Everybody Cheats?

pemerton said:

So you think that when Gygax refers to fudging combat dice being contrary to the major precepts of the game, he's wrong? About his own game?

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure where you're seeing this.

One of the examples in particular is specifically about combat:
"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such thins pass...Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation."

He goes on to say that there should be consequences if you are choosing to overrule the death of the character, but I think this is another place where it's pretty clear that the primary precept in the game in regards to the DM and the rules is that the DM has full control over the rules, and that you can alter them as written.

So one thing that comes to mind is that the interpretation of the rules is probably more important than the intent in many cases. I really don't know the intent Gary had at the time. I know in interviews he stated that he did fudge things when necessary. This included in combat situations, such as when he had designed an encounter as overpowered, which is one of the more common reasons I think DMs sometime fudge. His approach was usually to reduce the power of the encounter, such as reducing hit points, but there's a fine line between reducing hit points and increasing the damage done by the PCs. Most call this fudging.

Could be be wrong about his own game? Sure, why not. I think that it's not all that uncommon for people to state they believe one thing, and yet be proven that they believe another when you challenge that belief sufficiently, even if many won't admit it. Can I definitely say that Gary's comments regarding fudging in 2006 would have matched what he would have said in 1976? Of course not, people's opinions change.

You're adamant in your reading of the DMG as being "accurate" and I'm just as adamant in mine. It is quite possible for both "sides" to be right.

Regardless, I'm not really attempting to change your opinion on what Gary wrote or meant. While it is an interesting debate, ultimately the only thing to me that really matters in regards to the rules and what is cheating and what is not is what happens at my table. The rules as written are what they are. The rules as interpreted, modified, and agreed upon at the table is what is important.

My point simply remains that to a large number of gamers, particularly D&D players, over decades believe that the rules specifically give the DM the right to fudge rolls. This believe/approach was apparently a big enough thing in the pre-internet days that the authors of the game explicitly codified it into the rules. The primary author of the game also acknowledged that he did occasionally fudge as well. So I don't believe it is wrong, nor do I believe it's the only correct interpretation of the rules. But in the groups that accept this interpretation as correct, they are following the rules, and by following the rules, not cheating.

Hussar said:

However, that's not what's being discussed. What actually is the issue is when there is a perfectly clear rule that everyone at the table agrees to abide by, and the DM decides to abandon that rule, for only this specific situation, because the DM thinks it will make the game "better". IOW, the DM fudge or, by any other name, cheats.

Click to expand...

Actually, one of the rules actually being discussed are the rules that state the DM is allowed to "fudge" or to modify or ignore a die roll in the moment. Whether that's the interpretation that the table has of the 1e DMG, or the more explicit rules in later DMGs, even if it's simply a house rule.

We are discussing this rule in the context that everyone at the table agrees to abide by that rule - that is, the DM has the right to use it, and the players will abide by the results, whether they were determined by die roll or DM. This is probably the most important aspect of this discussion: The rule is agreed upon as a rule by the table. At this point it is a rule of the game. As much as saying you roll 4d6 drop 1 for an ability score. Oh, but your table uses point buy? Why isn't that cheating? Wasn't that written into the rules just so players could have more powerful characters?

The DM is not abandoning any rule, they are engaging a different rule.

The DM may be doing it for all sorts of reasons. However, in the context of the rules, the DM doesn't have to justify it, the rule simply states they can do it.

The idea that it being secret is wrong is also false. For a game of imagination, many people find they don't want a look behind the curtain because it ruins the immersion. We disagree, and have regular conversations about what I do. If I fudge a roll, I have no problem telling them. "Wow, that's the second critical in a row. How many hit points do you have left? One? That seems a bit harsh." I might rule something else, although most of the time I leave such decisions up to the player. In one case, I had trapped a sarcophagus. It was a simple trap, and they had been in the room several times and decided that it was too dangerous to deal with it, and felt there was nothing of value. Then, weeks later, they decided to return and open it. The tomb had been largely plundered before them, and it was clear that a great many much higher level characters had all met their end in the tomb. But they decided to do it. They were very clear that any dangers in this tomb that remained were far above their abilities.

