Everybody Cheats?

Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games found that everybody cheated. But the definition of what cheating is when it applies to role-playing games differs from other uses of the term. Does everyone really cheat in RPGs?

Yes, Everybody​

Gary Alan Fine's work, Shared Fantasy, came to the following conclusion:

Perhaps surprisingly, cheating in fantasy role-playing games is extremely common--almost everyone cheats and this dishonesty is implicitly condoned in most situation. The large majority of interviewees admitted to cheating, and in the games I played, I cheated as well.

Fine makes it a point of clarify that cheating doesn't carry quite the same implications in role-playing as it does in other games:

Since FRP players are not competing against each other, but are cooperating, cheating does not have the same effect on the game balance. For example, a player who cheats in claiming that he has rolled a high number while his character is fighting a dragon or alien spaceship not only helps himself, but also his party, since any member of the party might be killed. Thus the players have little incentive to prevent this cheating.

The interesting thing about cheating is that if everyone cheats, parity is maintained among the group. But when cheating is rampant, any player who adheres slavishly to die-roll results has "bad luck" with the dice. Cheating takes place in a variety of ways involving dice (the variable component PCs can't control), such as saying the dice is cocked, illegible, someone bumped the table, it rolled off a book or dice tray, etc.

Why Cheat?​

One of the challenges with early D&D is that co-creator Gary Gygax's design used rarity to make things difficult. This form of design reasoned that the odds against certain die rolls justified making powerful character builds rare, and it all began with character creation.

Character creation was originally 3d6 for each attribute, full stop. With the advent of computers, players could automate this rolling process by rapidly randomizing thousands of characters until they got the combination of numbers they wanted. These numbers dictated the PC's class (paladins, for example, required a very strict set of high attributes). Psionics too, in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, required a specific set of attributes that made it possible to spontaneously manifest psionic powers. Later forms of character generation introduced character choice: 4d6 assigned to certain attributes, a point buy system, etc. But in the early incarnations of the game, it was in the player's interest, if she wanted to play a paladin or to play a psionic, to roll a lot -- or just cheat (using the dice pictured above).

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 -- by creating advantage. PCs now have rules encouraging them to roll the dice twice, something they've been doing for decades with the right excuse.

When it comes to cheating, it seems like we've all been doing it. But given that we're all working together to have a good time, is it really cheating?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

It's cheating not to. But that's OK, because you're supposed to cheat, so you're not cheating... so... "Illogical, illogical. All units relate. All units. Norman, coordinate. "

It's not a fallacy. I happen to know a game where the rules allow you to cheat(it's not an RPG).

Is it SJG's 'Munchkin,' a card game about kids playing an RPG? (That is, through the distorted lens of memory, pretty darn realistic.)

But, yeah, as the final arbiter of the rules, the DM (and in most cases GM) can override the rules, which may involve an action exactly like cheating, but that is not cheating, merely a privilege accorded DMs (and often a really good idea).

 

[Maxperson]

Circular reasoning is a fallacy, though you probably intend to argue that your circular reasoning is not circular. Perhaps by cleverly insisting that it's not circular reasoning because it is in fact oval reasoning.

I'm not engaging any circular reasoning. There is a game where the rules allow "cheating."

Unless I am mistaken, you answered your own question: you engaged in that rule and cheated ergo you cheated.

But if it's a rule, it's not cheating. It's "cheating."

If that were the case, then we would not be at 30+ pages of listening to people bending over backwards to justify their cheating as GMs, would we?

You're kidding, right? This is the internet where you can get 30+ pages on which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Um, yes they were because the GM is being evasive about their cheating and shifting the goal posts to that end.

No goalpost is being moved, nor is even an iota of cheating happening. Nor for that matter is the DM being evasive. To be evasive, someone has to be inquiring about it.

False Equivalence? You asked if you were authorized to cheat whether or not it would be cheating. In my example, the parents authorized the kid to cheat. Your question did not stipulate a rules change.

