doesn't like how he uses them (although there may be other reasons for neutralizing powers); and so forth. But until a thing exists in the world, it can absolutely be changed.

As an aside, I don't like the DM's actions being referred to as "cheating." Players are capable of "cheating;" there are rules, and if the players break them for their own benefit, that's cheating. But the DM makes and/or executes the rules; it's much more complicated to say that he's cheating. I wouldn't go so far as to say "If the DM does it, it's not cheating," but it's a much harder sell to say that he's breaking the rules when defining the rules is part of his job; rather, at best, you could argue he's applying them inconsistently, in a manner which disrupts gameplay, causes dissatisfaction among the players, or otherwise breaks immersion. It's not technically "cheating," but it's not a good thing, either.

[Shining Wrath]

No. Until an event occurs in game, the event is malleable. The DM is making decisions on events, does it matter whether that decision is made 10 days, 10 hours, 10 minutes, or 10 seconds before the event occurs? No.

Now, on the other hand, if an event occurs, and the players observe the event, and the DM THEN changes something... I don't like the term "cheating," because there is no rule governing it, but it is possibly unfair and not internally consistent. For example, if you're fighting Torg and he's using a club, then the club suddenly and for no reason becomes a greatsword, that's problematic.



NPCs can presumably retrain just as well as PCs can. They can also get psychic reformations and do the dark chaos shuffle. My NPCs regularly have extra skill points, hit points, feats, and wealth above what they should have for their level. This is not cheating as long as the players are rewarded for it - ie the encounter grants extra xp (nominal amount for a small change, or the EL could be increased when determining xp) and the additional loot belongs to the PCs now.


The analogy is that the cat is either dead or alive or - at a certain point - both. Schroedinger's point was that this is absurd, and it was used to demonstrate a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely, at what point does superposition break down and become macroscopic reality? The Copenhagen interpretation is that it occurs at observation. As far as I know there is no solid answer to this question.


Agreeing with both of these points.

Frankly, a DM who is married to his notes and can never adapt his preparations is going to be hit hard once his players start deviating from the beaten path. Being able to adapt is the hallmark of an exceptional DM.

I get that the justification "I thought it would provide a greater challenge" might give some people heartburn, but it's a fair cop. The DM's notes aren't a binding contract; they're a guideline. If, instead of confronting the guards, the PCs decided to blast their way through a wall into a portion of the castle the DM never designed, he would have to make things up on the fly anyway.

As to the second part, I agree; it's one thing if you change things before the PCs encounter them; quite another if you essentially call "backsies". The suspension of disbelief, the key to immersion, requires that the world be internally consistent. Once the DM inserts something into the world, it must remain internally consistent - a club must remain a club, and cannot become a greatsword (unless it has a magical shapechanging property); an PC cannot be told that his powers suddenly stop working because the DM doesn't like how he uses them (although there may be other reasons for neutralizing powers); and so forth. But until a thing exists in the world, it can absolutely be changed.

As an aside, I don't like the DM's actions being referred to as "cheating." Players are capable of "cheating;" there are rules, and if the players break them for their own benefit, that's cheating. But the DM makes and/or executes the rules; it's much more complicated to say that he's cheating. I wouldn't go so far as to say "If the DM does it, it's not cheating," but it's a much harder sell to say that he's breaking the rules when defining the rules is part of his job; rather, at best, you could argue he's applying them inconsistently, in a manner which disrupts gameplay, causes dissatisfaction among the players, or otherwise breaks immersion. It's not technically "cheating," but it's not a good thing, either.

My take is that the only way a DM can really cheat is to change the rules in a way that breaks a PC build once the player is in use.

If someone presents a character and prior to the dice being rolled the DM says "Nope", that's not cheating. I had a DM nerf "Entangling Exhalation" on a Dragonfire Adept; if the target took no damage (e.g., evasion) they were not entangled. I didn't like it, but I can't say he cheated.

Once the character is in use nerfing them is cheating. There are occasions when the DM might have to talk to the player about balance between their character and other characters, but that needs to be done collaboratively, not by fiat. If my DM had seen a few monsters entangled and decreed that he was nerfing EE because it was too powerful, that I would have thought was "cheating".

[Hangwind]

In this situation, doesn't the very example of Schrodinger's cat serve to effectively logically debunk the uncertainty principle?

... Holy crap guys, the path of the universe is already decided. Somebody just needs to open the box.

... I really should get some sleep.

Cthulhu...Cthulhu...Cthulhu...


The Silver Key shall open the gate. Only the terrible book can bar the way!

