Can the GM cheat?

[JustinAlexander]

No, not *any* objective viewpoint*.

I suppose we could go through all the the definitions of the word "cheat" and you'd say something like, "Ah ha! If we're talking about cheating in the sense of sexual fidelity, then clearly fudging dice rolls in an RPG isn't objectively cheating!" or "Ah ha! An RPG has no value, therefore it's not the same as a land swindle!"

But I'm just not interested in that sort of silliness.

More generally, I find arguments like "Mark can't cheat at Monopoly if we all agreed that he can cheat" or "it's not changing the rules on the fly if there's a rule allowing you to change the rules on the fly" to be inherently circular and absurd.

If a player comes to a game with a GM who says "story trumps rules" then leaves the campaign because "the GM cheats" is just bull...

Didn't you kind of lose the ability to say "they knew it was going to be this way" when you said that you don't do this in most of your campaigns and that you didn't tell them you were doing it? Did you expect them to be telepathic about this sort of thing?

(I understand that you're now changing your story to claim that you did tell them that, but I have to admit that this just blows your credibility in general for me.)

 

[GameOgre]

I really think we can all agree on one thing. The question of can a DM cheat or not has everything to do with the unwritten (or sometimes written) rules of the individual table.

If the table rules say the DM has the right to alter dice rolls or even overrule game rules at that table,then he does.

If the Table rules say the DM will not alter dice rolls and can't overrule game rules without the ok of the players,then he can be guilty of cheating.

It's really as simple as that.

Some DM's would probably insist on altering whatever they need to while some would find more of a thrill with letting the dice and game designers decide.

It's all good as long as the DM adheres to whatever the contract with his players is.

 

[Elf Witch]

I can understand why you are upset. I would be to if players quit and didn't bother to tell me why. I kind of view it as cowardly. There does not have to a confrontational how about a simple email. The fact that they told other players knowing it would get back to you is just not cool.

As for can the DM cheat yes they can. To me a DM cheating is one who favors players over other players. Or changes the rules on a whim to get a desired outcome in their favor and then the next time the rule comes up changes it back so it is not in the players favor.

But fudging no I don't think that is cheating nor is changing a monster on the fly as long as you are being consistent and fair to the players. For example I have been known to fudge if in my judgement I have made a mistake and over powered the encounter or I can see that the players are frustrated and not having fun. Though I do it in a way that they never know. And I am honest and up front that I will use my judgement on if I need to fudge and I have no one say no yet or I won't play like that.

I have also dealt with characters of different power levels and how I handle that is to plan an encounters that play to everyone strength. Though if it becomes a cake walk and the other players are not having fun then I do something to bring everyone more in line.

Some of this is play style and from reading posts here some people hate any fudging that is fine for them I would not want them at my table nor would I want to play with a DM like that. I do think some take it to far and make it sound like DMs who do are some how horrible DMs. But in the end there really is no right way or wrong way to play. I think open communication is important and I think players or DMs need to speak up if there is an issue instead of blindsiding the group when they just up and quit without anyone realizing there is a problem.

 

[delericho]

I suppose we could go through all the the definitions of the word "cheat" and you'd say something like, "Ah ha! If we're talking about cheating in the sense of sexual fidelity, then clearly fudging dice rolls in an RPG isn't objectively cheating!" or "Ah ha! An RPG has no value, therefore it's not the same as a land swindle!"

Yes, but we don't need to do that. I'm afraid Umbran is dead right about what he says - the rules of D&D (in every edition since 1st, if not since before then) have explicitly given the DM the right to fudge dice rolls. Therefore, for a group to adopt a rule that the DM can't fudge would, in effect, be a house rule. Which is fine, of course, but it really is a matter for the group to discuss and decide.

More generally, I find arguments like "Mark can't cheat at Monopoly if we all agreed that he can cheat" or "it's not changing the rules on the fly if there's a rule allowing you to change the rules on the fly" to be inherently circular and absurd.

Now here, on the other hand, I agree with you. It is indeed circular. I also don't think it's good for the game for DM's to be told by default that the can and should fudge things "if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur" (per DMG 1st Ed) - that sort of discussion really should be placed under "Advanced Techniques", or some heading of that sort, complete with a detailed discussion of when, why, and how a DM might choose to change things, and the consequences thereof.

Sadly, I fear that quote from the DMG (and similar texts, including the insistence that mere players not know the full rules) may very well have been responsible for a lot of bad DMing behaviours I saw back in the day - the whole "DM is king" mentality.

So, I don't think that that quote from the 1st Ed DMG is actually terribly good for the game. I wish, at the very least, that it had been presented differently. But... circular or not, bad for the game or not, it is still what the rules of the game say.