It depends on what you meant by "parents let you cheat." If you meant that they didn't call out the kid when they saw the kid cheat, it's absolutely a False Equivalence. That's how I read your sentence. If on the other hand you mean let him "cheat" by changing the rules for him, then the kid wasn't cheating.

But isn't ignoring the rules part of Rule Zero? But you are right that cheating is different from a rules change. And that is part of my problem with arguing about Rule Zero. (1) It encompasses too many various game permissions (e.g., house rules, gm fiat, gm fudging/cheating, etc.) to be of any real practical use, and in so doing, (2) it imparts too much carte blanche authority to a singular figure (i.e., the GM). As it stands now in this thread, Rule Zero essentially amounts to the GM forcing the other plays to submit to their whims in a game of Calvin Ball while insisting that its for their own good. Such a rule probably made more sense in the early days when the game was far more ambiguous and unknown, with the GM being the only real expert on the rules, but that is less the case with how many games are currently played.

The DM is given quite a bit of power, and with that great power comes great responsibility. The DM has an obligation not to be a douche and abuse that power. Fudging isn't an abuse, and in 5e is actually a rule, so no Rule 0 is even required.

I would personally prefer if more RPGs made a distinction between House Rules/Game Hacks, GM Fiat, and GM Fudging, and possibly a few other permissions I am forgetting, instead of conflating all of them within the singular, but nebulous and potentially Social Contract-breaking, Rule Zero.

I can understand that. Some people would prefer games where there is no option for the DM to fudge or engage in those sorts of things. Me, I prefer games where it's possible. Responsible DM fiat has resulted in some of the most enjoyable games that I've played in.

 

[Maxperson]

It's cheating not to. But that's OK, because you're supposed to cheat, so you're not cheating... so... "Illogical, illogical. All units relate. All units. Norman, coordinate. "

lol

Is it SJG's 'Munchkin,' a card game about kids playing an RPG? (That is, through the distorted lens of memory, pretty darn realistic.)

No. The game I'm talking about is Illuminati from Steve Jackson Games. It has an optional rule that if invoked, says that you are allowed to cheat as long as you don't get caught. Then there's Cosmic Encounter which bills itself as the game that breaks its own rules.

But, yeah, as the final arbiter of the rules, the DM (and in most cases GM) can override the rules, which may involve an action exactly like cheating, but that is not cheating, merely a privilege accorded DMs (and often a really good idea).

Not exactly like cheating. The DM generally isn't doing it to gain unfair advantage. It's almost always for the enjoyment of the players.

 

[pemerton]

In 3e-4e-5e monster h.p. are standardized only if you want them to be. Ditto damage.

In 4e a monster stat block tells you what its hit points are. These are calculated by a formula that factors in monster level, monster role, and monster CON.

There is no provision in the rules for changing the hp without varying one or more of those parameters. There are some tables that systematically reduce monster hp in the interest of expediting combat resolution, but that's not something the rules contemplate.

And going the other way - increasing a monster's hp without increasing other stats - is really changing its role (say, form standard to elite), and there's good reason, if doing that, to make other concomitant changes, such as upping its action economy to elite levels, giving an appropriate XP award for an elite, etc.

In 4e most monster damage is listed as a die roll plus adds. And the rules make no provision for standardisation, although it probably wouldn't do any harm for a GM to just calculate and apply averages.

that is part of my problem with arguing about Rule Zero. (1) It encompasses too many various game permissions (e.g., house rules, gm fiat, gm fudging/cheating, etc.) to be of any real practical use, and in so doing, (2) it imparts too much carte blanche authority to a singular figure (i.e., the GM). As it stands now in this thread, Rule Zero essentially amounts to the GM forcing the other plays to submit to their whims in a game of Calvin Ball while insisting that its for their own good. Such a rule probably made more sense in the early days when the game was far more ambiguous and unknown, with the GM being the only real expert on the rules, but that is less the case with how many games are currently played.

