Everybody Cheats?

Ilbranteloth said:

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that such a game is not a valid approach, nor is it cheating in any way. The fact is, that even within the context of AD&D (and others from the era, like the Holmes basic set) that specifically spell out the game as the "DM's game" it's still done so in the context of fairness and a responsibility to the players. It's a, "hey do you want to come over to my place and play in my world?" sort of "DM's game" and not an "I can do anything I want and screw you over" sort of game.

Click to expand...

Exactly; though it seems some few did take the latter approach and kinda poisoned the well for the rest of us.

I think that over the years, bad DMs, along with well-intentioned guidance has given the idea of the "DM's game" a bad reputation. But what exactly does it mean? I (and my players) consider it the DM's game in the sense that I decide what setting we're playing in, what races and classes are allowed, and what rules in general we are using. We have extensive house rules, most of which I've written. I take the responsibility of being the DM seriously, and spend a lot of time working on things like rules, story arcs within the world, and just generally being prepared to make each session fun and exciting. And yet, the last session is as good an example as any as to what that looks like in practice in my game. ... <snip a wonderful example of multiple interweaving parties> ...

So in "my game" I, as DM, often am little more than a spectator or audient enjoying a play.

Click to expand...

Ain't it fun when the game just runs itself?

If you ask any of the players, there is no question that it's "the DM's game." In fact, it's not an uncommon comment for any of them (or players no longer currently in the campaign) to refer to it is "your game" or "Randy's game" etc. While I maintain it as "our game" when I talk about it or reference it, they always refer to it as my (the DM's) game.

Click to expand...

I don't know how my ex-players (those who I've lost touch with) refer to my games, if ever they do at all, but common practice within our crew is to refer to the game by its world or region name, or a party name within that world if there's more than one. Thus, I called my current game "Decast" as that was the name of the starting region, and the two parties currently active are usually called "Decast northern" and "Decast southern" simply due to where they've been operating (though that may change real soon as with any luck at all they're going to meet and interweave within the next session or two). The game I play in is called either "Dafan" or - to distinguish it from a previous campaign in the same world - "New Dafan", where Dafan is the name of the world. The parties are called "Main" (the one that plays every week) and "Legends" (a bunch of hoary old veteran characters from the 80's that we play once every few months).

They are fully onboard with the idea that I have full veto power over character creation/background ideas, that the limitations set within my ruleset are how we play (ASIs are +1, not +2, you can't take a feat instead of one, gaining feats happen at different levels, there are save and die things like poison, critical hits can bypass hit points and potentially kill, or at least seriously endanger any level character, etc.). At the same time, I fully recognize that any rule, limitation, restriction, etc. that I want to impose must be accepted by the players at the table. In addition, like almost all of the rules of the game, I don't consider them absolute and I'm willing to consider exceptions given the circumstances and wishes of the players. The purpose of all of these are simply to provide an immersive experience for them to develop their characters and white their stories. While I can't say that some of them wouldn't want to play, say, a dragonborn, which don't appear in my campaign, they accept that the limitation is there for a purpose and they have plenty of other options and choices and run with it.

Click to expand...

All sounds fine from here.

There are three players in particular that are happy to work on tweaking rules, play-testing them specifically, and we agree that we should be able to mechanically represent how I run the game within a set of rules so others could use them if they want. And these three in particular help adjudicate when necessary, and help the other players (especially those that don't care to engage the rules), know what they should be doing. Our rules do change quite frequently. While we do let everybody know when something has changed, and they always have access to the rulebook online.

Click to expand...

The only caution there, based on past and current experience, is to watch out if the rule-testing and rule-suggesting players don't agree on something, or one suggests something another objects to. The arguments can get nasty...

Lanefan

pemerton said:

Likewise. What do you think Gygax means when he says that fudging a combat with wandering mosnters would be contrary to the major precepts of the game?

Click to expand...

I think he means exactly what he says. He says that there are rules(precepts) and that it's the DM's game to alter as he sees fit with the carte blanche authority Gygax writes into 1e. Then he warns against altering the precepts without a lot of thought as it can go badly, and gives an opinion(not a precept) about how he feels the DM should do things. It's very straight forward, but you will only write in half of what he says, leaving out the parts that prove you wrong.

Tony Vargas said:

Well, the DM supports everything he wants, unhindered by any part of his carte not being blanche...

Click to expand...

I'll blanche my carte any time I want to, thank you very much.

Maxperson said:

I'll blanche my carte any time I want to, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

If you have to blanche it yourself, your carte noire isn't really doing you any favors...

Ilbranteloth said:

It's that the GM is imposing their will over the game, when in theory they otherwise don't have that capability. That the actions of the player and the luck of the die aren't the deciding factor, but the GM is. It's a question of how much power the GM has, more than it is the mechanics of that power. People get hung up on fudging, but if the GM tells you after you complain that before they made the roll they determined that under these particular circumstances there was a bonus applied to the roll, and that's why it occurred, people have less of an issue with that. It's no longer fudging.