Both characters took massive damage, but one was clearly not going to make it. I suggested that perhaps she suffered a significant injury, and he said, "no, I was down low, working my dagger into the seam and my face was 5 inches from it." So she was dying, and the other characters had a chance to get to town to see if they could bring somebody back to save her, but at that point it was just a matter of time. But it turned into a two-day ordeal and was much, much more dramatic than a simple, "you've died."

One of the responsibilities of a DM, even back in the AD&D days, is to abide by the rules of the table. Although AD&D explicitly grants the authority over everything, even altering a die roll, the fact is, if the players don't agree to those rules, then the DM either has to change it, find a new table, or yes, cheat. And I agree, if you sat at my table and I agreed that I would not fudge die rolls, and I did anyway, you have every right be be angry because that's just wrong.

But what if I, as a DM, don't fudge. It's not something I've ever done, and I sit down at a table where the players tell me they don't want their characters to die, and they don't like resurrection? Sure, you could say D&D isn't the game for them, but I disagree. One of the original precepts of the game is "make it your own." It can be just about anything. You could write some new rules, but not everybody is good at writing rules. Also, rules for something that has to account for an endless number of variables can be difficult to write. It's far easier to allow the DM to adjust to the circumstances when necessary to ensure that the heroes always survive. It could be modifying the encounter difficulty, having a rescuer at the last minute, or a heroic moment, whatever. In most cases it's probably going to be just adjusting a die roll here or there to ensure that the combat is intense, but not lethal.

How is that cheating? It's not.

I do find it interesting that the primary rule that folks seem to hold onto is the die roll. While there are certainly groups that like more or less GM input into their games (which will vary based on the rules in play), the only thing that seems to be consistently labeled as "cheating" is die rolling. To me, at least in the context of D&D, the innovation of the game design is that it wasn't 100% dependent upon the rules. That the rules weren't rules but guidelines and tools to help the DM adjudicate whatever craziness the players come up with. Yes, for consistency I think it's important to follow the rules probably 99% of the time. In theory a better written set of rules would require deviating from the rules less frequently. But consider the directions game design has taken since D&D was released. Everything from Apocalypse Now-based games, storytelling games, rules intensive games like Hackmaster, Pathfinder, and D&D 3 and 4e.

What's unique about RPGs, at least what I found unique in the Holmes basic/AD&D that I started with, is that the most important part of the game is what happens in the game. It has been called many things - the fiction, story, narrative, etc. Whether explicitly or implicitly, that's always been there. The "adventure" is what the game is about. Every other game I'd ever played was all about the rules. The rules of the game tell you what you can do and when you can do it. D&D was different. While the rules were there to make the game possible, you were also encouraged to modify them to suit your needs. As a DM it was all about creating an exciting experience for the players. The rules were malleable, you could pick and choose what you wanted. As a player, you didn't really need to know many rules at all. You needed to know what die to roll to attempt something (although the DM could tell you if you didn't know), and you needed to understand a few simply concepts like hit points. You had some things you were good at, based on what you picked as a race and class, along with a handful of restrictions. Even more amazing - it wasn't competitive, it was cooperative. It was about working together as a team to overcome challenges, and you didn't have to worry about whether you were the "best" fighter. You were who you were, and all you had to do is tell the DM what it was you wanted to do.

So to me it was extremely clear that as a DM, my sole job was to provide an interesting and exciting adventure. The rules were important, but not the focus of the game. While that may or may not have been the intent of the designers, that's what I (we) took out of it. And it's clear based on the many, many people I've met, chatted with, and played with, not to mention the amazing breadth of RPG design it spawned, that I'm not the only one.

Plain and simple, the DMs job is to provide the adventure. The rules, as we understood them, allowed the DM to have control over every aspect of the game, including the dice, to ensure that the players are having an exciting adventure. It's that simple to me.

I totally recognize that there are others feel completely different. Even from when I started playing there I have known players that like to master the rules of the game. Over the years I admit that I've had my own "RPG snob" attitude towards munchkinizers, min/maxers, power gamers, or whatever they might be called. There are, of course, all sorts of points in the middle. The real point, for me, is that there isn't one "proper" way to play D&D, or most RPGs.