As far as D&D rulebooks are concerned, the earliest time I know of that the rules gave the GM carte blanche to ignore dice rolls and dictate outcomes via fiat and fudging was in 2nd ed.

In Gygax's AD&D books, the role of the GM as arbiter is primarily amount managing the introduction of content when random rolls deliver undesired outcomes (I think I posted the relevant passages somewhere upthread). This makes sense in a game with a large amount of random content generation, some of which is meant to feed into the generation of challenges but which a GM is in a position to judge to be going too far in posing needless frustration (or, if we're talking about treasure placement, is going too far the other way in generosity). But when it comes to action resolution, the only example of GM arbitration that Gygax suggests is treating a death blow to the PC of a player who played well but gog unlucky as some sort of unconsciousness or maiming instead, and even there he stresses that the fiated consequence must take into consideration what the monster has done (ie won the combat vs that PC).

In Gygax's discussion of saving throws there is a brief discussion of the GM's authority to adjudicate the fiction (so eg being immersed in water helps with saving throws vs fireballs), and Moldvay Basic has a more extended discussion of this. But none of this is about fiating outcomes either - it's about adjudicating the ficiton in a system which is intended to make the fiction something the players engage with and exploit for advantage, and which doesn't have a generic resolution system. (Contrast, say, Burning Wheel, which does have a generic resolution system and in which the default rule is that if a player plays the fiction to advantage, s/he gets a bonus die - in that system, there's no need for some extensive GM authority to make up or tweak resolution systems.)

Nothing in early D&D rulebooks suggests that the GM has the sort of carte blanche that contemporary rule zero advocates content for. That is an artefact of later books reflecting typical 80s/90s RPG sensibilities. (The same thing is found in White Wolf's "golden rule".)

 

[Lanefan]

In 4e a monster stat block tells you what its hit points are. These are calculated by a formula that factors in monster level, monster role, and monster CON.

Though I'd known monster hit points were locked in in 4e module write-ups (as has been the norm since day 1) I never noticed until now that 4e locks monster h.p. in at the MM level as well. 3e and 5e give a suggested number but also give the dice and bonuses if you want to roll yer own.

There is no provision in the rules for changing the hp without varying one or more of those parameters. There are some tables that systematically reduce monster hp in the interest of expediting combat resolution, but that's not something the rules contemplate.

Seems a little buttoned-down, that there's no ranges given.

Were it me I'd vary them up a little, if only to throw off MM-savvy players from knowing exactly how many h.p. a foe has.

And going the other way - increasing a monster's hp without increasing other stats - is really changing its role (say, form standard to elite), and there's good reason, if doing that, to make other concomitant changes, such as upping its action economy to elite levels, giving an appropriate XP award for an elite, etc.

Depends how big a change you make, I suppose. Going up by 10% - who cares? Going up by double - yeah, now you're into a different pay grade.

But surely 4e gave the DM a method or guidelines for calculating xp for altered or homebrew monsters, didn't it? If yes, and the change is significant enough to warrant a revised xp award, why not just use those guidelines?

In 4e most monster damage is listed as a die roll plus adds. And the rules make no provision for standardisation, although it probably wouldn't do any harm for a GM to just calculate and apply averages.

Yeah, I was thinking of 5e there, which does give a standardized damage value followed by a range.

As far as D&D rulebooks are concerned, the earliest time I know of that the rules gave the GM carte blanche to ignore dice rolls and dictate outcomes via fiat and fudging was in 2nd ed.

Which in a way isn't surprising. Original 2e was in many ways a codification of what had become quasi-standard practices during 1e's run (well, that and some knee-jerk reaction to the Satanic panic), and DM fudging was certainly common enough long before 2e came around.

