DM Cheating

[ThirdWizard]

If you have no particular expectations of a system when it comes to adhering to its design goals, then this undercuts many arguments about the merits, or lack thereof, of game systems, period. Orcs with a 25% chance to kill you and orcs with a 80% chance to kill you make you equally dead.

You say that like its a bad thing.

This is my general maxim: In D&D, your character is going to die. Accept it and move on when it happens.

 

[Umbran]

A system that does not require judgement calls at all must provide a simple, rigorous framework for all activities within the game's scope. Every game other than a tabletop RPG has this responsibility from the outset. Good ones step up to the challenge by limiting the scope of play; great ones do so by providing a solid framework that is flexible in an explicit way.

I accept that not all tabletop RPGs will live up to that. I can perhaps buy that one has yet to arrive that does. I cannot, however, endorse the idea that it's impossible - or that designers should not make the attempt.

I may be about to be one of the world's biggest geeks...

I can endorse the idea that it is impossible - that follows from Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. In essence, for any logical system with a finite number of axioms, there will be statements that are true within that system that cannot be proved with those axioms.

In game terms - if you've got a finite number of rules in your book, the player can find something that those rules do not cover. Add in Murphy's Law, and the more you depend upon the rulebook, the more often players will try things the rules don't cover. And that's just the math - we won't even go into the vagueries of human language making it nigh-impossible (and maybe theoretically impossible) to create a RPG rule set that doesn't require someone to interpret what the author intended.

This, however, is separate from whether or not designers should try to create such a system. Striving for an impossible goal can still yield constructive results.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I may be about to be one of the world's biggest geeks...

I can endorse the idea that it is impossible - that follows from Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. In essence, for any logical system with a finite number of axioms, there will be statements that are true within that system that cannot be proved with those axioms.

In game terms - if you've got a finite number of rules in your book, the player can find something that those rules do not cover. Add in Murphy's Law, and the more you depend upon the rulebook, the more often players will try things the rules don't cover. And that's just the math - we won't even go into the vagueries of human language making it nigh-impossible (and maybe theoretically impossible) to create a RPG rule set that doesn't require someone to interpret what the author intended.

This, however, is separate from whether or not designers should try to create such a system. Striving for an impossible goal can still yield constructive results.

I can't actually agree here, Umbram.

If you take tabletop RPGs as essentially an outgrowth of cops and robbers, but with rules to resolve the "I shot you!"/"No you didn't!" dichotomy, you can have a 100% comprehensive rules system that will never, ever require a judgement call:

PCs do whatever their players says they do until two players disagree. When that happens, each player rolls 1d6. High roll wins. Reroll ties.



It may sound silly, but when you come down to it, that right there is a 'complete' setting-neutral RPG. I've actually played 'games' like that, and they can be pretty fun with the right group. Indeed, from what I understand of Dave Arneson's pre-Chainmail Blackmoor campaign, it was alot like that, except with paper-scissors-rock as the resolution mechanic.

The real trick is in adding complexity to the 'game' part.

 

[rgard]

Inspired by the thread on a Classy way to ask your players if they are cheating...

Do you want your DMs to cheat…in your favor? Wait, don’t answer that. Let’s put that on hold for a second.

A while back—maybe a year ago or so—I pushed my DM screen to the side so there wasn’t a barrier between the players and I. Since that time, I really only use the screen to hide game notes as needed. I also have since rolled all my dice all in the open (other than for Search or Disable Device rolls on a player's behalf).

It’s funny how players perceive things. Now I, as the DM, thought the players would really appreciate the openness of doing this, but more than one of them has commented that they fear the dice even more now knowing that it would be almost impossible to “cheat in their favor.”

Do you feel the DM should cheat in the PCs favor? Also, are you answering as a DM or a player?

Just curious how others prefer it.

I roll the dice in the open.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[buzz]

So to my mind, it's incoherent to be concerned with both balance and an "automated" way of getting results, with one exception: instances where rules lack clarity. But that instance is also interesting in terms of this discussion.
...
These required rulings do not minimize fudging -- they disguise it in a GM's ruling on whether there's a possible AoO or how a given magic item, feat or other game artifact applies. Even WotC engages in this kind of "fudging" by introducing interpretations of systems that were probably not a part of the original, intended design (monks and INA anyone?)
...
Of course, if you stick with a loose system you end up with fudging being made "official."