While I say that I prefer the Gygaxian authoritative DM model, it's really in regards to the setting and adjudication of the rules. The rules in play are always a matter of agreement by all those at the table, and I'm always open to potential exceptions in my campaign as well. My role as a DM is always one in service of the players, and the rules of the table. For example, I have never, ever, fudged a die roll at a table where a player stated that they objected to that, and I ask.

But at a table like mine at home, the player's expectations of my job are not rule-focused. The rules and the dice are not the controlling factors at our table, and that's entirely player preference. That doesn't mean the dice rolls mean less, but they are but one of many tools we use to make the game work. And not one of the many, many players that I've DMed would agree that my following the rules that we agreed upon at the table is cheating. Because it's not. Cheating is breaking the rules, not adhering to them.

Ilbranteloth said:

OK, so what are you defining as cheating? Because to me, following the rules by definition cannot be cheating.

I disagree with the assertion that we "added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating." We have no idea why they more explicitly stated something in the rules. Regardless, it really doesn't matter why something was added to the rules. In American football it used to be against the rules to throw a forward pass. By your logic, every time a QB throws a forward pass it's cheating.

So again, what is your definition of cheating?

Click to expand...

When you change the result of a die, what rule are you following?

And, even if you want to point to "rulings not rules" or some other vaguely defined term, it's cheating, even if the rules kinda/sorta give you permission to do so.

With apologies (well, not really) to REM:

EVERYBODY CHEATS

When the game is long
And the fight, the fight is yours alone
And it seems you've reached the end
Of this life, well hang on

Don't give up quite yet
'Cause everybody lies
And everybody cheats sometimes

Sometimes everything goes wrong
And the plans don't play along
And your P-C's dying soon (roll on, roll on)
But you can't face letting go (hold on)
Well it doesn't take that much
To just cheat, and roll on

'Cause everybody cheats
And messes with their friends
Everybody cheats
Don't read the dice, oh no

Don't read the dice
If you feel they'll do you wrong
No, no, no, make it up instead

If you're sinking fast in this game
There's ways to turn it round
When you think you can get away with it, hey you can

Well, everybody cheats sometimes
Everybody lies
And everybody cheats sometimes
And everybody cheats sometimes

So roll on, roll on
Roll on, roll on, roll on, roll on, roll on, roll on
Everybody cheats

No, no, no, no you are not alone.

Lan-"the easiest rewordings are those where you hardly have to change the original words at all to give it a whole new meaning"-efan

Hussar said:

When you change the result of a die, what rule are you following?

And, even if you want to point to "rulings not rules" or some other vaguely defined term, it's cheating, even if the rules kinda/sorta give you permission to do so.

Click to expand...

Well there are plenty of examples in the thread already, and like I said it matters what rules the table has. But here’s one from the 5e DMG:

“Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it.
Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites.”

It’s not a vague reference, it’s a rule specifically allowing the DM to fudge rolls.

And if you’re just going to keep repeating your mantra that it’s still cheating even if the rules say you can do it, then there’s no point in discussing it.

Bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, cheating is breaking the rules. Period. I think that definition would be accepted by almost anyone playing any game.

I’ve already pointed out that there are plenty of other rules in 5e that allow the DM or a player to alter the results of a die roll. They also point out additional rolls that can be made in secret and the benefits of doing so. In AD&D these rolls were instructed to be in secret. Just because something is a secret also does not make it cheating. The fact that a DM fudging a die doesn’t have any fixed trigger other than DM discretion doesn’t make it cheating. The only thing that makes it cheating is a rule, published or agreed upon by the table, that the DM will not fudge die rolls.

Hussar said:

When you change the result of a die, what rule are you following?

And, even if you want to point to "rulings not rules" or some other vaguely defined term, it's cheating, even if the rules kinda/sorta give you permission to do so.

Click to expand...

I also want to point out that I think that it’s a reasonable expectation when playing a game, even one like D&D, that something like die rolls are accepted as they lay.

When I started playing and read a sentence like, “...it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players,” and, “You do have the right to overrule the dice at any time...” it was a bit of an aha moment. That there’s something different about this and that the events in the game are more important that the rules, and the rules perform a different function in this game.