[Phelix-Mu]

....

As to the second part, I agree; it's one thing if you change things before the PCs encounter them; quite another if you essentially call "backsies". The suspension of disbelief, the key to immersion, requires that the world be internally consistent. Once the DM inserts something into the world, it must remain internally consistent - a club must remain a club, and cannot become a greatsword (unless it has a magical shapechanging property); an PC cannot be told that his powers suddenly stop working because the DM doesn't like how he uses them (although there may be other reasons for neutralizing powers); and so forth. But until a thing exists in the world, it can absolutely be changed.
....

Some very well-stated points from Red Fel. I would like to add, however, that there is plenty of room for a crafty DM to maneuver within the realm of what has already hit the table. After all, the PCs only really know what their senses tell them. Knowledge that it was objectively and truthfully a bugbear that they just killed is metagaming if the players know that that is what bugbear stats work like. Even with Knowledge checks, truth is rarely 100% ascertainable by the PCs. It may look, smell, sound, and have the internal organs of a bugbear, but really be a colony of sentient algae from the Far Realm that copies the first creature they run into when they visit the Prime. How would the PCs know this; it's the first time its ever happened, and the truth only becomes clear as the plot progresses (and the PCs start to wonder why they keep having to kill the same bugbear over and over).

My point is that, even if the DM has said "your characters see a bugbear," even that isn't really set in stone for the clever DM. Appearances can be deceiving, and just because the PCs perceive that something happened, doesn't mean that it really happened (though appropriate rolls should be allowed and so forth). Is it a dagger that you see before you on the table? Or did your character get dosed with hallucinogens in the last scene (roll vs poison made behind the screen), and it's really just a butter knife. While a canny DM will gauge the level of mindscrew to the tolerance of the group in question, the scope of the DM's power allows for incredible manipulation of the shared, created reality of the game world.

EDIT: None of this changes my previous point that all of the DM's power exists solely in support of the fun of the game (even if the "fun" involves no small amount of tormenting the minds, bodies, and souls of the PCs and/or the players).

[HighWater]

The analogy is that the cat is either dead or alive or - at a certain point - both. Schroedinger's point was that this is absurd, and it was used to demonstrate a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely, at what point does superposition break down and become macroscopic reality? The Copenhagen interpretation is that it occurs at observation. As far as I know there is no solid answer to this question.
Yeah I knew about Schrödingers point. My confusion was regarding the "the cat must be dead" statement.

Schrödingers Cat has essentially gone the way of the Big Bang though (Big Bang was a derogatory name): rather than becoming a powerful statement enfeebling the hypothesis they target, they have become the most used illustration of foundational principles (cat, although altered as an illustration and still not an endorsement of Copenhagen), or have even become the catchall name of a bunch of strongly related hypotheses (big bang). It's really funny how that works.

Anyhow, the DM really has similar powers! Even things that see play can be altered to basically be in direct opposition to what they were before. However, as pointed out above, the Dm does have to keep an eye on story-consistency (so he/she needs an explanation for changes) and variety. If you always on-the-fly adjust encounters into the "sweet spot" of "just challenging enough" you run the risk of monotony.

Basically, as the DM is both the arbiter and the creator of rules, she/he cannot possibly cheat. However, the "people" (players) may still upturn whatever the DM does, so although there's no technical cheating possible on the part of the DM (only internal inconsistency), unsavoury manuevers can still be declared a "cheat" by the group. As with all DM powers, your power to cheat has a large "Use with caution" sign on the label...

[Twilightwyrm]

This would not be cheating, because no rules are being broken. However, fudging these sort of things can be fine, but only insomuch as they are used cautiously. Using this to make something more or less of a challenge prior to an encounter is fine, deus ex machina-ing the perfect item for a villain to escape, when the PCs have legitimately beaten them and pinned them down is not so much. Mind you it is not actual cheating at this point, but rather it is generally bad DMing.

[Windstorm]

my take on this is that the most important notes a GM/DM makes are not the ones made while planning possible adventures or stories, but the notes of what they have set in stone as a ruling known to the players.

personally, I'm not good at making things up as I go, but I can adapt existing material on the fly pretty well. what that ends up meaning is that I have a created setting with most of the details, however those are subject to change right up to the point of player impact. after the players have touched/fought/interacted/looted or otherwise been given a ruling on something, it is a reasonable expectation for them that the game universe isn't going to change itself unless its a natural/expected progression of the known state.

personal style for me is sandbox games. player agency is everything, but those choices have impact because the world will continue on its timeline with whatever the results of the decisions were. The players cannot evaluate their options or make good decisions unless the world is consistent.

