How to handle cheating.

[Hurnn]

I had a player who regularly meta gamed, power gamed, and cheated on top of it. Not just Die rolls either, extremely vague inventory randomly happened to have consumables that he needed, didn't have all his feats listed, I only really had proof after a character death when his sheet was left lying about, he only listed about 2/3 of his available feats, and even his point buy was wrong. So I uninvited him, sadly I lost his brother with him because he was pretty cool and always made something fun and entertaining.

As a GM I have occasionally cheated, mostly with bad math, and always in the player favor, some times I don't want someone to die to a random trash monster and disrupt the flow of the game. It's especially bad at lower levels where I either have to shoe horn in a way for a new character to be introduced (not as bad in a city or non dungeon location, a pain in the ... in the middle of a dungeon crawl.) or they can go play Mortal Kombat on my ps4 for the next 1-4 hours.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Breaking the rules is antithetical to a good story. RPGs are about making a story together, and empowering one person to force their vision of the story on the group is knocking out one of the fundamental pillars of roleplaying. The GM does not make the story. The GM is one person in a group of people that are all working to make a story together. The story is what you get when you look back on a campaign and remember what happened, it's not something to set out to create in advance. Down that path lies railroading. Nobody at the beginning of a campaign should have any idea what the end of a campaign will look like, including the GM.


I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you keep making absolute statements about things that are much more...muddy than that. I don't think we can all agree what "RPGs are about," so assuming that there's only one answer is to assume the conclusion. I think there's room to disagree without being wrong.

[VonMuller]

I completely disagree with this assessment. I don't tend to like games where PC life is cheap and everything is determined randomly. I'll occasionally play them and have a good time, but it's certainly not where my love is. I've had the most fun with systems where PCs rarely, if ever, die, combat is infrequent, and the focus is on making a good story, and I still think following the rules is the most important thing in a game.

Breaking the rules is antithetical to a good story. RPGs are about making a story together, and empowering one person to force their vision of the story on the group is knocking out one of the fundamental pillars of roleplaying. The GM does not make the story. The GM is one person in a group of people that are all working to make a story together. The story is what you get when you look back on a campaign and remember what happened, it's not something to set out to create in advance. Down that path lies railroading. Nobody at the beginning of a campaign should have any idea what the end of a campaign will look like, including the GM.

If you don't want a story about a group of dirty murderhobos getting randomly crushed by a trap, then the solution isn't to break the rules, it's to play something other than 1e D&D.

And who are we to decide what a group's idea of a campaign should be when they sit to discuss how it will be, the role of the DM, and the feeling they wish to instill?

If the group has fun with it, then absolute statements like "the DM doesn't make the story" or "nobody should know how the end of the campaign will look like, including the GM" are meaningless. They are just our opinions and feelings about the game. Some groups, like yours (and mine, probably) will play by this tenets of respecting rules and randomness to create an unpredictable story together.

Some will not, and want a GM that throws a story at them that is carefully crafted no to railroad but flows in a general direction. With a clear beginning, middle and end. Like and adventure path.

Some will not have fun because they will stop at the minutiae of the rules and overburden the player's with bookkeeping and the players won't feel as if they are achieving something meaningful.

Some will not have fun because the DM will railroad them and they will feel as if they are not the makers of their own destiny and have no say in the story.

There are different ways to play this game, and all are valid, all are good, and all are worth something if by the end of it, the player's and DM had fun and enjoyed roleplaying together. Player dynamics vary from table to table.

I pretty much agree with your style of playing, though I don't agree with establishing absolutes telling other players how they should approach roleplaying and what system they should use unless they specifically feel that the ruleset is not working to their idea of the game.

Note: I know that the inscrutability of the tone when someone writes on the web makes criticism sound passive aggresive, please know full well that when I say things like "Who are we to say that" or that absolute statements "are meaningless" it is not discarding your opinion, which I partially share and the rest will gladly debate, and less still your person, which I do not know yet respect, but just elaborating an argument on the axiom that "If the players enjoy it, playing it any way is the right unless it's competitive"

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you keep making absolute statements about things that are much more...muddy than that. I don't think we can all agree what "RPGs are about," so assuming that there's only one answer is to assume the conclusion. I think there's room to disagree without being wrong.

And who are we to decide what a group's idea of a campaign should be when they sit to discuss how it will be, the role of the DM, and the feeling they wish to instill?

I mean yes, I am making an absolute statement, because of the way that RPGs are designed. If you're playing an RPG so Bob can dictate a story to a group of players, then they're playing an RPG wrong. Bob should write a novel instead. I will likewise make an absolute statement that if a group of people sit down to play Monopoly together then you are there to compete against each other (mostly through random luck because Monopoly sucks). If a group of people sit down to play Monopoly and then everyone sells all their properties to Bob for $1 then I'm going to say that they're playing Monopoly wrong.