But because that is so different than what people might expect in a game, I also think it’s important for them to understand how I consider the rules, and what to expect when playing with me. I don’t assume they interpret them the same way (especially now since most of them never played AD&D), and make sure we’re on the same page. If I have to adjust, so be it.

The point is, that the rule is one that has to be understood and agreed upon by the table. This is the case with any rule. It’s clear there are people that disagree with my interpretation of the rules and that’s fine. The only place my interpretation matters is at my table.

But to tell me Im cheating when we’re in agreement at my table and following the rules we agree to is wrong.

Likewise, if your table says the DM can’t fudge rolls, then doing so would be cheating.

Ilbranteloth said:

I'm still not sure where you're seeing this.

Click to expand...

I'll quote it again, from p 9 of his DMG, ie the first page under the heading Introduction:


I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between introducing content, which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and resolving conflicts, where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be contrary to the major precepts of the game

Ilbranteloth said:

One of the examples in particular is specifically about combat:
"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such thins pass...Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation."

He goes on to say that there should be consequences if you are choosing to overrule the death of the character, but I think this is another place where it's pretty clear that the primary precept in the game in regards to the DM and the rules is that the DM has full control over the rules, and that you can alter them as written.

Click to expand...

I have quoted that passage (from p 110) multiple times upthread. I will quote it again, in full, and emphasising some salient elements:


In both the passage on p 9 and the passage on p 110, the distinction between playing well (ie taking precautions, preparing sensibly, moving quickly and quietly through the dungeon, etc - all this stuff is spelled out in more detail on pp 107-9 of the PHB) and failing to take precautions or otherwise doing something stupid, hence deserving what befalls one, is drawn very clearly.

And the need to respect what a monster has done - so that a loss in combat still counts as a loss in combat, just not a fatal one - and to always give a monster an even break, and thus for instance not allow the PCs to easily defeat a monster or unnaturally escape from it, is likewise emphasised very clearly. Which only makes sense, given that playing well means making rational choices to overcome the challenges posed by the game, and one doesn't overcome challenges if the GM hands one victory by fudging.

Thus, as I have repeatedly said, I don't see that anyone can read all that Gygaxian text, and then conclude that he was advocating that the GM fudge monster hp to (sya) let the PCs win, or to delay a PC victory, or anything of that sort. That sort of thing would obviously go contrary to the major precepts of Gygax's game.

Ilbranteloth said:

I know in interviews he stated that he did fudge things when necessary. This included in combat situations, such as when he had designed an encounter as overpowered, which is one of the more common reasons I think DMs sometime fudge. His approach was usually to reduce the power of the encounter, such as reducing hit points, but there's a fine line between reducing hit points and increasing the damage done by the PCs. Most call this fudging.

Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting that what Gygax is advocating in the interviews you refer to contradicts what he says in his DMG. His advice may be good or it may be bad. But it goes directly against his direction to always give a monster an even break, to not seriously harm a NPC, and to not allow the PCs an easy victory. I am not talking about what Gygax himself did, or what he said in interviews. I'm saying that the classic D&D texts (AD&D; Moldvay Basic; OD&D and Chainmail as best I know them, though I don't know them as well; and I would assume Holmes also, though I know it least well of all) did not advocate GM control over outcomes in the way that the 2nd ed AD&D books, with their focus on the GM doing "what is good for the story" did.

I'll also add a personal opinion: I think that, in cases where an AD&D GM has made an encounter "too difficult" (whatever exactly that means), then Gyagx's advice to ameliorate the results of death blows seems to me to be better advice than adjusting the hit points on the fly. The result is likely to be a PC defeated but not dead, who then must be rescued by henchmen or associates, which seems the appropriate sort of outcome for a "skilled play", dungeoneering game.

Ilbranteloth said:

a large number of gamers, particularly D&D players, over decades believe that the rules specifically give the DM the right to fudge rolls. This believe/approach was apparently a big enough thing in the pre-internet days that the authors of the game explicitly codified it into the rules. The primary author of the game also acknowledged that he did occasionally fudge as well. So I don't believe it is wrong

Click to expand...

I don't believe that it is wrong. I do think it's a sign of poor design - unsurprising i the transition from Chainmail to AD&D, but by the time we get to 2nd ed AD&D a sign of an unwillingness to grapple with the reality that the rules for a dungeoneering wargame simply don't make a very good vehicle for playing something like Dragonlance.

