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
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: 7753672" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>I'm still not sure where you're seeing this. </p><p></p><p>One of the examples in particular is specifically about combat:</p><p>"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such thins pass...<strong>Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation</strong>."</p><p></p><p>He goes on to say that there should be consequences if you are choosing to overrule the death of the character, but I think this is another place where it's pretty clear that the primary precept in the game in regards to the DM and the rules is that the DM has full control over the rules, and that you can alter them as written.</p><p></p><p>So one thing that comes to mind is that the interpretation of the rules is probably more important than the intent in many cases. I really don't know the intent Gary had at the time. I know in interviews he stated that he did fudge things when necessary. This included in combat situations, such as when he had designed an encounter as overpowered, which is one of the more common reasons I think DMs sometime fudge. His approach was usually to reduce the power of the encounter, such as reducing hit points, but there's a fine line between reducing hit points and increasing the damage done by the PCs. Most call this fudging.</p><p></p><p>Could be be wrong about his own game? Sure, why not. I think that it's not all that uncommon for people to state they believe one thing, and yet be proven that they believe another when you challenge that belief sufficiently, even if many won't admit it. Can I definitely say that Gary's comments regarding fudging in 2006 would have matched what he would have said in 1976? Of course not, people's opinions change.</p><p></p><p>You're adamant in your reading of the DMG as being "accurate" and I'm just as adamant in mine. It is quite possible for both "sides" to be right.</p><p></p><p>Regardless, I'm not really attempting to change your opinion on what Gary wrote or meant. While it is an interesting debate, ultimately the only thing to me that really matters in regards to the rules and what is cheating and what is not is what happens at my table. The rules as written are what they are. The rules as interpreted, modified, and agreed upon at the table is what is important.</p><p></p><p>My point simply remains that to a large number of gamers, particularly D&D players, over decades believe that the rules specifically give the DM the right to fudge rolls. This believe/approach was apparently a big enough thing in the pre-internet days that the authors of the game explicitly codified it into the rules. The primary author of the game also acknowledged that he did occasionally fudge as well. So I don't believe it is wrong, nor do I believe it's the only correct interpretation of the rules. But in the groups that accept this interpretation as correct, they are following the rules, and by following the rules, not cheating.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7753672, member: 6778044"] I'm still not sure where you're seeing this. One of the examples in particular is specifically about combat: "Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such thins pass...[B]Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation[/B]." He goes on to say that there should be consequences if you are choosing to overrule the death of the character, but I think this is another place where it's pretty clear that the primary precept in the game in regards to the DM and the rules is that the DM has full control over the rules, and that you can alter them as written. So one thing that comes to mind is that the interpretation of the rules is probably more important than the intent in many cases. I really don't know the intent Gary had at the time. I know in interviews he stated that he did fudge things when necessary. This included in combat situations, such as when he had designed an encounter as overpowered, which is one of the more common reasons I think DMs sometime fudge. His approach was usually to reduce the power of the encounter, such as reducing hit points, but there's a fine line between reducing hit points and increasing the damage done by the PCs. Most call this fudging. Could be be wrong about his own game? Sure, why not. I think that it's not all that uncommon for people to state they believe one thing, and yet be proven that they believe another when you challenge that belief sufficiently, even if many won't admit it. Can I definitely say that Gary's comments regarding fudging in 2006 would have matched what he would have said in 1976? Of course not, people's opinions change. You're adamant in your reading of the DMG as being "accurate" and I'm just as adamant in mine. It is quite possible for both "sides" to be right. Regardless, I'm not really attempting to change your opinion on what Gary wrote or meant. While it is an interesting debate, ultimately the only thing to me that really matters in regards to the rules and what is cheating and what is not is what happens at my table. The rules as written are what they are. The rules as interpreted, modified, and agreed upon at the table is what is important. My point simply remains that to a large number of gamers, particularly D&D players, over decades believe that the rules specifically give the DM the right to fudge rolls. This believe/approach was apparently a big enough thing in the pre-internet days that the authors of the game explicitly codified it into the rules. The primary author of the game also acknowledged that he did occasionally fudge as well. So I don't believe it is wrong, nor do I believe it's the only correct interpretation of the rules. But in the groups that accept this interpretation as correct, they are following the rules, and by following the rules, not cheating. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top