I will say that, even if it were in my power to stop people from doing these things, I wouldn't. I am not disputing anyone's right to play any game they want any way they want. But that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion that they're messing up by doing it that way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean yes, I am making an absolute statement, because of the way that RPGs are designed. If you're playing an RPG so Bob can dictate a story to a group of players, then they're playing an RPG wrong. Bob should write a novel instead. I will likewise make an absolute statement that if a group of people sit down to play Monopoly together then you are there to compete against each other (mostly through random luck because Monopoly sucks). If a group of people sit down to play Monopoly and then everyone sells all their properties to Bob for $1 then I'm going to say that they're playing Monopoly wrong.

I will say that, even if it were in my power to stop people from doing these things, I wouldn't. I am not disputing anyone's right to play any game they want any way they want. But that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion that they're messing up by doing it that way.

You have a right to think that others are having "badfunwrong" (or however that's usually phrased), but saying it in absolutes tends to make other people tune you out. Even as someone who (mostly, depending on the group) agrees with you, I find myself wanting to dispute your points because of how absolute and arrogant they sound. A little epistemological humility goes a long way in online discussions, same as at the table.

[Koo Rehtorb]

You have a right to think that others are having "badfunwrong" (or however that's usually phrased), but saying it in absolutes tends to make other people tune you out. Even as someone who (mostly, depending on the group) agrees with you, I find myself wanting to dispute your points because of how absolute and arrogant they sound. A little epistemological humility goes a long way in online discussions, same as at the table.

Do you know the story behind the name of the forum you're posting on right now? :smallwink:

[VonMuller]

I mean yes, I am making an absolute statement, because of the way that RPGs are designed. If you're playing an RPG so Bob can dictate a story to a group of players, then they're playing an RPG wrong. Bob should write a novel instead. I will likewise make an absolute statement that if a group of people sit down to play Monopoly together then you are there to compete against each other (mostly through random luck because Monopoly sucks). If a group of people sit down to play Monopoly and then everyone sells all their properties to Bob for $1 then I'm going to say that they're playing Monopoly wrong.

I will say that, even if it were in my power to stop people from doing these things, I wouldn't. I am not disputing anyone's right to play any game they want any way they want. But that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion that they're messing up by doing it that way.

Of course you have a right to your opinion. We are just arguing that roleplaying is not necessarily like other games in that most systems use rules as the skeleton upon which a story is built, more akin to dispensable human laws that can be ignored by the parties involved if they all agree to it and less like Monopoly which is a game in the most strict of senses.

I'll come back to this tomorrow, have a good one!

[Koo Rehtorb]

Of course you have a right to your opinion. We are just arguing that roleplaying is not necessarily like other games in that most systems use rules as the skeleton upon which a story is built, more akin to dispensable human laws that can be ignored by the parties involved if they all agree to it and less like Monopoly which is a game in the most strict of senses.

I'll come back to this tomorrow, have a good one!

The point is, everyone selling their properties to Bob for $1 is completely legal within Monopoly's rules. But it is hard to argue that doing so doesn't violate the spirit of the game, if not the actual rules. Or that doing so wouldn't make the experience worse for everyone (though maybe not because it means ending the game sooner which can only be a good thing because Monopoly sucks).

Likewise I argue, whether or not it's within the rules of the game, sitting down to play an RPG which involves the GM dictating the story to the players is a violation of the fundamental spirit of an RPG. Now obviously there are degrees of this. A GM fudging one die once is obviously going to have a much smaller impact than the most strenuous forms of hardcore railroading. A game can probably survive minor infractions just fine. But I'm saying fudging one die once is fundamentally in the same category of things as the most hardcore of railroads, just a lesser version of it.

[2D8HP]

Do you know the story behind the name of the forum you're posting on right now? :smallwink:

Do you mean:


Q: What is 'Giant in the Playground'?

A: Well, I picked the name when I first signed on to the Wizards.com message boards in April 2001. As memory serves, I had been reading the boards but not posting for a few weeks when I saw a topic in which everyone who had replied thus far was a complete moron. In a fit of snippiness, I registered and decided to pick a name that would have a connotation of intellectual superiority. Now, I am also a lifelong fan of the Babylon 5 television show, and at one point during the early 4th season, Sheridan refers to the ultra-powerful Vorlons and Shadows as "giants in the playground, unaware of whom they are stepping on." The quote later made it into the 5th season opening credits. So I decided it had the right level of implication for the bozos to which I was about to respond.

After that, I started posting a LOT on the WOTC boards. I never thought I had built a reputation or anything, but in 2002 when I was announced as the finalist in the Fantasy Setting Search, a lot of people said, "Oh! I've read your posts. You know what you're talking about." At this time I realized that the screen name "Giant in the Playground" had as much brand recognition as my real name....


????????

OK, I know I'm a particularly slow learner but, I don't understand the relevance.

¿Que?

Pourquoi?

Huh?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Do you mean:




????????

OK, I know I'm a particularly slow learner but, I don't understand the relevance.

¿Que?

Pourquoi?

Huh?

