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.
This is one thing that I just disagree with. If the rules allow something, then by definition it cannot be cheating. The context of cheating often centers around not altering the roll of the dice. You get what you get. However, the halfling lucky trait says that if you roll a 1, you can reroll it. That is not cheating in any way (well, you might "cheat death" as a result, but that's not the kind of cheating we're talking about).
If the rules explicitly say, "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to" and the group decides this is a rule that they accept, then it is not cheating for the DM to do so. It's that simple.
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.
Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that such a game is not a valid approach, nor is it cheating in any way. The fact is, that even within the context of AD&D (and others from the era, like the Holmes basic set) that specifically spell out the game as the "DM's game" it's still done so in the context of fairness and a responsibility to the players. It's a, "hey do you want to come over to my place and play in my world?" sort of "DM's game" and not an "I can do anything I want and screw you over" sort of game.
I think that over the years, bad DMs, along with well-intentioned guidance has given the idea of the "DM's game" a bad reputation. But what exactly does it mean? I (and my players) consider it the DM's game in the sense that I decide what setting we're playing in, what races and classes are allowed, and what rules in general we are using. We have extensive house rules, most of which I've written. I take the responsibility of being the DM seriously, and spend a lot of time working on things like rules, story arcs within the world, and just generally being prepared to make each session fun and exciting. And yet, the last session is as good an example as any as to what that looks like in practice in my game.
I currently run two nights, and a couple of the players play both nights. In each group, the players have multiple characters, and we have about 4 or 5 different character parties right now, all involved in events in the same time and location in the campaign. They often come together and then head off in different parties as the campaign unfolds. I see my job as handling the events and activities of the world and its inhabitants. In this example, one relatively important/powerful NPC was killed, and two others escaped, an attack by the Cult of the Dragon. The attack happened at a time and place where the PCs weren't present, but when things went awry, their attention was drawn to it. They have determined that the two that escaped used a magical painting to teleport to Waterdeep some 700 miles away.
On the other night, there are some other events entirely unrelated to this. The party on that night, most of whom do not live in the village, have determined that what they discovered is of importance to the village and wish to tell the authorities, which they do. Several of them also decide that as travelers, that the events of the night indicate that there are dangers here in town that they don't see any point in sticking around and they would like to leave and not wait for the caravan that they've been traveling with. So they head off to go shopping for supplies.
So in this session, two of the characters who are shopping for supplies, do so in the business of one of the PCs from the second night. So the first part of the session is the two PCs from night two at first interacting with a PC from night one, and then as they learn that these two travelers have information that may be of interest, fetching several of the other PCs (including two of the PCs of the players who are currently playing their PCs from night two). Probably a quarter of the session was spent with me as a spectator to the discussions and debates between the characters. After the two travelers left, further debate continued, and they gathered some of the other PCs that weren't yet present to decide on the best courses of action (there were several, and the parties were being formed in the moment).
The decision was made to then focus on the group of PCs that have decided to use the painting to head to Waterdeep to see if the two survived and what they can learn. This decision was made in part because one of the players is moving across the country, and he will have one session left before leaving. So I suggested we address the story arc that is most interesting to him right now.
So halfway through the session, where I have yet to really provide any input as DM other than to suggest that we do what he'd like, we find the PCs heading to Waterdeep. One of the players, however, has decided that none of his characters feel that they want to be involved in this particular direction. They are going to be busy addressing other pressing issues (of which this upcoming session will be focused on, because the friend that is moving won't be here this week). So they find that they painting deposits them into the sewers (they had already determined this). So I have a chance to explain to them what their options are (left or right, basically), and then what they find once they choose a direction. There was a bit of discussion amongst the characters disagreeing on how the character that opted to lead the way came to his decision. They found a secret door which led them into a tavern, which, they surmised, correctly, that the two they are following used to exit the sewers. It led into the Thirsty Throat, and the player who didn't have a PC decided he wanted to play the proprietor. So I gave him the description and personality, and a small bit of information, and now I'm once again the spectator as the PCs attempt to convince this man that they are in fact friends of the two they are looking for, and that if he knows anything (he does) he should help them. The information I provided is just enough for the player to handle the scene, but also generates more questions as to why he told them what he did and the manner in which he did it. The session ended shortly after they left the tavern through a secret exit he provided.