[killem2]

I don't really call it cheating as much as I call it ridiculous.

As a DM/GM, you accept the responsibility to be prepared. I have zero issue with on the fly type of DMing/GMing but in my honest opinion this does not give the DM/GM any right to completely fiat an actual event as if it was a little kid doing a "take back" in tic tac toe. Player don't get an option like that, they have to set a course of action and follow through and hope for the best.

I would be very pissed off as a player if I found out my DM/GM was actively changing encounters to keep us from accomplishing them. **** that, as a DM/GM, my #1 job is to make sure my players are having a fantastic time. Pulling the rug out from under them doesn't seem to accomplish that to me.

[Sylthia]

It seems like everything I wanted to say has been said already. My school of thought is to have rough notes beforehand and semi-wing it for the session. HP values are the mutable of the stats, since they can't really be easily determined like AC and such.

[NichG]

The analogy is that the cat is either dead or alive or - at a certain point - both. Schroedinger's point was that this is absurd, and it was used to demonstrate a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely, at what point does superposition break down and become macroscopic reality? The Copenhagen interpretation is that it occurs at observation. As far as I know there is no solid answer to this question.

The most solid answer I've seen is that any kind of measurement can be considered a form of entanglement, and vice versa - basically, a 'device' which measures whether the cat is alive or dead (which could be e.g. the human who is looking at the cat, or a box sitting on the countertop that can measure the cat's heart rate, or whatever) can be thought of as a quantum-mechanical state just as much as the cat. The fact that it can measure something about the cat is a statement that when it interacts with the cat, the state of the device and state of the cat become entangled. So the end result is that your quantum mechanical states are restricted down to (in the case of perfect measurement): cat is dead and measurement device sees a dead cat; cat is alive and measurement device sees a living cat. This has the same structure as the 'constraints' that are used to produce entanglement - e.g. 'if state 1 is Up then state 2 must be Down, therefore I can obtain information about state 2 by measuring state 1'.

I'm certain this idea has been around for awhile, but in recent years I've seen it start to be mathematically formalized and even used outside of quantum mechanics to understand what happens when you look at how information decays when you put a known system in contact with a stochastic one.

[DSmaster21]

They are allowed to change anything that is allowable in the rules but must decide the rules before they may change anything. I had a DM that would add, remove and edit rules whenever he felt like it often in the middle of encounters . The most frustrating thing was when I asked him to use the rules or at least decide on permanent changes I was told A) His way of playing was "Homebrew" and B) I would be wrong to share a list of changes because that would be OOC knowledge. Yes because I don't know that I can't run at enemies swinging a sword and use the momentum to push through their defense leaving my self more open to attacks (Charging is not allowed, except for monsters evidently).

[Shining Wrath]

They are allowed to change anything that is allowable in the rules but must decide the rules before they may change anything. I had a DM that would add, remove and edit rules whenever he felt like it often in the middle of encounters . The most frustrating thing was when I asked him to use the rules or at least decide on permanent changes I was told A) His way of playing was "Homebrew" and B) I would be wrong to share a list of changes because that would be OOC knowledge. Yes because I don't know that I can't run at enemies swinging a sword and use the momentum to push through their defense leaving my self more open to attacks (Charging is not allowed, except for monsters evidently).

What I keep saying: a DM who breaks your build by changing rules is cheating. The game is supposed to be cooperative.

[Segev]

The only time I've really gotten frustrated with a DM over this sort of thing is when, only after we'd planned out how to infect the goblin camp with dysentery and other means of undermining their health and battle-readiness before we attacked did the DM reveal we were planning to harm innocent females and children. This was a fresh encampment and had been heretofore only described in military terms.

Later, we chased a bugbear down, and as we rolled initiative, he went from having a club and some hide armor to "oh, he has a chain shirt, sorry. And a sword. Oh, and a belt full of potions."

After we'd broken cover to try to take him on.

The DM wasn't doing this maliciously; he'd forgotten those details until then. But still...ugh.

[CombatOwl]

The obvious answer to the question of ''if a DM changes things mid game is it cheating?'' would be ''yes''. But that answer only works for the simple vague question. But an RPG is much more complex then that. Changing things is vague.

Set up: Some orc guards around a doorway. Now there are three basic ways to set this up, depending on the DM's stlye.

1. The DM carefully writes down every last detail of the orc guards.
2. The DM jots down a couple notes, but does not do a full write up.
3. The DM has nothing written down at all, and just makes anything up needed on the spot.