I'm with 2D8HP here. The relevance of that quote escapes me, unless you want to say that you are the afore-mentioned giant and we're the numbskulls in the quote. If so...wow. Just wow. Even in jest, that's a bit much. If not, then I'm lost.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm with 2D8HP here. The relevance of that quote escapes me, unless you want to say that you are the afore-mentioned giant and we're the numbskulls in the quote. If so...wow. Just wow. Even in jest, that's a bit much. If not, then I'm lost.

People being arrogant on the internet is nothing new or unexpected. The forum name itself is a reference to someone being arrogant on the internet from 2001. Don't take it personally.

That's the point.

[2D8HP]

People being...
...That's the point.


Self-mockery?

I think that's what most of us do here.

BTW, here's a portrait of me:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpnhA6GfrR-_AfSeGN2Sp644hMIIsj1L3TVQ1Nz-_QUL-33bwa

[Quertus]

If one useful thing has come out of this thread for me, it's making me really consider this point you're making here. I strongly believe no one should cheat, but I guess I do have in the back of my head that GMs cheating is slightly less unacceptable than players cheating. And now I don't know why I think that.

I'm always glad when someone learns something - although I'm selfish, and I'd rather it be me. So I'm glad you got something useful out of this thread, and even more glad I could contribute. But, truth be told, I wasn't so much trying to make a point as to ask a question...


Do you know the story behind the name of the forum you're posting on right now? :smallwink:

Didn't before today. Hey, I learned* something! :smallcool: Still lost. :smallconfused:

* not that (most of) those people were idiots, I knew that already.

Edit: when I loaded the thread several hours ago, this hadn't been answered yet.

[Cluedrew]

After reading this thread I think the main divide that has been debated is one of simulationism vs. cinematicism.I think you got it right there. Looking at it that perspective, most "cheating" then becomes an ad-hoc attempt to convert D&D (and it is usually is D&D) to something it was never intended to be. Switching systems, or putting formal house rules in place, would probably be a better solution, but it would also require more work. Also it would require certain insight into the hows and whys of the system in question which may or may not be particularly common.


I mean yes, I am making an absolute statement, because of the way that RPGs are designed.That in and of itself is a pretty strong, and I would argue incorrect statement. I have seen a great number of role-playing games made for a great number of different reasons. Although unpredictability is a common on, as it is (one of) the medium's main advantages over the computer RPGs, it is not necessary.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That in and of itself is a pretty strong, and I would argue incorrect statement. I have seen a great number of role-playing games made for a great number of different reasons. Although unpredictability is a common on, as it is (one of) the medium's main advantages over the computer RPGs, it is not necessary.

I didn't say randomness was a fundamental component of RPGs. I said collective storytelling is. It just so happens that many RPGs involve some element of randomness in their storytelling, though certainly not all of them.

They don't have to be good stories. There doesn't have to be an effort to consciously tell a story. But the GM taking it upon themselves to tell a story to the players is undermining the intent of RPGs. And dice fudging is one version of that.

[Tanarii]

I didn't say randomness was a fundamental component of RPGs. I said collective storytelling is. It just so happens that many RPGs involve some element of randomness in their storytelling, though certainly not all of them.Roleplaying is the exact opposite of collective storytelling. Roleplaying is determining you actions of your in-game character. Like living life, the point is not to 'tell a story' when doing stuff.

However, I did read your distinction above that you think that trying to tell a story while playing is railroading. If that's the case, why do you still insist on calling collective storytelling a fundamental component of RPGs? It's fair to say that "collectively doing stuff that results in great stories later on" is a very common or even fundamental component of RPGs, but that's not the same as collective storytelling.

Edit: I'm not talking about storytelling games, where the players are taking turns determining what happens in the story, as opposed to what their character does. I don't think of that as roleplaying personally, but I've come to understand that others do.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Roleplaying is the exact opposite of collective storytelling. Roleplaying is determining you actions of your in-game character. Like living life, the point is not to 'tell a story' when doing stuff.

However, I did read your distinction above that you think that trying to tell a story while playing is railroading. If that's the case, why do you still insist on calling collective storytelling a fundamental component of RPGs? It's fair to say that "collectively doing stuff that results in great stories later on" is a very common or even fundamental component of RPGs, but that's not the same as collective storytelling.

You do get a story out of every single RPG session. The story is what happened when you look back on it. The differences from real life is that you're not looking back on real things, and the things people do in RPGs tend to be more interesting than real life. Though people certainly exist in real life whose lives would make for a decent story.

You can quibble about the term if you like, but the term itself isn't really the point I'm trying to make here.

[Tanarii]

You can quibble about the term if you like, but the term itself isn't really the point I'm trying to make here.Yep, it was a complete and utter quibble. The way I look at RPGs is pretty simple: players determining what fiction stuff their fictional people are doing in a fictional world, with outcomes and consequences determined by some combination of rules adjudication & DM/GM-fiat adjudication. It's also possible to argue that they can also include non-rules-based Player-fiat adjudication, but to me personally that's what differentiates a storyteller game from a roleplaying game.