So in "my game" I, as DM, often am little more than a spectator or audient enjoying a play.
If you ask any of the players, there is no question that it's "the DM's game." In fact, it's not an uncommon comment for any of them (or players no longer currently in the campaign) to refer to it is "your game" or "Randy's game" etc. While I maintain it as "our game" when I talk about it or reference it, they always refer to it as my (the DM's) game. They are fully onboard with the idea that I have full veto power over character creation/background ideas, that the limitations set within my ruleset are how we play (ASIs are +1, not +2, you can't take a feat instead of one, gaining feats happen at different levels, there are save and die things like poison, critical hits can bypass hit points and potentially kill, or at least seriously endanger any level character, etc.). At the same time, I fully recognize that any rule, limitation, restriction, etc. that I want to impose must be accepted by the players at the table. In addition, like almost all of the rules of the game, I don't consider them absolute and I'm willing to consider exceptions given the circumstances and wishes of the players. The purpose of all of these are simply to provide an immersive experience for them to develop their characters and white their stories. While I can't say that some of them wouldn't want to play, say, a dragonborn, which don't appear in my campaign, they accept that the limitation is there for a purpose and they have plenty of other options and choices and run with it.
I have no doubt that "my game" is not the game for everyone. I continue to approach it in the same manner I always have, based on my interpretation/understanding of the game as a combination of the Holmes basic/B2/AD&D DMG. The specific mechanics might change, but the underlying approach remains the same. I view the rules as being there to support the narrative, not define it. The narrative is written largely by the players, with me usually reacting to what they do, but often interjecting a new event, challenge, or whatever. I personally like there to be an underlying rule for everything, because it helps me adjudicate things better, and I think players respond better knowing that there are rules that define how things will work. But they also know that the rules are flexible to suit the circumstances.
For example, in one particular encounter, a rather large and strong PC decided to jump off the stairs and kick a drow in an attempt to knock them down and eventually disable them to question them. He rolled a 20. In circumstances like this in our rules, the drow gets a saving throw, primarily to avoid being knocked prone. It rolled a 1. Normally he would roll double damage, and the drow would be injured from such a blow, and there's even a possibility of death from it. All of that really just felt irrelevant. My ruling was simple - you've crushed the drow's ribcage, and he crumples to the floor, coughing up blood, and clearly dying. The PC had seconds to try to extract any information from it before he died.
Did I fudge? I don't know. I didn't change the die rolls, but I skipped any additional rolling proscribed by the rules, going instead with a dramatic scene that made sense. Is it cheating? I don't see how it could possibly be described as such in almost any game, but in our game we explicitly understand that the rules are their as guidelines, and this didn't really need any guidelines. A 6'6" muscular human just crushed a drow.
When I asked about the ruling at the end of the session, it was unanimous that it's exactly what should have happened. It was also unanimous that there was no reason for me to question whether the ruling was appropriate. Their expectation is that I will determine what happens, with help from the rules, the dice, and considering the circumstances as described by me and them. They don't care what combination of those apply. The general consensus is that the less the players have to consult the rules, the better. They don't want to focus on rules or "play a game." They want to role-play their characters and their story within the setting I provide. That is, it's left entirely up to me to handle the rules and the adjudication and application of them. I don't think it gets to be more of a "DM's game" than that. But they don't want a "story-teller" game either. They want to know that there are underlying rules that help define the world, understanding that there may be exceptions to those rules. Most of the time, we try to work those exceptions back into the rules themselves.
There are three players in particular that are happy to work on tweaking rules, play-testing them specifically, and we agree that we should be able to mechanically represent how I run the game within a set of rules so others could use them if they want. And these three in particular help adjudicate when necessary, and help the other players (especially those that don't care to engage the rules), know what they should be doing. Our rules do change quite frequently. While we do let everybody know when something has changed, and they always have access to the rulebook online. But several of them really don't have an interest in them (and probably would really enjoy a story-teller game, one in particular has never really played D&D but loved playing Vampire: The Masquerade). So when something comes up that might have changed, we tell them what, and why, and the answer is almost always, "Oh, OK. That makes sense," and that's the end of it.
Hand waving away the entire discussion convinces no one.