Does this mean that rolling in public, etc. is bad? No, of course not! But there's a difference between saying that GMs who feel it's *necessary* to fudge are engaging with a "broken" system, or that systems that encourage GM moderation are also "broken."

People should also recognize that when they do let the dice fall where they made, they are *also* engaging in a form of social and system manipulation. There is really no such thing as a truly "hands off" style, as much as social strategies that suit different groups.

I'm going to reiterate my earlier point that if you're going to define "fudging" so broadly as to encompass everything GMs are given responsibility for in most well-known RPGs, and now even include material from the publisher, then any meaningful discussion is going to be impossible.

Adjudication (i.e., applying the ruleset) is not fudging. Adjudication is the GM's job.

Fudging, as I am using it, is when the GM applies the ruleset and then ignores the results, overtly or covertly, in order to apply their will. "I think it would be cooler if X happened, so I'll just pretend I rolled a 20."

To paraphrase something awesome Mearls once said, a good rule is one that makes play more fun than it would have been without it.

If your game is consistently more fun when the rules are ignored, then the rules are obviously not contributing to your fun. Personally, I'm not interested in spending time, effort, and money on rules that either don't get used or don't do anything to make fun happen. "Lite" or crunchy, player or GM, it's all the same to me. If the rules don't help me to bring the awesome, they get the boot.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Well randomness doesn't "spike." It's more that it is not just a remote possibility that even a well designed encounter will not have the anticipated effect. While thousands of dice rolls will usually end up averaging the way you'd expect, single dice rolls usually don't.

Now you can say, "Let the chips fall where they may!" but when you do that, this kind of silences you as an effective critic of a system's results. At that point, you don't care about the system -- you care about game mechanic results. So to my mind, it's incoherent to be concerned with both balance and an "automated" way of getting results, with one exception: instances where rules lack clarity. But that instance is also interesting in terms of this discussion.

RPGs are caught in a trap of subjectivity that only seems to increase with attempts to stamp it out. (WARNING: Observations you may not want to hear follow.) Generally, systems are criticized for allowing too much GM intervention when they are loose/light -- but solutions to this generally increase complexity (if not in the game itself, then in the number of cases for reference by the GM/players), requiring more and more rulings on how game systems apply. These required rulings do not minimize fudging -- they disguise it in a GM's ruling on whether there's a possible AoO or how a given magic item, feat or other game artifact applies. Even WotC engages in this kind of "fudging" by introducing interpretations of systems that were probably not a part of the original, intended design (monks and INA anyone?) This observation is something that comes from observing RPG sessions as a non-participant, deliberately taking notes. One of the things I observed was how fudging tends to attach itself to complex systems when the GM/DM uses it as a pretense (I noticed this in particular when it came to rogues; lots of DMs make debateable calls about sneak attack to restrict its use).

Of course, if you stick with a loose system you end up with fudging being made "official."

Does this mean that rolling in public, etc. is bad? No, of course not! But there's a difference between saying that GMs who feel it's *necessary* to fudge are engaging with a "broken" system, or that systems that encourage GM moderation are also "broken."

People should also recognize that when they do let the dice fall where they made, they are *also* engaging in a form of social and system manipulation. There is really no such thing as a truly "hands off" style, as much as social strategies that suit different groups.

Uh.... so is this a yes, or a no? How about an "almost, but only if you change 'spike' to 'a series of especially high or low rolls'"?

I'd be more than happy to discuss your points on system design, and DM role and such, but it's only something I can do after I can get a little closer to your starting viewpoint. Also, I'd really like to get into the pros and cons of anticipated effects.

By the way, your subjectivity points are exactly on with my own observations.

Here's a question to everyone though. Am I the only DM here who says things like: "Ok, Roll listen. You need to beat 14 to hear the orcs sneaking up on you."

 

[Umbran]

If you take tabletop RPGs as essentially an outgrowth of cops and robbers, but with rules to resolve the "I shot you!"/"No you didn't!" dichotomy, you can have a 100% comprehensive rules system that will never, ever require a judgement call:

PCs do whatever their players says they do until two players disagree. When that happens, each player rolls 1d6. High roll wins. Reroll ties.