Click to expand...

Though I think you get to some really fantastic nuances in your argument, I also see other issues at play.

(1) Double-Standards for the Same Behavior: Where there is already a gross imbalance of power, this particular imbalance becomes noticeably irksome when it comes to "fudging" and the double-speak used to preserve it for GMs while also castigating players who engage in it. And when pushed, the appeal for many GMs becomes...

(2) "The Greater Good": I understand that there may be genuinely well and good intentions behind the idea of the GM fudging for "the greater good." But this amorphous defense casts too wide a net and becomes a lazy means of excusing nearly any and all fudging and a range of Social Contract-breaking behaviors. What I also find disturbing about this defense is the patronizing tone that often accompanies it: "It was done for your own good." It's the idea that "I, the GM" know better than the players how to produce a greater amount of fun for the whole, and that I can engage in duplicitous autocratic behavior for the sake of achieving said "greater good." But is it the greater good? How does the GM know this? I have not seen much retrospection from GMs on this matter. This "good" and the GM's success in achieving it is taken for granted. Sometimes when GMs fudge for "the greater good," they potentially take away from many awesome and amazingly exciting moments for players. Sure, if the player had killed the Big Bad now, it would have taken a lot of wind out of the story that the GM planned. But whose fun is being served when the GM railroads outcomes like this? I don't think it is necessarily the players'. It's fine to be honest and say that it was your interests and happiness that fudging serves and not the group's. You, the GM, were disappointed by what happened. I would appreciate more transparency and honesty about it all.

Let us imagine for a second any other game that required a referee, such as basketball or fußball. And that a singular ref decided to change the rules throughout play. They would lie about the results that the players and their opponents achieved. And they would hide behind telling the players, "I can assure you that this is all being done for the 'greater good' of your fun." Now, a sports game is not fully comparable to a tabletop roleplaying game, and I will readily admit that. But my point here, however, is that this would be inexcusable and infuriating behavior in other gaming contexts. And part of the key difference is that the GM exists as both referee and player opposition. And that would make the sports analogy even more infuriating. For example, imagine if your opponent in tennis was also the referee. Yikes.

In story now games, the GM can absolutely still impose their will. It has to be done in a different way, and it might be more difficult, but the underlying problem can still exist. The GM intrusion you describe is essentially the same thing. In Cypher there is a mechanic to reject that intrusion, but the GM has still altered the results to their desire. In Apocalypse games, the players can't necessarily reject it, they have to find a way to work with it. Is it fudging? Cheating? Rule Zero? I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Many of these games seem to be designed to reduce the influence of the GM, as if it's a bad thing. They have rules, such as the ability to reject a DM "intrusion" to further reduce their power or influence on the game. Certainly there are ways to design a game that don't require a GM at all. But even without control of the rules, the GM will still have an influence on the game and the narrative.

Click to expand...

Not quite. In these cases, the GM "imposes their will" within guidelines. It is not a blank check. There are mechanics and guidelines for a GM providing an Intrusion in Numenera. There is a mechanical player payoff for it. The GM is transparent about when it occurs. There are mechanics for the player to reject it. Hell, Numenera 2 was released this month, and it further introduces mechanics for Player Intrusions. But in my prior example, the GM had not changed a die roll or the results. What was the desired result? The player sought to hit the monster. The player hit succesfully. /golf clap. The fiction reflected that fact. Damage was dealt. The GM Intrusion did not erase that hit. What it did was add a further complication to the fiction that follows from the established fiction: i.e., following the successful hit, the axe remained lodged in the beast.

I really enjoy the AD&D-style approach of a GM that has near absolute control. Not so I can exercise superiority, but because I like the particular separation of powers. One of my goals is to allow the players to be immersed in their characters, and whenever they have to engage the rules, they are no longer immersed in their character. So if I'm in charge of the rules, then they can spend more time immersed in their characters. I love world building, I love writing rules, I love writing complex, inter-weaved narratives. All of these are things I can do without reducing the player's immersion and full control of their character within the game. The Gygaxian AD&D model is the best fit I've found, and more importantly, it's the model that seems to work best for the players in my campaigns.

Click to expand...

I am glad that this works for you and your players. If it works for you, then keep it up, and I wish you happy gaming. But I don't think that this a case of either/or. That strikes me as a false dichotomy, though it may be of benefit to you and your players, so I am glad that you find value in this approach. But I myself can't see much of a causal connection between "I want my players immersed in their characters" with "therefore, I prefer near absolute control as a GM and a separation of powers." While these issues may be casually connected via other related issues, GM Autocracy and Player Character Immersion do not seem causally connected. And there are many other systems where the GM has less absolute autocratic powers, but players are not regularly required to engage in the rules or break their immersion. Let's take this argument from the player side. I recognize your good intentions as a GM. You are concerned about my immersion as a player. But what I would be hearing as a potential player is that you feel that my character immersion and my ability to immerse myself in my character is dependent on your autocracy as a GM. You may not intend it to be taken this way, but this will be a potential implication that I would take away from this approach.