So the Player Characters approach the orc guards. So if the game has been very easy for the PC's and the DM wants to make the orc guards a bit more of a challenge. Or if the game has been a bit hard for the PC's and the DM wants to make the orc guards a bit more of an easy target.

So only the one type DM has a full description of the orc guards. And on the paper it says ''club'' for their main weapon. So if the DM makes that ''great sword'', that is an change from what was written. Or if the DM adds a ''potion of healing'' to the blank spot under possessions. Type two might or might not have the detail written down. So the DM might have thought ''the orc guards have three potions each'', but has not written anything down. And the type three DM has nothing written down at all. So this DM is not changing things, as there is nothing to change. This DM is just making up things on the spot.

So, if any of the three types of DM's change anything.........is it cheating?

And what about the idea that things are only ''official'' if the players know about them. So once the PC's meet Torg and he has the feat blindsight, then that can't be changed. So the DM can't change out the blindsight feat for toughness. But if the players don't know that Torg has the feat, say power attack, then the DM is free to change it. And equipment can be very vague, as if given more then a couple hours a NPC can get and change equipment.

No. Campaign notes are a guideline, not a suicide pact.

[Trasilor]

While I agree with everybody that this is not cheating - I try to avoid it all costs.

Personally, I guess I fall into category 1 - I try to write down everything the NPC combatants have (I make my PCs do the same). This way, if a PC gets a lucky blow - say a critical from an axe - and drops one of the Orcs in one hit before he has a chance to down the potion - the PCs get a little bit more loot.

However, if I add the equipment on the fly, the PCs never will get the additional loot. I know it's trivial, but sometimes - especially in low levels - the value of the equipment far outpaces the value of the monster's treasure.

Orc in Hide Armor wielding a Club - 15 GP of equipment
Orc in Chainshirt wielding a greatsword and a potion of Cure Light wounds - 200 GP of equipment

While one might not make much of a difference - 5, 10 or 20 such orcs can.

By writing it down, I have a better idea of the PCs (potential) resources. And if you don't think resources are important - trying making a martial class with half the WBL.:smallamused:

[AnonymousPepper]

It's absolutely within the DM's power to do these sorts of things.

I view the DM's role as kind of like that of the (AI) Director in Left 4 Dead - albeit with much less linear gameplay, of course.

He has a general storyline that he's sticking to, and the players are free to handle it more or less however they want, and the DM/Director's job is to ensure that the story is as entertaining as possible for all involved. He can adjust the difficulty at will, throwing more or less or tougher or weaker opponents - or more or less helpful items and events - at the party as he sees fit, to a point. There are limits on his power, such that he should not be making the game absurdly difficult or easy unless the story demands it.

And if there's a certain plot point that needs to happen, he can absolutely fudge it as much as he wants.

For example, the other night, for story reasons, I asked the DM if I could swap my character's Wizard ranks out for S2P Erudite ranks. He agreed, and in the ensuing session, he had us get ambushed in our sleep by several strong baddies (heh, Strong Bad). He had - working with me - intended to get me worn down to around 3HP or so while the rest of the party was too busy fighting off the other bad guys, and then have me just sort of... have a mental epiphany and blow the enemy caster out of existence with a psionic power.

Only problem was that they had chewed through the enemies far faster than usual (largely thanks to a Haste spell I got off just as combat opened up). So the last guy didn't have a chance to nuke me down before the rest of the party surrounded him and started wailing on him. In order to make the intended story event in question happen, he fudged the guy's HP and AC substantially - the party was having a hard time hitting him even with rolling 15s and 16s and he seemed to have a stupid amount of health, up until I got nuked and one-shotted him with a blast.

This is an example of DM fudging that's absolutely appropriate.

[Fouredged Sword]

The DM NEEDS the ability to railroad the game when needed. The trouble comes when he railroads when NOT needed, but that is another issue.

Now, I personally like systems that formalize the process and reward players with something for being so awesome that the universe has to change to keep things on track. Look at hero points from Mutants and Masterminds for an example. As the DM, you can arbitrarily force the plot along a set path by changing rolls. When you do so, you give the payers a golf clap, look at them with respect, and hand out a hero point to give them a sense of victory despite the fact that you probably just caused them to lose.

In dnd, this can take the form of action points (if you play with them, or even if you don't use them normally, it just makes them special)

Be up front about what you are doing when you fudge the rolls and control the plot. Your players will respect you more when you do.

That said, if the players haven't seen it, it isn't real yet. Change whatever needs changing.