Edit: More on topic though, I think both you and I agree that once a DM has decided to adjudicate via a rule, he should stick to the determined result of the application of the rule.

[Segev]

Doing as the dice bids is half the fun of the game . If you are dead set on your path , you dont roll the dice .

A lot of the time, I see fudging (particularly of the "I didn't see you roll; why haven't you rolled yet?" variety - i.e. the DM is telling you to take a free re-roll) in a situation where you would normally roll, e.g. combat, and the DM has decided that he'd rather just declare a success. This usually happens at the end of fights when a particular player will end it if he doesn't roll a 1 or a 2 on the d20, or when a player hasn't gotten to play the game yet this session because the dice keep removing him from play every time he's about to participate. The DM would prefer to go through the motions, but is all but declaring that the dice are a formality he's going to redo. Usually, everybody's okay with this because, frankly, the dice WERE making that session unfun.

The reason I rarely see a GM get away with it on his own side of the screen is because the players are actually usually rather scared of the GM's monsters/NPCs. This may be GM-specific, but most GMs I've had do a good job building the tension of a fight, so that even if the GM's monsters are missing every single shot, the party feels relieved, not unimpressed. The GMs I've had generally do a good job of setting it up to feel like any hit could be fight-changing in the bad guys' favor.

[Darth Ultron]

Only the GM can cheat - ????? I have absolutely no idea why anyone would have this mindset.


This is my mindset.

[2D8HP]

Yep, it was a complete....


Yep, @Tamari hits it right!

[ShaneMRoth]

Only the GM can cheat - ????? I have absolutely no idea why anyone would have this mindset.



To paraphrase Richard Nixon, if the GM does it then that means it is not cheating.

The GM has the authority to suspend any rule during play, including unambiguous rules like saving throws and attack rolls. Some role-playing game rule sets spell this authority out explicitly; other rule sets imply this authority.

Having said that, if the GM fails to deliver a game worth playing, he will find himself without players sooner than later.

I always found fudging dice to be a complete waste of time. I've never seen a GM with a good enough poker face to consistently sell a fudged roll. It is my experience that players at a table can just smell a fudged roll from across the GM screen. So, I assumed that I would be at least as transparent as... every DM I've ever seen.

During the last campaign I ran, I never bothered to fudge a die roll. If I wasn't going to abide the result of a die roll, I just didn't bother to roll dice at all. I just saw no point to fudging. And my "failure" to fudge die rolls didn't seem to compromise the quality of the game.

Fudging a die roll is essentially suspending the rules without admitting it. While that may or may not be "cheating" it is clearly just plain... sad.

If I did make a decision that suspended a printed rule, I wanted the players to know when I was suspending that rule, even if they didn't know why.

Players? They have no authority to fudge a die roll. When a player does it? It's cheating. And if I catch a player cheating? I'll roll that player's dice, behind the GM screen.

[Darth Ultron]

To paraphrase Richard Nixon, if the GM does it then that means it is not cheating.

.

I agree.

Though there is really no way for the players to know about the ''so called cheating'' unless the DM tells them about it. Otherwise, the game just goes on.

A hostile player attacking the DM and watching everything they do so they can catch them red handed is not even playing the game and just being a jerk. And they are so easy to take down. The vile, hostile player will rant and rave that ''according to the almighty rules on page 33, the goblin only and forever has a plus one to hit and as the goblin rolled a 15 and needed a 16 to hit they missed!'' Then the Dm can laugh at the jerk and tell them ''the goblin has this feat/ability/thing that gives them a plus'' and shut the jerk player up.

[Jimmah]

This is my mindset.

After reading the majority of this thread I tend to agree.

Depending on your ruleset the GM/DM/Storyteller exists to run the adventure and arbitrate the rules.

What the GM is not there to do is to play *against* the players. They are a neutral judge.

Forcing the GM to opening roll every roll takes away a fundamental strength of the GM - to ensure the story flows in an enjoyable way. For example - during a session one of your players has horrible rolls throughout. It's one of those days. Now they come to perform some critical action which requires a GM vs roll. The GM rolls a 20 which completely negates the critical action. The player has sat there for five hours doing absolutely nothing positive because of bad luck and their last memory of the session is going to be abject failure. As a GM you can bet I am going to fudge that roll so they get some kind of success/get to retry next action or at least, don't fail miserably. If the players aren't enjoying themselves then I'm not doing my job. Dice are a harsh mistress.

Not saying a GM should continuously fudge rolls - just that removing the ability kills a lot of flexibility.

In my experience players need to trust the GM to do whatever is necessary for the enjoyment of the group. If you can't trust the GM (power trip, vs players, general asshattery) then don't play in their games.

*If the group really want a meat grinder or 'hard mode' then this should be established before the game begins (and GM rolls can certainly be public)

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my experience players need to trust the GM to do whatever is necessary for the enjoyment of the group. If you can't trust the GM (power trip, vs players, general asshattery) then don't play in their games.


