Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7753589" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Question: How can anyone think that Gygax's DMG would support fudging combat outcomes?</p><p></p><p>Answer: It all depends on your interpretation of sentences like,</p><p></p><p>"As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game..."</p><p>"You have every right to overrule the dice at <strong>any</strong> time..."</p><p>"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."</p><p>"...but still the freakish roll of the dice...you should let such things pass...<strong>Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation</strong>"</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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 <em>B2 - Keep on the Borderlands</em>. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>You may consider the examples exclusive, in which any other application of <em>all</em> 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..."</p><p></p><p>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"."</p><p></p><p>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 <em>was</em> the story. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7753589, member: 6778044"] 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 [B]any[/B] 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...[B]Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation[/B]" 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 [I]B2 - Keep on the Borderlands[/I]. 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 [I]all[/I] 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 [I]was[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top