In Gygax's AD&D books, the role of the GM as arbiter is primarily amount managing the introduction of content when random rolls deliver undesired outcomes (I think I posted the relevant passages somewhere upthread). This makes sense in a game with a large amount of random content generation, some of which is meant to feed into the generation of challenges but which a GM is in a position to judge to be going too far in posing needless frustration (or, if we're talking about treasure placement, is going too far the other way in generosity). But when it comes to action resolution, the only example of GM arbitration that Gygax suggests is treating a death blow to the PC of a player who played well but gog unlucky as some sort of unconsciousness or maiming instead, and even there he stresses that the fiated consequence must take into consideration what the monster has done (ie won the combat vs that PC).

In Gygax's discussion of saving throws there is a brief discussion of the GM's authority to adjudicate the fiction (so eg being immersed in water helps with saving throws vs fireballs), and Moldvay Basic has a more extended discussion of this. But none of this is about fiating outcomes either - it's about adjudicating the ficiton in a system which is intended to make the fiction something the players engage with and exploit for advantage, and which doesn't have a generic resolution system. (Contrast, say, Burning Wheel, which does have a generic resolution system and in which the default rule is that if a player plays the fiction to advantage, s/he gets a bonus die - in that system, there's no need for some extensive GM authority to make up or tweak resolution systems.)

Nothing in early D&D rulebooks suggests that the GM has the sort of carte blanche that contemporary rule zero advocates content for. That is an artefact of later books reflecting typical 80s/90s RPG sensibilities. (The same thing is found in White Wolf's "golden rule".)

And all of this is somewhat countered in the 1e DMG when Gygax in effect says to the DM that it's your game to design and play as you like. (e.g. see the first couple of paragraphs in the preface - he sets this tone with the first words in the book!) This in effect gives the DM carte blanche to kitbash, to tweak or change or ignore rules, and to make it "suit [your] personal tastes".

The next paragraph does go on to caution the DM against going overboard with such things, but the gate's already open by this point.

Lanefan

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Nothing in early D&D rulebooks suggests that the GM has the sort of carte blanche that contemporary rule zero advocates content for. That is an artefact of later books reflecting typical 80s/90s RPG sensibilities. (The same thing is found in White Wolf's "golden rule".)

In the OD&D brown box, the introduction specifically says the rules are guidelines, and the word guidelines is underlined.

The Holmes basic introduction has similar guidance.

In the AD&D DMG it specifically says, “You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.”

There are a few examples given and some guidelines both for and against the players.

It’s well documented that in Gary’s own campaigns that he used a much simpler set of rules that not only differed from any of the published versions, but changed frequently and often changed to suit the given circumstances at the table.

It was reinforced at the time that the DM has control of the game, in Dragon magazine as well as Gary’s own commentary in the rulebooks. Personally, I think the more explicit declarations in the DMG were indicative of Gary’s own thoughts on the matter, as it was a pretty common approach of his to clarify in print what it seems he believed was obvious in the first place, but was being questioned in the gaming community, either directly or indirectly through articles, 3rd party publications, etc.

I think 2e went farther in clarifying what had become a larger debate. Because if the intention was to follow the rules closely, I don’t find it very likely that they would have added rules that would take away that adherence to the written rules. On the contrary, I remember an interview with one of the early TSR designers saying that by introducing more rules they were empowering the rules lawyers over the DM, and reducing their ability to adjudicate as they wished, to which Gary concurred.

The whole design of the game at the time kept the bulk of the rules out of the player’s hands, again in part I believe, because the adjudication and application of the rules was to be left in the hands of the DM and not solely a dependency on RAW or to the dice.

 

[Maxperson]

In Gygax's AD&D books, the role of the GM as arbiter is primarily amount managing the introduction of content when random rolls deliver undesired outcomes (I think I posted the relevant passages somewhere upthread). This makes sense in a game with a large amount of random content generation, some of which is meant to feed into the generation of challenges but which a GM is in a position to judge to be going too far in posing needless frustration (or, if we're talking about treasure placement, is going too far the other way in generosity). But when it comes to action resolution, the only example of GM arbitration that Gygax suggests is treating a death blow to the PC of a player who played well but gog unlucky as some sort of unconsciousness or maiming instead, and even there he stresses that the fiated consequence must take into consideration what the monster has done (ie won the combat vs that PC).