I agree with this. My basic policy is that anything that is public knowledge is fixed. Can't (unilaterally) change that. If I've said there's a dragon in those hills, there's a dragon in those hills (unless someone comes along and kills it, etc).

Anything that exists only in my notes or in the monster manual, etc is fuzzy. Not all goblins are the same. If I feel I have a good reason to mutate it, I can and will.

Dice rolls are public and immutable. The targets aren't necessarily fixed though (they depend on circumstance). If I need a secret roll, I'll roll (as I do many times) but just not say anything. DCs and modifiers aren't public though (although they can be figured out through repeated observation and I try to be consistent with things like AC or attack bonuses).

I guess I care more about keeping things moving than being exact. If I can't remember if that monster has a +3 or a +4 to hit, I'll take a guess (and try to err in the player's favor) rather than spend several minutes looking it up (if the book's not open already). If there's one mook left and the PCs aren't seriously wounded (thus the victory is a fait accompli), the next hit will kill the mook (if that would be plausible based on the other mook's total HP, etc) or the mook will try to run away. If there's no need to run the fight (level 5 PCs vs two commoners for example), I just don't. The party wins, no dice rolls needed.

I also follow the philosophy that NPCs and monsters don't have to be built using the same system/rules as PCs. There are many spells/effects/feats/etc that just don't appear in the PHB. That's 5e's philosophy (and one of the many reasons I don't want to play 3.P).

[Quertus]

After reading this thread I think the main divide that has been debated is one of simulationism vs. cinematicism.

I've been pondering this since you posted it. I think that "teams" will line up very similarly along both sets of lines, but not necessarily identically. I believe the strong correlation is because of the shared fundamental beliefs of the various sides.


This is my mindset.

While I often don't understand where you're coming from, and so in that regard it's not surprising for you to state that you hold a stance that I do not understand, I can only hope that you will attempt to explain - and that I will attempt to hear - why you hold this stance.

Disdain for cheating can produce "no one fudges". Group trust in the desire to tell a good story can produce "everyone fudges". My dislike of cheating loss of enjoyment to an overly unbelievable world, but desire to let people have their fun, produces my "only the (non-GM) players can fudge" attitude.

Why is "only the GM can fudge" your mindset? What drives this as a reasonable course of action?


The GM has the authority to suspend any rule during play, including unambiguous rules like saving throws and attack rolls. Some role-playing game rule sets spell this authority out explicitly; other rule sets imply this authority.

The GM is not explicitly given such power in all systems, and, in fact, is explicitly not allowed such power in some systems. Further, the ability to patch holes in the rule set is different from the ability to change the rules is different from the ability to fudge rolls. Some systems grant some, but not others. AFAIK, in this thread, the topic is specifically about fudging rolls.


I always found fudging dice to be a complete waste of time. I've never seen a GM with a good enough poker face to consistently sell a fudged roll. It is my experience that players at a table can just smell a fudged roll from across the GM screen. So, I assumed that I would be at least as transparent as... every DM I've ever seen.

During the last campaign I ran, I never bothered to fudge a die roll. If I wasn't going to abide the result of a die roll, I just didn't bother to roll dice at all. I just saw no point to fudging. And my "failure" to fudge die rolls didn't seem to compromise the quality of the game.

Fudging a die roll is essentially suspending the rules without admitting it. While that may or may not be "cheating" it is clearly just plain... sad.

If I did make a decision that suspended a printed rule, I wanted the players to know when I was suspending that rule, even if they didn't know why.

Players? They have no authority to fudge a die roll. When a player does it? It's cheating. And if I catch a player cheating? I'll roll that player's dice, behind the GM screen.


I agree.

Though there is really no way for the players to know about the ''so called cheating'' unless the DM tells them about it. Otherwise, the game just goes on.

A hostile player attacking the DM and watching everything they do so they can catch them red handed is not even playing the game and just being a jerk. And they are so easy to take down. The vile, hostile player will rant and rave that ''according to the almighty rules on page 33, the goblin only and forever has a plus one to hit and as the goblin rolled a 15 and needed a 16 to hit they missed!'' Then the Dm can laugh at the jerk and tell them ''the goblin has this feat/ability/thing that gives them a plus'' and shut the jerk player up.

There is clearly a difference of opinion here. Having noticed GM fudging many, many times, without really trying, one can guess which side I... nah, I fall in the middle, actually, given how long it took some players to catch on to what was obvious to me.


Forcing the GM to opening roll every roll takes away a fundamental strength of the GM - to ensure the story flows in an enjoyable way. For example - during a session one of your players has horrible rolls throughout. It's one of those days. Now they come to perform some critical action which requires a GM vs roll. The GM rolls a 20 which completely negates the critical action. The player has sat there for five hours doing absolutely nothing positive because of bad luck and their last memory of the session is going to be abject failure. As a GM you can bet I am going to fudge that roll so they get some kind of success/get to retry next action or at least, don't fail miserably. If the players aren't enjoying themselves then I'm not doing my job. Dice are a harsh mistress.