 

[Greylond]

It's all about communication. At the beginning of a campaign the players and GM really need to understand the GM's style and intent for the game. People tend to think "Medieval Fantasy RPG" so therefore every one is the same style but MFRPGs differ in style and tone by a wide margin. From the "storytelling" style where most of the time PCs won't die and encounters are adjusted for the characters' skills and abilities(not to mention the tactical ability of the Players), to the other extreme of a GM who presents a world and simply adjudicates encounters as they happen and never changes a die roll.

The Players really need to understand the GM but the GM also has the responsibility of understanding what the players want.

IME, it's a fairly common problem. Miscommunication and situations like this have happened to just about every Player and GM I've ever known, including myself(more than once). I'd recommend trying to have a discussion with the players to find out what they liked, what they didn't like and if they are willing to work with you to make the changes that they would like to see to make the game fun.

 

[airwalkrr]

Didn't you kind of lose the ability to say "they knew it was going to be this way" when you said that you don't do this in most of your campaigns and that you didn't tell them you were doing it? Did you expect them to be telepathic about this sort of thing?

(I understand that you're now changing your story to claim that you did tell them that, but I have to admit that this just blows your credibility in general for me.)

1) When I began this campaign, my D&D group, whom I have know for a long time and still play with) was not interested, because they were not interested in the game system or the fact that I wanted to run a more cinematic-style game where the rules do not matter much. So for this campaign, I only had one player cross over from my D&D group and I found four others, mostly people I had never met before for the new campaign. Over time we all became friends outside the game and started hanging out and doing other things as well as gaming. So I considered them my friends. But they also (with the exception of the one player who crossed over from my D&D group who never cared about dice in the first place) knew nothing of my DM experience with D&D, not did I ever talk about it much within the context of game rules. I was up front with the mostly-new group about this campaign's "story trumps dice" style from day one and reiterated it many times over the course of the campaign. There was no confusion, I promise you.

2) I am not changing my story. This was a deliberate departure from my typical gaming style is all I ever said. And I was very upfront and open about that aspect of things. I met with every new player individually in a sort of interview style before the game for character creation and gaming philosophy discussion and asked if they had a problem with a campaign where dice are not always going to be followed and story is always more important. I reminded players at many points throughout the campaign that this was the type of campaign where they should feel free to try some crazy things because the cinematic nature of the campaign meant they would be less dependent on dice to succeed on these things. I also reminded them that my philosophy for this campaign was that story will always trump rules. I told them specifically that if I created what was intended to be a high-pressure situation, I would want them to find creative solutions to get out of it as opposed to brute-force methods involving dice. Then, other times, defeat of the enemy was a foregone conclusion that merely would have wasted time and not used up any significant resources. I was very clear that I would never play those situations out unless the players really wanted to. FINALLY, and most importantly, I began virtually every session with a reminder that rule zero was in place and that I was more interested in all of us telling a good story and having fun than being a slave to dice. I don't think I could have been any more clear.

 

[Kingreaper]

Everything you've said, to me, indicates "We won't roll dice when story decides it" rather than "I'll roll dice and then ignore the results".

Which are very different things.
I never ignore the dice once I've rolled them, but I'll often choose not to roll them as a GM when I feel there's an obviously desirable outcome.

I think both you and your players need to improve your communication somewhat.

 

[airwalkrr]

Everything you've said, to me, indicates "We won't roll dice when story decides it" rather than "I'll roll dice and then ignore the results".

Which are very different things.
I never ignore the dice once I've rolled them, but I'll often choose not to roll them as a GM when I feel there's an obviously desirable outcome.

I think both you and your players need to improve your communication somewhat.

Then help me understand, what part of "dice are not always going to be followed" is unclear. The players were specifically described as being unhappy about "fudging dice and cheating."

 

[Kingreaper]

Then help me understand, what part of "dice are not always going to be followed" is unclear. The players were specifically described as being unhappy about "fudging dice and cheating."

When you take that one section entirely out of context, it's quite clear. It's when it's in the context of a big thing about how you won't roll in this situation or that because story trumps rules that it becomes unclear.

In the larger context it seems like you mean "I won't always bother with dice" not "I'll over-rule the dice".

Equally importantly "not always" suggests that ignoring the dice will be a rare thing. From what you've said, it wasn't.
How often did you actually fudge? Because fudging once every three sessions, and fudging 3 times a session, are very different things.

 

[Jhaelen]

I met with every new player individually in a sort of interview style before the game for character creation and gaming philosophy discussion and asked if they had a problem with a campaign where dice are not always going to be followed and story is always more important.

Okay, this sounds more like the players in question should have declined playing in the campaign right away.
I guess they thought "Well, I don't really like this, but let's try it anyway, maybe it'll grow on me or maybe it won't be so bad after all...". If I had been in their shoes I wouldn't have had a problem with telling you that I didn't enjoy the gaming style after all and bowed out.