No. It happens in 1e just like I showed you early on.

Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it.

He gives you the ultimate power, not just to interpret the rules, but to change them. Then he gives advice not to do it lightly since the players expect not to play a game made up on the spot. He doesn't say you can't make up stuff on the spot, because he just gave you the power to do that, but he advises the DM to really think about it and use that power sparingly. Then he goes on to reaffirm that it's the DM's game, though, and it happens the way he imagines and CREATES it. That's carte blanche to do whatever you want.

He also says.

Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability. As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them, systems devised seemingly to make the game drag for players, rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favor of the mundane and ordinary.

Here he is saying that while he is making these rules for the DM and players, he wouldn't want anyone telling him exactly how to handle things, and that he understands that he can't think of everything. Those comments tell the DM that they should make the game(including the rules) their own. He follows those statements with advice to the DM to keep an eye out for things that pull the game down for the group so the DM can change them. I bolded that part for you. More carte blanche for the DM.

You ignored it before, and I expect you to ignore it again, like you do to anything post refutes you completely. I'll still point out to the others in the thread, though, when what you say is incorrect.

 

[pemerton]

In the OD&D brown box, the introduction specifically says the rules are guidelines, and the word guidelines is underlined.

But the game is described as a wargame. The rules are "guidelines" for adjudicaiton of the ficiton, of PC development, etc. There is not the least hint that the GM might just make up outcomes because they are "good for the story"/"good for the fun of the participants".

In the AD&D DMG it specifically says, “You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.”

And he then goes on to give two examples: allowing the PCs (and thus players) to discover a secret door leading to a new dungeon area (ie content introduction); and treating a death result against a skilled player who got unlucky as maiming or unconsciousness instead (which I mentioned in my post).

He also says that the GM's adjudication should take into account what the monster has done in reducing a PC to zero hp; and that the GM should always give a monster an even break. There is not the least suggestion that something like the White Wolf "golden rule" should apply - ie that the GM is expected or entitled to fiat outcomes in the interests of "the story". That doesn't come into D&D books until 2nd ed AD&D. (When the game is not presented as anything like a wargame.)

It’s well documented that in Gary’s own campaigns that he used a much simpler set of rules that not only differed from any of the published versions, but changed frequently and often changed to suit the given circumstances at the table.

<snip>

if the intention was to follow the rules closely, I don’t find it very likely that they would have added rules that would take away that adherence to the written rules.

He gives you the ultimate power, not just to interpret the rules, but to change them.

Gygax in effect says to the DM that it's your game to design and play as you like. (e.g. see the first couple of paragraphs in the preface - he sets this tone with the first words in the book!)

None of this is relevant to what I posted. I didn't say anything about following the rules closely or not changing the rules. I talked about the sort of adjudication that the GM was expected to engage in.

For instance, how can anyone think that Gygax's DMG would support fudging combat outcomes when, in the first page of the introduction (those opening paragraphs that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentions), he says that while a GM is entitled to disregard a positive wandering monster roll where the players are playing well but getting unlucky and hence having their session spoiled, a GM should not have the wanderers appear and then allow the PCs to easily defeat them or escape from them, because that would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game."

What are those precepts? That players who play well should have their PCs propser, and that those who play with little skill should have their PCs suffer the consequences. This could hardly be clearer across his PHB and DMG.

The precepts that underpin "rule zero" as some in this thread are presenting it - that is, that every outcome at every moment of play, that the signficance of every player decision and every player die roll is, in principal, a matter over which the GM is entitled to exercise unreserved fiat - are not found at all in Gygax's AD&D books.

His sole focus is on (what he calls) "skilled play".

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not engaging any circular reasoning. There is a game where the rules allow "cheating."

If it allows cheating, then cheating occurs and it remains cheating. That cheating forms part of the game does not alter the nature of the act.