Not saying a GM should continuously fudge rolls - just that removing the ability kills a lot of flexibility.

So, forcing a good story, and making the game fun for everyone... which should lead to, "everyone can fudge to make a better game".


In my experience players need to trust the GM to do whatever is necessary for the enjoyment of the group. If you can't trust the GM (power trip, vs players, general asshattery) then don't play in their games.

And, for my enjoyment, that's "not fudge dice". Can you do that?

[Cluedrew]

If the GM can be trusted to break the rules to make the game better, why not the players?

This may or may not count as cheating, but where it is shifting die rolls, adding rules, changing rules, ignoring rules or whatever, why only the GM? (This is for anyone who supports "Only the GM can cheat" point.)

[Segev]

If the GM can be trusted to break the rules to make the game better, why not the players?

This may or may not count as cheating, but where it is shifting die rolls, adding rules, changing rules, ignoring rules or whatever, why only the GM? (This is for anyone who supports "Only the GM can cheat" point.)

In theory, the GM is less invested in the personal success or failure of a given creature or NPC than a player is in the success or failure of his personal PC. Thus, the GM is, the theory goes, more likely to "cheat" in a way that is less biased towards one particular outcome, save for the outcome being "a more interesting game."

[Keltest]

If the GM can be trusted to break the rules to make the game better, why not the players?

This may or may not count as cheating, but where it is shifting die rolls, adding rules, changing rules, ignoring rules or whatever, why only the GM? (This is for anyone who supports "Only the GM can cheat" point.)

The way I see it, the GM has a billion and 6 different ways to tailor a scenario to be how they want it to be, including dice fudging. Which tools the GM uses, and how, are mostly not the point of the game. The players on the other hand have a much more sharply limited set of tools available to them to interact with the game world. How they do so, what tools they use and how they manage their limited resources is part of the game. It doesn't really matter how the GM puts a level appropriate encounter in front of the players, but it does matter how they deal with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the GM can be trusted to break the rules to make the game better, why not the players?

This may or may not count as cheating, but where it is shifting die rolls, adding rules, changing rules, ignoring rules or whatever, why only the GM? (This is for anyone who supports "Only the GM can cheat" point.)

You're assuming the conclusion here. At least in some systems (several editions of d&d), there are no binding rules for DMs. There are defaults, there are guidelines, but the DM is explicitly sovereign. By construction, they can't cheat. In these systems, the DM does not have the same role as the players.

Different tables may differ as to how much authority the DM wields in practice, but in principle the DM has no binding constraints other than those self imposed to retain a table of players. The rules are inherently asymmetric between players and DMs.

Note: I do not endorse DMs using this freedom too much, for the reasons stated by many up thread. But that's a matter of self control, not external rules.

[Quertus]

In theory, the GM is less invested in the personal success or failure of a given creature or NPC than a player is in the success or failure of his personal PC. Thus, the GM is, the theory goes, more likely to "cheat" in a way that is less biased towards one particular outcome, save for the outcome being "a more interesting game."

Hmmm... So, "only the GM can cheat" may be the logical outcome of combining "trust", "desire for a good story", and "player immersion"? And this mindset would therefore contain many strong opponents of the DMPC, as that would destroy the GMs supposed impartial positioning. Interesting.

It's definitely alien to me, but at least I can see there being some possible reason for the mindset now.

[Segev]

Hmmm... So, "only the GM can cheat" may be the logical outcome of combining "trust", "desire for a good story", and "player immersion"? And this mindset would therefore contain many strong opponents of the DMPC, as that would destroy the GMs supposed impartial positioning. Interesting.

It's definitely alien to me, but at least I can see there being some possible reason for the mindset now.

These are all related, certainly. It is the DM's control of the world and ability to "cheat" (even without overtly doing so) that makes people averse to the "DMPC."

[Darth Ultron]

These are all related, certainly. It is the DM's control of the world and ability to "cheat" (even without overtly doing so) that makes people averse to the "DMPC."

I hate DMPCs myself. I'd never use one. Sure NPC's do tag along with the PCs from time to time, but they are more background support characters.

[Cluedrew]

Replies to replies to my question:

To Segev: From the fact you highlighted it, I guess you have the same concerns I do about "In theory". Besides that it is a pretty strong argument, especially for tense situations.

To Keltest: Doesn't that assume challenge based/tactical gameplay? While common that is not universal.

To PhoenixPhyre: I was using a short hand that I thought would be clear from context. By "break the rules" I really just meant "go outside and against the rules that restrict other players at their discretion, whether this ability comes from social consensus or is laid out in the system rules" and even that is probably not quite accurate either, but it is already getting kind of long. As for your main answer. Well why should the GM be constrained only by themselves why the players have to act within strict rules?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To PhoenixPhyre: I was using a short hand that I thought would be clear from context. By "break the rules" I really just meant "go outside and against the rules that restrict other players at their discretion, whether this ability comes from social consensus or is laid out in the system rules" and even that is probably not quite accurate either, but it is already getting kind of long. As for your main answer. Well why should the GM be constrained only by themselves why the players have to act within strict rules?