It may sound silly, but when you come down to it, that right there is a 'complete' setting-neutral RPG.

I can't actually agree here, MoogleEmpMog.

Setting aside the ugly argument of whether this constitutes a "game"...

The problem is that this system, as written, completely fails to resolve the "I shot you!"/"No you didn't!" problem - because a character does what his or her own player says. So, you can say, "I shot you!" all you want. Until I say, "I take damage," your shooting me is meaningless.

There are ways around that. I expect you'd like to see something like this:
Player A: I shoot you!
Player B: I walk away unharmed.
Player A: I disagree. You can't walk away unharmed. So let's roll d6s.

But, by the rules, this is Player B being stupid. From B's point of view, it should go more like this...

Player A: I shoot you!
Player B: Before the bullet covers half the remaining distance, I travel back in time and kill your character's father before you were conceived, so that you are never born and cannot have shot me.
Player A: ...!

Of course, player A will object. But, by invoking Zeno's Paradox, player B can do this an infinite number of times, or until he or she is satisfied with the result. Unless, of course, player A chooses to time-travel as well. What we now have is the moral equivalent of tic-tac-toe, where the thing can always be forced to a draw, without resolving anything. That's hardly "comprehensive".

So, I'll submit that rather than require zero intervention, such a system instead requires constant intervention (in the form of player goodwill and cooperation) in order to function.

Which is not to say that such games cannot be fun. They simply don't satisfy the requirements stated above.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I can't actually agree here, MoogleEmpMog.

Setting aside the ugly argument of whether this constitutes a "game"...

The problem is that this system, as written, completely fails to resolve the "I shot you!"/"No you didn't!" problem - because a character does what his or her own player says. So, you can say, "I shot you!" all you want. Until I say, "I take damage," your shooting me is meaningless.

There are ways around that. I expect you'd like to see something like this:
Player A: I shoot you!
Player B: I walk away unharmed.
Player A: I disagree. You can't walk away unharmed. So let's roll d6s.

But, by the rules, this is Player B being stupid. From B's point of view, it should go more like this...

Player A: I shoot you!
Player B: Before the bullet covers half the remaining distance, I travel back in time and kill your character's father before you were conceived, so that you are never born and cannot have shot me.
Player A: ...!

Of course, player A will object. But, by invoking Zeno's Paradox, player B can do this an infinite number of times, or until he or she is satisfied with the result. Unless, of course, player A chooses to time-travel as well. What we now have is the moral equivalent of tic-tac-toe, where the thing can always be forced to a draw, without resolving anything. That's hardly "comprehensive".

So, I'll submit that rather than require zero intervention, such a system instead requires constant intervention (in the form of player goodwill and cooperation) in order to function.

Which is not to say that such games cannot be fun. They simply don't satisfy the requirements stated above.

Hmm... I have to agree, that does produce the potential for an unsatisfactory result within the rules (not that 'the game of time-travel one-upmanship' couldn't be fun, but...).

Now, I would argue that *all* games do require player goodwill and cooperation to some degree; you can't play chess with someone who throws a tantrum and knocks the pieces off the board when they're losing, for example.

But the game concept I put forth fails simply by virtue of the rules, whereas chess does not. Back to the drawing board!

 

[buzz]

The problem is that this system, as written, completely fails to resolve the "I shot you!"/"No you didn't!" problem - because a character does what his or her own player says. So, you can say, "I shot you!" all you want. Until I say, "I take damage," your shooting me is meaningless.

The game Moog describes is similar in some ways to The Pool. It does not have the problem you describe because it's not resolving tasks, it's resolving conflicts. You're not rolling to see whether PC A's shot hit PC B. You're rolling to see whether the player of PC A gets to narrate the outcome or not.

 

[buzz]

Hey, the latest Save My Game is talking about almost this very subject.

Part of what's irritating you in this situation, I suspect, is the inherent hypocrisy. If your DM requires chapter and verse for every rule the players call on, he had better be ready to give it up as well. If he can't cite the basis for his rulings, then you can insist that he stop this nonsense and run the rules as written. He has established that strict adherence to the rules is a standard in his game, and you can and should hold him to it. If he's not required to meet his own standards, then neither are you.