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: 7753675" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Actually, one of the rules actually being discussed are the rules that state the DM is allowed to "fudge" or to modify or ignore a die roll in the moment. Whether that's the interpretation that the table has of the 1e DMG, or the more explicit rules in later DMGs, even if it's simply a house rule.</p><p></p><p>We are discussing this rule in the context that everyone at the table agrees to abide by that rule - that is, the DM has the right to use it, and the players will abide by the results, whether they were determined by die roll or DM. This is probably the most important aspect of this discussion: <em>The rule is agreed upon as a rule by the table</em>. At this point it is a rule of the game. As much as saying you roll 4d6 drop 1 for an ability score. Oh, but your table uses point buy? Why isn't that cheating? Wasn't that written into the rules just so players could have more powerful characters? </p><p></p><p>The DM is not abandoning any rule, they are engaging a different rule.</p><p></p><p>The DM may be doing it for all sorts of reasons. However, in the context of the rules, the DM doesn't have to justify it, the rule simply states they can do it.</p><p></p><p>The idea that it being secret is wrong is also false. For a game of imagination, many people find they don't want a look behind the curtain because it ruins the immersion. We disagree, and have regular conversations about what I do. If I fudge a roll, I have no problem telling them. "Wow, that's the second critical in a row. How many hit points do you have left? One? That seems a bit harsh." I might rule something else, although most of the time I leave such decisions up to the player. In one case, I had trapped a sarcophagus. It was a simple trap, and they had been in the room several times and decided that it was too dangerous to deal with it, and felt there was nothing of value. Then, weeks later, they decided to return and open it. The tomb had been largely plundered before them, and it was clear that a great many much higher level characters had all met their end in the tomb. But they decided to do it. They were very clear that any dangers in this tomb that remained were far above their abilities.</p><p></p><p>Both characters took massive damage, but one was clearly not going to make it. I suggested that perhaps she suffered a significant injury, and he said, "no, I was down low, working my dagger into the seam and my face was 5 inches from it." So she was dying, and the other characters had a chance to get to town to see if they could bring somebody back to save her, but at that point it was just a matter of time. But it turned into a two-day ordeal and was much, much more dramatic than a simple, "you've died." </p><p></p><p>One of the responsibilities of a DM, even back in the AD&D days, is to abide by the rules of the table. Although AD&D explicitly grants the authority over everything, even altering a die roll, the fact is, if the players don't agree to those rules, then the DM either has to change it, find a new table, or yes, cheat. And I agree, if you sat at my table and I agreed that I would not fudge die rolls, and I did anyway, you have every right be be angry because that's just wrong.</p><p></p><p>But what if I, as a DM, don't fudge. It's not something I've ever done, and I sit down at a table where the players tell me they don't want their characters to die, and they don't like resurrection? Sure, you could say D&D isn't the game for them, but I disagree. One of the original precepts of the game is "make it your own." It can be just about anything. You could write some new rules, but not everybody is good at writing rules. Also, rules for something that has to account for an endless number of variables can be difficult to write. It's far easier to allow the DM to adjust to the circumstances when necessary to ensure that the heroes always survive. It could be modifying the encounter difficulty, having a rescuer at the last minute, or a heroic moment, whatever. In most cases it's probably going to be just adjusting a die roll here or there to ensure that the combat is intense, but not lethal.</p><p></p><p>How is that cheating? It's not.</p><p></p><p>I do find it interesting that the primary rule that folks seem to hold onto is the die roll. While there are certainly groups that like more or less GM input into their games (which will vary based on the rules in play), the only thing that seems to be consistently labeled as "cheating" is die rolling. To me, at least in the context of D&D, the innovation of the game design is that it wasn't 100% dependent upon the rules. That the rules weren't rules but guidelines and tools to help the DM adjudicate whatever craziness the players come up with. Yes, for consistency I think it's important to follow the rules probably 99% of the time. In theory a better written set of rules would require deviating from the rules less frequently. But consider the directions game design has taken since D&D was released. Everything from Apocalypse Now-based games, storytelling games, rules intensive games like Hackmaster, Pathfinder, and D&D 3 and 4e.