Because in the context of those systems, it's not going against any rules. It's following the DM's rules, which are different than the players' rules. That's because those systems feel that the DM's role is different conceptually than the players' role. This may be a bad call, but it is the rules. What I object to is the classification of DMs following their rules and trying (imperfectly) to optimize the fun of the whole group (which is their main job) as being "cheating." It begs the question that is to be answered. It also poisons the well against anyone who feels differently.

The way I see it, there are a few options for game systems. They can either:

Have no GM/DM at all. The players are all on an equal footing as far as rules are concerned. Free-form games mostly fall into this, as well as a bunch of other systems I'm not too familiar with. Here the rules are a matter of table consensus--there is no "higher authority." Cheating is a matter of betraying mutually agreed upon principles.
Have binding rules for the GM that are different than those for the players. Apocalypse World (I think?) falls into this category. The GM has certain moves available to them. Others are specifically called out as inappropriate. There is no final authority for rules. Both parties can cheat.
Place the DM in the role of the final adjudicator of the rules. The D&D games fall (broadly) into this category. Since the DM has the rule-sanctioned ability to modify the rules at will as well as homebrew things on the fly, they are the final authority for that table (subject to player exit). Players can cheat, but the DM can't. "DM cheating" is a category error.
Have defined roles for the various players that don't map neatly onto the player/DM spectrum. I remember reading about such a game, but I don't have examples. This varies strongly by system, but is closer to the binding (but different) rules category than to the no DM rules category.
Have the DM only there as a referee (not creating content, but just judging by a book of rules). This is the war-game model. Here neutrality and consistency are the most important things.


As a side note, the GM in a "DM as final adjudicator" system (I use the terms GM and DM interchangeably) is not only constrained by themselves--they're constrained by table consensus. Players have the power of exit. I've walked from an otherwise fun game when I couldn't stomach the alterations the DM had made to the base system. This is a nuclear option, so it's much less of a constraint than in other systems.

As a second side note (betraying my biases): I play D&D 5e with large groups (7-9 players) of teenagers who are new to roleplaying, running 2 groups a week. One group meets for 1.5 hours, the other for only 30 minutes at a time. Most of them only have the fuzziest idea as to the actual rules--they don't have their own books (as those are expensive) so only the most dedicated do much research on their own. Having a system where I didn't have the flexibility to alter plans/encounters/rolls/difficulties on the fly would make it impossible to run games under these constraints and actually have fun. I am constantly adapting my ideas to play to their reactions. Keeping the game running and including everybody are much higher priorities than sticking close to the rules or having total transparency. I do roll in the open and don't fudge the actual dice result though.

[Jimmah]

So, forcing a good story, and making the game fun for everyone... which should lead to, "everyone can fudge to make a better game".


The GM is not a player - the GM is an adjudicator. If players fudge then they *are* cheating. Personally I think calling GM fudges cheating is drawing a very long bow as by definition cheating is breaking or ignoring the rules for personal gain. The GM has nothing to gain in this scenario. It is emotive language designed to paint a GM who does fudge as bad or playing against the spirit of the game.



And, for my enjoyment, that's "not fudge dice". Can you do that?

Given you will likely never sit at my table for purely geographic reasons I am not sure this is relevant. But...

Each GM has their own style - if you as a player specifically came to me before a game and asked I would consider it. It would depend on the system, whether it was a one off session and who else was at the table.

As I said in my previous post - if you don't trust your GM, don't play. Players have the ultimate power at a table in that the GM doesn't have a game without them. That said players are fortunate when someone actually wants to take on the mantle of GM :)

[Tanarii]

Personally I think calling GM fudges cheating is drawing a very long bow as by definition cheating is breaking or ignoring the rules for personal gain. The GM has nothing to gain in this scenario. It is emotive language designed to paint a GM who does fudge as bad or playing against the spirit of the game.Cheating, in a RPg context, is changing the predetermined results of something to something else you prefer. It doesn't matter if it's for personal gain or someone else's gain or for someone else's detriment.

And it is very much to my detriment when the DM changes the result of a die roll after the fact. Because now I can never trust that DM again. He made it impossible for me to achieve a fair win.

If 'personal gain' were the definition then healing another PC more than the randomly determined amount wouldn't be cheating on the part of the PC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cheating, in a RPg context, is changing the predetermined results of something to something else you prefer. It doesn't matter if it's for personal gain or someone else's gain or for someone else's detriment.


One quibble (and it's a clarification more than anything): "cheating...is changing the predetermined results of something in a way that is not provided for in the rules..."

There are many ways to change a die roll that are not cheating. In 5th edition D&D alone, there is the portent feature of divination wizards, there is the lucky feat, there is inspiration, etc. None of these are cheating.

The other, more philosophical question is what it means to be predetermined. I tend to believe (but could probably be persuaded otherwise) that a result is determined when it's presented to the table (that is, when that fact enters play). Up till then, it's fuzzy. Other tables may vary, and if I'm playing with a group that believes in strict rule adjudication I'd adapt without too much trouble.