To quote Luke Crane, in his discussion of Moldvay Basic:


(He goes on with the following:

Ilbranteloth said:

/snip

Bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, cheating is breaking the rules. Period. I think that definition would be accepted by almost anyone playing any game.

I’ve already pointed out that there are plenty of other rules in 5e that allow the DM or a player to alter the results of a die roll. They also point out additional rolls that can be made in secret and the benefits of doing so. In AD&D these rolls were instructed to be in secret. Just because something is a secret also does not make it cheating. The fact that a DM fudging a die doesn’t have any fixed trigger other than DM discretion doesn’t make it cheating. The only thing that makes it cheating is a rule, published or agreed upon by the table, that the DM will not fudge die rolls.

Click to expand...

Yup. Totally agree. There are plenty of rules in 5e that allow the players to legally cheat to mitigate outcomes. I believe that would be the entire point of the original article. That cheating has become enshrined into the game.

From the original article:

Game masters have a phrase for cheating known as "fudging" a roll; the concept of fudging means the game master may ignore a roll for or against PCs if it doesn't fit the kind of game he's trying to create. PCs can be given extra chances to reroll, or the roll could be interpreted differently. This "fudging" happens in an ebb and flow as the GM determines the difficulty and if the die rolls support the narrative.

GM screens were used as a reference tool with relevant charts and to prevent players from seeing maps and notes. But they also helped make it easier for GMs to fudge rolls. A poll on RPG.net shows that over 90% of GMs fudged rolls behind the screen.
Cheating Is the Rule

One of Fifth Edition's innovations was adopting a common form of cheating -- the reroll

Click to expand...

Call it fudging if it makes you feel better. Doesn't change anything.

pemerton said:

I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between introducing content, which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and resolving conflicts, where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be contrary to the major precepts of the game

Click to expand...

Have we considered the radical idea that maybe Mr. Gygax wasn't consistent in his writings? Because earlier in this thread, it has been noted (multiple times, I think) that he *also* wrote that GMs can alter dice rolls to get the results they want. I know, I am suggesting a saint may have been fallible... or not. Maybe he wasn't a theoretician hard-case, OneTrueWay kind of guy. Maybe, he actually was a little more pragmatic, and remembered that his game started as massivly house-ruled wargame and maybe being all hoity-toity about exactly how it should be done was not exactly intellectually solid.

Now, of course, we could reject this, and can all cherry-pick the quotes that support our preferred way of playing the game, to demonstrate that our individual way is "more correct" (or at least more Gygaxian). I submit that way lies argument and frustration for all.

Alternatively, we can come to the conclusion that maybe there's sufficient support for any choice a GM is going to use.

Umbran said:

Have we considered the radical idea that maybe Mr. Gygax wasn't consistent in his writings? Because earlier in this thread, it has been noted (multiple times, I think) that he *also* wrote that GMs can alter dice rolls to get the results they want. I know, I am suggesting a saint may have been fallible... or not. Maybe he wasn't a theoretician hard-case, OneTrueWay kind of guy. Maybe, he actually was a little more pragmatic, and remembered that his game started as massivly house-ruled wargame and maybe being all hoity-toity about exactly how it should be done was not exactly intellectually solid.

Click to expand...

Who's being hoity-toity?

Gygax talks repeatedly about skilled play. The closing words of his PHB say that, if you think AD&D is worth playing, you'll find it doubly so if played well. And the preceding two pages of text tell us what playing well means in this context, as do the passages [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have quoted from the DMG: it means preparing sensibly, having a plan of attack in relation to the dungeon, not being distracted by the GM's lures and wandering monsters, etc, in rulebooks that I think don't even use the word "story".

Obviously that's not the only metric for RPGing well. It's not a metric that I use in my own RPGing. But it is clear enough, and if that is how one judges skilled play, then certain consequences follow. Which Gygax himself points to when he says that certain GMing practices would be contrary to the major precepts of the game.

I don't know why it's so important to you and others in this thread to show that Gygax endorsed the White Wolf "golden rule" way back in 1978-79.