</p><p></p><p>What's unique about RPGs, at least what I found unique in the Holmes basic/AD&D that I started with, is that the most important part of the game is what happens in the game. It has been called many things - the fiction, story, narrative, etc. Whether explicitly or implicitly, that's always been there. The "adventure" is what the game is about. Every other game I'd ever played was all about the rules. The rules of the game tell you what you can do and when you can do it. D&D was different. While the rules were there to make the game possible, you were also encouraged to modify them to suit your needs. As a DM it was all about creating an exciting experience for the players. The rules were malleable, you could pick and choose what you wanted. As a player, you didn't really need to know many rules at all. You needed to know what die to roll to attempt something (although the DM could tell you if you didn't know), and you needed to understand a few simply concepts like hit points. You had some things you were good at, based on what you picked as a race and class, along with a handful of restrictions. Even more amazing - it wasn't competitive, it was cooperative. It was about working together as a team to overcome challenges, and you didn't have to worry about whether you were the "best" fighter. You were who you were, and all you had to do is tell the DM what it was you wanted to do.</p><p></p><p>So to me it was extremely clear that as a DM, my sole job was to provide an interesting and exciting adventure. The rules were important, but not the focus of the game. While that may or may not have been the intent of the designers, that's what I (we) took out of it. And it's clear based on the many, many people I've met, chatted with, and played with, not to mention the amazing breadth of RPG design it spawned, that I'm not the only one.</p><p></p><p>Plain and simple, the DMs job is to provide the adventure. The rules, as we understood them, allowed the DM to have control over every aspect of the game, including the dice, to ensure that the players are having an exciting adventure. It's that simple to me. </p><p></p><p>I totally recognize that there are others feel completely different. Even from when I started playing there I have known players that like to master the rules of the game. Over the years I admit that I've had my own "RPG snob" attitude towards munchkinizers, min/maxers, power gamers, or whatever they might be called. There are, of course, all sorts of points in the middle. The real point, for me, is that there isn't one "proper" way to play D&D, or most RPGs.</p><p></p><p>While I say that I prefer the Gygaxian authoritative DM model, it's really in regards to the setting and adjudication of the rules. The rules in play are always a matter of agreement by all those at the table, and I'm always open to potential exceptions in my campaign as well. My role as a DM is always one in service of the players, and the rules of the table. For example, I have never, ever, fudged a die roll at a table where a player stated that they objected to that, and I ask.</p><p></p><p>But at a table like mine at home, the player's expectations of my job are not rule-focused. The rules and the dice are not the controlling factors at our table, and that's entirely player preference. That doesn't mean the dice rolls mean less, but they are but one of many tools we use to make the game work. And not one of the many, many players that I've DMed would agree that my following the rules that we agreed upon at the table is cheating. Because it's not. Cheating is breaking the rules, not adhering to them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7753675, member: 6778044"] Actually, one of the rules actually being discussed are the rules that state the DM is allowed to "fudge" or to modify or ignore a die roll in the moment. Whether that's the interpretation that the table has of the 1e DMG, or the more explicit rules in later DMGs, even if it's simply a house rule. We are discussing this rule in the context that everyone at the table agrees to abide by that rule - that is, the DM has the right to use it, and the players will abide by the results, whether they were determined by die roll or DM. This is probably the most important aspect of this discussion: [I]The rule is agreed upon as a rule by the table[/I]. At this point it is a rule of the game. As much as saying you roll 4d6 drop 1 for an ability score. Oh, but your table uses point buy? Why isn't that cheating? Wasn't that written into the rules just so players could have more powerful characters? The DM is not abandoning any rule, they are engaging a different rule. The DM may be doing it for all sorts of reasons. However, in the context of the rules, the DM doesn't have to justify it, the rule simply states they can do it. The idea that it being secret is wrong is also false. For a game of imagination, many people find they don't want a look behind the curtain because it ruins the immersion. We disagree, and have regular conversations about what I do. If I fudge a roll, I have no problem telling them. "Wow, that's the second critical in a row. How many hit points do you have left? One? That seems a bit harsh." I might rule something else, although most of the time I leave such decisions up to the player. In one case, I had trapped a sarcophagus. It was a simple trap, and they had been in the room several times and decided that it was too dangerous to deal with it, and felt there was nothing of value. Then, weeks later, they decided to return and open it. The tomb had been largely plundered before them, and it was clear that a great many much higher level characters had all met their end in the tomb. But they decided to do it. They were very clear that any dangers in this tomb that remained were far above their abilities. Both characters took massive damage, but one was clearly not going to make it. I suggested that perhaps she suffered a significant injury, and he said, "no, I was down low, working my dagger into the seam and my face was 5 inches from it." So she was dying, and the other characters had a chance to get to town to see if they could bring somebody back to save her, but at that point it was just a matter of time. But it turned into a two-day ordeal and was much, much more dramatic than a simple, "you've died." One of the responsibilities of a DM, even back in the AD&D days, is to abide by the rules of the table. Although