But if it's a rule, it's not cheating. It's "cheating."

That's double-speak.

I can understand that. Some people would prefer games where there is no option for the DM to fudge or engage in those sorts of things. Me, I prefer games where it's possible. Responsible DM fiat has resulted in some of the most enjoyable games that I've played in.

It's not a matter of whether the GM can or cannot engage in these things, but that these things should be independently delineated and justified. If we presume that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules, then some GM Fiat is necessary. Groups and individuals may prefer changes to the rules that are more suitable to their games. That's fine. But investing this into a singular person who can change this on their whims - whether it is done for the "greater good" (Greek chorus chants: the greater good) of the group or not - sits at odds with my own sensibilities that seeks a greater democratization of power and a deconstruction of the GM as Game God.

It absolutely sends shivers down my spine every time I hear a game is referred to as the "DM's game" and not "the group's game," as if ownership belonged to the GM. It suggests a completely different, if not archaic, alignment of core gaming values.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But the game is described as a wargame. The rules are "guidelines" for adjudicaiton of the ficiton, of PC development, etc. There is not the least hint that the GM might just make up outcomes because they are "good for the story"/"good for the fun of the participants".

And he then goes on to give two examples: allowing the PCs (and thus players) to discover a secret door leading to a new dungeon area (ie content introduction); and treating a death result against a skilled player who got unlucky as maiming or unconsciousness instead (which I mentioned in my post).

He also says that the GM's adjudication should take into account what the monster has done in reducing a PC to zero hp; and that the GM should always give a monster an even break. There is not the least suggestion that something like the White Wolf "golden rule" should apply - ie that the GM is expected or entitled to fiat outcomes in the interests of "the story". That doesn't come into D&D books until 2nd ed AD&D. (When the game is not presented as anything like a wargame.)

None of this is relevant to what I posted. I didn't say anything about following the rules closely or not changing the rules. I talked about the sort of adjudication that the GM was expected to engage in.

For instance, how can anyone think that Gygax's DMG would support fudging combat outcomes when, in the first page of the introduction (those opening paragraphs that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentions), he says that while a GM is entitled to disregard a positive wandering monster roll where the players are playing well but getting unlucky and hence having their session spoiled, a GM should not have the wanderers appear and then allow the PCs to easily defeat them or escape from them, because that would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game."

What are those precepts? That players who play well should have their PCs propser, and that those who play with little skill should have their PCs suffer the consequences. This could hardly be clearer across his PHB and DMG.

The precepts that underpin "rule zero" as some in this thread are presenting it - that is, that every outcome at every moment of play, that the signficance of every player decision and every player die roll is, in principal, a matter over which the GM is entitled to exercise unreserved fiat - are not found at all in Gygax's AD&D books.

His sole focus is on (what he calls) "skilled play".

Question: How can anyone think that Gygax's DMG would support fudging combat outcomes?

Answer: It all depends on your interpretation of sentences like,

"As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game..."
"You have every right to overrule the dice at any time..."
"You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides."
"...but still the freakish roll of the dice...you should let such things pass...Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation"

What about in the context of the punitive approach that he recommends you take against (cheaters) people who read the books reserved for the DM in taking away a magic item or two?

How about in the context of advice like, "Throughout all of this - making decisions, playing roles, handling monsters - the DM must remember that he or she is in control. The DM is the judge, and it is his or her game.The DM should listen to the players and weigh their cases fairly when disagreements arise, but the final decision belongs to the DM. The Dungeon Master's word is law!" (Gary Gygax in B2 - Keep on the Borderlands.

To me, what seems consistent in the advice is to "be fair" and "never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions (in overruling the dice). "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!" He goes so far as to say "Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with..." is a system shock roll to see if a character is resurrected. That is, by implication "any other die roll" may be tampered with. Which is consistent with "you have every right to overrule the dice at any time" but with this "one exception" which he explicitly states as "the one die roll that you should never tamper with.