And no, I don't think it's smoke and mirrors for propagating his power. While I don't always agree with all of Gary's specific rulings, overall in interviews and chats with him it's clear that he saw the purpose of the GM to be a fair and impartial referee within the game to provide a place for the players to explore and enjoy. The idea that Rule Zero or fudging might be used from time-to-time is dependent upon that responsibility.

Click to expand...

Okay, but please understand that I am naturally skeptical of it.

Lanefan said:

If a game specifically in its rules allows cheating then by definition a player can't cheat, in that part of the definition of cheating is to go outside the rules...and so you end up with a paradox.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but there is little reason to preserve the rules paradox for the sake of preserving it. There are ways to write what it attempts such that it not a paradox.

Have some shivers, then; because like it or not it is the DM's game in the end. Why? Simple: players are replaceable, but if the DM stops playing there is no game.

Click to expand...

That's not true though. DMs can and are replaceable, and they have been in a number of games that I have played. We have deposed and replaced DMs. DMs have left, and a new DM rose to take their place. I have done this on occassion as well. And some games ended not because of the DM stops play but because particular players left or all of them left the DM. The DM is less of a special breed than most DMs imagine themselves to be. And the sooner we can kick these myths to the rear, the healthier our hobby can become.

Maxperson said:

Just out of curiosity [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if the rules say you can cheat, is it cheating to cheat?

Click to expand...

Well, that's the point of this disagreement isn't it? If you are allowed to cheat, and you cheat, are you not still cheating? Permission doesn't change the nature of what you're doing. It's permissible to roll dice when you attack in D&D. That doesn't mean that you aren't rolling dice when you attack. That would be ridiculous.

So, yes, regardless of permissibility, it's cheating. Of course, we don't call it "cheating". We call it "fudging", so that DM's can still feel all warm and fuzzy inside and pretend that they aren't cheating.

Ilbranteloth said:

This is one thing that I just disagree with. If the rules allow something, then by definition it cannot be cheating. The context of cheating often centers around not altering the roll of the dice. You get what you get. However, the halfling lucky trait says that if you roll a 1, you can reroll it. That is not cheating in any way (well, you might "cheat death" as a result, but that's not the kind of cheating we're talking about).

If the rules explicitly say, "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to" and the group decides this is a rule that they accept, then it is not cheating for the DM to do so. It's that simple.

/snip of massive amount of verbiage.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the disagreement. Simply writing it into the rules that you can cheat doesn't suddenly make it not cheating. It's that you've changed the rules to make yourself feel better because, while everyone knows that you are cheating, you don't have to call it that. That's the whole point of the original article. We added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating.

But, like [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] says, let's call a spade a pointy digging implement. It's cheating in everything but name.

Lanefan said:

/snip

Have some shivers, then; because like it or not it is the DM's game in the end. Why? Simple: players are replaceable, but if the DM stops playing there is no game.
/snip

Click to expand...

Having replaced more than a few DM's at groups, I'd say that this is not true. DM's are pretty replaceable. Granted, "a" player is pretty easily replaceable. But, players? Not really. I've seen campaigns completely fall apart after losing 2 of 5 players. And, really, if you've replaced all your players, you aren't playing the same game. You are playing something loosely based on the old game, but, it's very much not the same.

I find the idea that the game 80% belongs to the DM is just a giant red flag. I have gotten to the point where I have zero interest playing at this kind of table.

It's really kinda like fudging. The older I get, the less tolerant I am of fudging. I sit down to play D&D. Which is OUR game. I have very, very little interest in playing YOUR game. And I certainly don't want to run MY game.

Hussar said:

So, yes, regardless of permissibility, it's cheating. Of course, we don't call it "cheating". We call it "fudging", so that DM's can still feel all warm and fuzzy inside and pretend that they aren't cheating.

Click to expand...

Incorrect! We don't call it cheating or fudging. We call them rules. In the beginning Gygax had a game without rules, and everything was cheating. Then he said, let there be 20 sided dice, 12 sided dice, 10 sided dice, 8 sided dice, 6 sided dice and 4 sided dice, and it was good, and they were used for the game, and it was no longer cheating to do so. When you make something a rule, it ceases to be cheating or even fudging. Fudging is only fudging, because that's the name that was stuck on the rule many years ago. It really has no place. If I alter a die roll or tweak hit points on a monster mid fight, I'm simply engaging a rule. I'm not fudging or cheating.

Hussar said:

Therein lies the disagreement. Simply writing it into the rules that you can cheat doesn't suddenly make it not cheating. It's that you've changed the rules to make yourself feel better because, while everyone knows that you are cheating, you don't have to call it that. That's the whole point of the original article. We added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating.

Click to expand...

This can only be true if you completely re-define cheating. Of course, then every rule ever made for every game is also cheating, since at some point those rules didn't exist and were only created to make the players feel better.