AD&D explicitly grants the authority over everything, even altering a die roll, the fact is, if the players don't agree to those rules, then the DM either has to change it, find a new table, or yes, cheat. And I agree, if you sat at my table and I agreed that I would not fudge die rolls, and I did anyway, you have every right be be angry because that's just wrong. But what if I, as a DM, don't fudge. It's not something I've ever done, and I sit down at a table where the players tell me they don't want their characters to die, and they don't like resurrection? Sure, you could say D&D isn't the game for them, but I disagree. One of the original precepts of the game is "make it your own." It can be just about anything. You could write some new rules, but not everybody is good at writing rules. Also, rules for something that has to account for an endless number of variables can be difficult to write. It's far easier to allow the DM to adjust to the circumstances when necessary to ensure that the heroes always survive. It could be modifying the encounter difficulty, having a rescuer at the last minute, or a heroic moment, whatever. In most cases it's probably going to be just adjusting a die roll here or there to ensure that the combat is intense, but not lethal. How is that cheating? It's not. I do find it interesting that the primary rule that folks seem to hold onto is the die roll. While there are certainly groups that like more or less GM input into their games (which will vary based on the rules in play), the only thing that seems to be consistently labeled as "cheating" is die rolling. To me, at least in the context of D&D, the innovation of the game design is that it wasn't 100% dependent upon the rules. That the rules weren't rules but guidelines and tools to help the DM adjudicate whatever craziness the players come up with. Yes, for consistency I think it's important to follow the rules probably 99% of the time. In theory a better written set of rules would require deviating from the rules less frequently. But consider the directions game design has taken since D&D was released. Everything from Apocalypse Now-based games, storytelling games, rules intensive games like Hackmaster, Pathfinder, and D&D 3 and 4e. What's unique about RPGs, at least what I found unique in the Holmes basic/AD&D that I started with, is that the most important part of the game is what happens in the game. It has been called many things - the fiction, story, narrative, etc. Whether explicitly or implicitly, that's always been there. The "adventure" is what the game is about. Every other game I'd ever played was all about the rules. The rules of the game tell you what you can do and when you can do it. D&D was different. While the rules were there to make the game possible, you were also encouraged to modify them to suit your needs. As a DM it was all about creating an exciting experience for the players. The rules were malleable, you could pick and choose what you wanted. As a player, you didn't really need to know many rules at all. You needed to know what die to roll to attempt something (although the DM could tell you if you didn't know), and you needed to understand a few simply concepts like hit points. You had some things you were good at, based on what you picked as a race and class, along with a handful of restrictions. Even more amazing - it wasn't competitive, it was cooperative. It was about working together as a team to overcome challenges, and you didn't have to worry about whether you were the "best" fighter. You were who you were, and all you had to do is tell the DM what it was you wanted to do. So to me it was extremely clear that as a DM, my sole job was to provide an interesting and exciting adventure. The rules were important, but not the focus of the game. While that may or may not have been the intent of the designers, that's what I (we) took out of it. And it's clear based on the many, many people I've met, chatted with, and played with, not to mention the amazing breadth of RPG design it spawned, that I'm not the only one. Plain and simple, the DMs job is to provide the adventure. The rules, as we understood them, allowed the DM to have control over every aspect of the game, including the dice, to ensure that the players are having an exciting adventure. It's that simple to me. I totally recognize that there are others feel completely different. Even from when I started playing there I have known players that like to master the rules of the game. Over the years I admit that I've had my own "RPG snob" attitude towards munchkinizers, min/maxers, power gamers, or whatever they might be called. There are, of course, all sorts of points in the middle. The real point, for me, is that there isn't one "proper" way to play D&D, or most RPGs. While I say that I prefer the Gygaxian authoritative DM model, it's really in regards to the setting and adjudication of the rules. The rules in play are always a matter of agreement by all those at the table, and I'm always open to potential exceptions in my campaign as well. My role as a DM is always one in service of the players, and the rules of the table. For example, I have never, ever, fudged a die roll at a table where a player stated that they objected to that, and I ask. But at a table like mine at home, the player's expectations of my job are not rule-focused. The rules and the dice are not the controlling factors at our table, and that's entirely player preference. That doesn't mean the dice rolls mean less, but they are but one of many tools we use to make the game work. And not one of the many, many players that I've DMed would agree that my following the rules that we agreed upon at the table is cheating. Because it's not. Cheating is breaking the rules, not adhering to them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top