Rolling a 1 and claiming it's a 20 without mechanical support, now that's cheating.

[Jimmah]

Cheating, in a RPg context, is changing the predetermined results of something to something else you prefer. It doesn't matter if it's for personal gain or someone else's gain or for someone else's detriment.

Which ignores the fact that in many systems the GM is allowed to alter/ignore any rule, roll, stat or save as they see fit to serve the game. Players doing the above is cheating. GMs changing things is GMing.

Obviously if a GM is doing this out of favoritism or actively trying to harm the players then we are talking about a different matter.



And it is very much to my detriment when the DM changes the result of a die roll after the fact. Because now I can never trust that DM again. He made it impossible for me to achieve a fair win.


In which case you don't really want a GM - you want someone to arbitrate the rules for you. Something I'm not interested in. I GM to tell a story and for the enjoyment of my players.

As an aside - if a GM does change a result, why does that make it impossible to achieve a fair win? For example - if an encounter is not well balanced and your party of PCs is very likely to TPK, why does a GM fudging a roll or a save to even the odds make it less fair?

If 'personal gain' were the definition then healing another PC more than the randomly determined amount wouldn't be cheating on the part of the PC.[/QUOTE]

See above. Also healing another PC is quite obviously 'personal gain' as a.) they are part of your party and b.) you don't want them to die.

[Tanarii]

In which case you don't really want a GM - you want someone to arbitrate the rules for you. Something I'm not interested in. I GM to tell a story and for the enjoyment of my players.Yes, that's what I want, because that is the DMs entire job. To arbitrate the rules and the players declared actions.

I don't want a storyteller because storytelling isn't part of roleplaying nor game. Storytelling is merely part of storytelling. I don't have any desire to listen to a DM tell a story (because then I'm not making decisions for my character), nor to create a story with him (ditto). I want to make in-character decisions about what my character does, aka roleplaying.

We can make stories from the awesome (or terrible) session that resulted from roleplaying and arbitration of roleplaying after the fact.


As an aside - if a GM does change a result, why does that make it impossible to achieve a fair win? For example - if an encounter is not well balanced and your party of PCs is very likely to TPK, why does a GM fudging a roll or a save to even the odds make it less fair?Yes. Especially then. I can no longer win fair and square, because the DM has cheated on my behalf. All I can do is lose by dying, or lose by defeating/escaping the enemy when I shouldn't have. At least before it was a fair death.

[Jimmah]

Yes, that's what I want, because that is the DMs entire job. To arbitrate the rules and the players declared actions.

I don't want a storyteller because storytelling isn't part of roleplaying nor game. Storytelling is merely part of storytelling. I don't have any desire to listen to a DM tell a story (because then I'm not making decisions for my character), nor to create a story with him (ditto). I want to make in-character decisions about what my character does, aka roleplaying.

We can make stories from the awesome (or terrible) session that resulted from roleplaying and arbitration of roleplaying after the fact.

Yes. Especially then. I can no longer win fair and square, because the DM has cheated on my behalf. All I can do is lose by dying, or lose by defeating/escaping the enemy when I shouldn't have. At least before it was a fair death.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the terminology I am using but in any event we clearly have very different ideas about what roleplaying entails so we should just leave it at that.

[Darth Ultron]

[QUOTE=Tanarii;21861247]

I don't want a storyteller because storytelling isn't part of roleplaying nor game. Storytelling is merely part of storytelling. I don't have any desire to listen to a DM tell a story (because then I'm not making decisions for my character), nor to create a story with him (ditto). I want to make in-character decisions about what my character does, aka roleplaying.

QUOTE]

Sounds to me like your a pure mechanics type player, I mean ''no storytelling?'' I get the ''cool'' I don't want that DM ''telling a story'' as they are just there for me to use and abuse....but you seem to got a step more and say you don't story tell as a player? So your characters are just like ''Bob Ten'' and are blanks other then the game mechanics?

Or are you saying that you, and other players, are somehow special and you can story tell all the live long day, and just force the DM to listen? But if the DM so much as says ''the goblins name is Gump'' you will scream them down and say ''don't story tell DM!'

[Tanarii]

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the terminology I am using but in any event we clearly have very different ideas about what roleplaying entails so we should just leave it at that.
Probably a bit of both. Half the time when people call roleplaying 'storytelling' they just mean "doing stuff that results in cool stories". The other half the time they actually mean storytelling, ie deciding what things happen to make a good story/narrative as they go along (often including all story elements, such as plot, narrative, climax, resolution, etc etc). It's never clear to me exactly which. And I definitely don't view the latter as roleplaying ... I view it as explicitly the opposite of roleplaying, or because it's playing the story, not playing a character.

[Segev]

I highlighted "in theory" because there are adversarial DMs, and thus it's not a universally true blanket statement. And even non-adversarial DMs can wind up with "pet NPCs" or scenes whose results they become enamored with, and fall into the trap of railroading them.