You may consider the examples exclusive, in which any other application of all doesn't apply. Others may consider the examples inclusive and that "all" means, well, all. His further writing in that very section supports that when you get to "one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with..."

You state: "There is not the least suggestion that something like the White Wolf "golden rule" should apply - ie that the GM is expected or entitled to fiat outcomes in the interests of "the story"."

I think that an example like, "you may wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining" is saying exactly that. Something that will "be especially entertaining" in the context of "the story." Because at the time, that was the story.

You ask "how can anyone think that?" But many, such as myself, would ask "how can anyone not?" While I don't remember a huge debate about this back in the day, for those that did debate it, the fact that 2e more explicitly stated it might be seen as validation that we were understanding the guidance of Gary in the manner he intended. Regardless, the way the game is written, it's not really a question of what Gary intended, it's a question of what each individual DM intends. because what is clear to me is that the rules state, in many different ways, that the DM is in full control of the game and the rules.

The fact is, the rules aren't crystal clear, like many folks would like to believe. I'm not saying you are wrong in your interpretation of what Gary writes. Because it's a completely valid way to read the rules that way. But I also think it's a completely valid way to read it the way that I and others read it as well. And ultimately the only "rule 0" that matters is the one at the table you're sitting at. Back in the day that rule 0 was determined "solely by the DM." Nowadays it would be considered more appropriate for it to be determined by the table as a whole, but the DM might carry more weight, or at the very least be a tie-breaker.

Do I think Gary fudged rolls? Absolutely. In later interviews he even explicitly stated he did, but usually in the context of when he accidentally made an encounter too difficult or similar situations. To me, this discussion (and usually which side of the interpretation fence a player falls on) is all dependent upon trust and responsibility.

If the DM accepts the responsibility that it is their job to be fair and impartial, that they aren't playing against the PCs and that their "absolute authority" is granted solely for the purpose of creating an enjoyable experience for the players, and that something like fudging the dice is a circumstance reserved for a (hopefully) rare circumstance that it's compensating for a mistake that the DM themselves made, then there is generally no problem, and no accusations of cheating.

On the other hand, if the DM takes this as the authority to do it their way, with or without consideration of the players, their characters, or what makes the experience enjoyable to them... Frankly, I think that's a bad DM who is not accepting their responsibility in the game. But there are undoubtedly DMs like that, and in those circumstances, a strict adherence to the written rules and die rolls becomes an aid in ensuring that the DM is "fair."

Regardless, what is and isn't considered cheating is determined by the group playing the game within the context of the rules. For example, if you're playing baseball, spitballs and the like are against the rules, and therefore cheating. If you choose as a group to play "1910 rules" or simply state that the rule about spitballs doesn't apply, then the use of a spitball is no longer cheating. It's within the rules. D&D is no different. If you sit down at my table, you clearly believe that if we're playing AD&D and I, as a DM, fudge die rolls, that I'm cheating. However, if you sit down and I explicitly tell you that at this table I reserve the right to fudge the die rolls (however rare it might be), and you choose to stay and play anyway, then it is not cheating, and that you've accepted it as so within the game at that table.

I do think that you're right in that the general approach of the game is that when you as a DM decide that a die roll is required, that you are generally expected to follow the results of the die roll.

But I also think that fudging, if used at all, should be within the context of what's fair first, and then taking into account the story/narrative/flow of the game depending on play style. The rules, as I read them, indicate that it's best to follow the written rules without modification the majority of the time. That "fudging" rolls is better done in the context of providing situational modifiers as appropriate before the roll, rather than altering it after its done. But, it's made clear that the DM has the ability to retroactively alter, or outright ignore, the roll of the die if they determine that it's necessary. This is in the context that this is a fantasy RPG and not a wargame. The rules are not absolute, but are guidelines, a framework, a "best practice" for almost every situation, but that that no rule can address every situation in a game as complex and free-form as a fantasy RPG.