Handling Cheating

[Water Bob]

Just remember that if the GM goes to far with this, he or she may not have any players.

Or, the GM may have tons.

D&D is a bad example because there are so many rules. Take a game like classic Traveller where the GM makes up just about everything on the spot, and my point becomes much more clear (for those of you who can't see it).

I understand that players want to think of their GM as fair. Heck, I want my players thinking that.

But, still, there's no such thing as a GM cheat.

If two players were sitting down across a board--say something like Axis & Allies, then one of them could cheat.

But RPGs aren't played that way, are they? The same "rules" don't apply to player and GM. In fact, the GM enforces the rules as he sees fit.




If a player says that his character has his bow out and is ready, and then an unseen Orc pops around the corner. Initiative is rolled, and the Orc wins. The GM says, "Well, the rules says that the character should be flatfooted, but given your description of what your character is doing, I don't see it. He's not flatfooted."

Is that a cheat?

It's a clear vilolation of the 3.x rules.

If the player agreed with the GM's ruling, is the GM....cheating?

No, because it doesn't apply to the GM.

 

[fanboy2000]

Or, the GM may have tons.

Well, then by definition, the GM hasn't gone too far.

Your point is valid, as the arbitrator of the rules, the GM's ability to cheat is severely curtailed. But we're talking about dice rolls, and it's possible that there may be some groups out there where the GM has agreed not to fudge them.

If the GM has agreed not to fudge dice rolls and then does so, then some people might call it cheating.

Obviously, this isn't a problem when everyone agrees that it's ok for the GM to fudge dice rolls.

 

[Water Bob]

If the GM has agreed not to fudge dice rolls and then does so, then some people might call it cheating.

As I said earlier, a GM could agree to this and still manipulate things to get what he wants out of the game for himself and for his players.

By agreeing to not fudging dice throws, he's just set up an obstacle for himself, but that obstacle is not unsurmountable.

Still, I can't agree, even with an agreement not to fudge dice throws, that a GM can "cheat' at the game.

When a GM fudges rolls, it's typically for the reason of enhancing the game either by making it more challenging or by guarding PCs from death.

Let's say a GM agrees to not fudge rolls. He's the type of GM that would fudge a little bit to make sure the PCs become heroes.

So, now that he's got that agreement to not fudge a a roll, and a situation pops up where he would normaly fudge a roll, the GM is just going to do the same thing in another way.

Instead of fudging the die roll in the PCs favor, he decides that the baddie fighting the PC fails morale ad runs.

Or....a hundred of other things.

I'll stand by what I've been saying: The GM cannot cheat. The player can (and that shouldn't be tolerated).

 

[fanboy2000]

As I said earlier, a GM could agree to this and still manipulate things to get what he wants out of the game for himself and for his players.

And I agree that the GM can accomplish the things you talk about without fudging dice rolls.

Even if you don't want to call it cheating, I still think it would be in poor form to agree to not to fudge die rolls and then to do exactly that. At the end of the day, or game session, the GM is a person. At the very least someone who says they'll do things one way, and then does them another way, is someone of very poor character.

 

[terrya]

Can we not get this topic locked now i think it was decided about 2 pages back the various ways of handeling cheating?

I happen to agree with Waterbob on the subject but it makes me hypercrtical. I recently had a friend in my Dnd 3.5 game get caught fudging dice rolls and lieing about how much hp he had etc.

Normally I would of just removed the player on the spot, as i feel he is belittling all the work I've put into the game. I gave him a chance however due to the fact I also bowl with the player in question on a weekly basis. I took the time to identify his problems, and guess what it was simply because he's a jackass who thought he would get away with it. So after beating him on the head and insiting all his charecter adjustments etc be handeled at the table and openly we havent had a problem but this has subtracted from everyone elses fun and has lead to 1 player (my brother) refusing to play when he does.

Deep down you all know Water Bob's statements are in general 100% correct and I don't see why we need 2 pages of arguing semantics?

At the end of the day even in your overly self rightous worlds surely when the player joined your game you took the time to ask him what he was expecting and explained the game world your running? Therefor when he cheats its for no reason other than thats what kind of person he is? If some one had a problem with the game they would talk to their gm about it not cheat on their dice like a 3 year old.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

As I said earlier, a GM could agree to this and still manipulate things to get what he wants out of the game for himself and for his players.

By agreeing to not fudging dice throws, he's just set up an obstacle for himself, but that obstacle is not unsurmountable.

Still, I can't agree, even with an agreement not to fudge dice throws, that a GM can "cheat' at the game.

When a GM fudges rolls, it's typically for the reason of enhancing the game either by making it more challenging or by guarding PCs from death.

Let's say a GM agrees to not fudge rolls. He's the type of GM that would fudge a little bit to make sure the PCs become heroes.

So, now that he's got that agreement to not fudge a a roll, and a situation pops up where he would normaly fudge a roll, the GM is just going to do the same thing in another way.

Instead of fudging the die roll in the PCs favor, he decides that the baddie fighting the PC fails morale ad runs.

Or....a hundred of other things.

I'll stand by what I've been saying: The GM cannot cheat. The player can (and that shouldn't be tolerated).

Deep down you all know Water Bob's statements are in general 100% correct and I don't see why we need 2 pages of arguing semantics?

First, to Terrya: No.

Now to address Water Bob. You're stating basically two separate things, but seem to have them rolled into one.

1. The DM cannot cheat.
2. If the DM cheats it's ok.

For instance, if a DM agrees to not fudge rolls and then fudges one...I'd call that cheating. I think you would too, which is why your hypothetical DM does something else (like the morale check). If there is a contract that all rolls are in the open and none are fudged, and that contract is broken (the DM rolls privately or fudges a roll), the DM has cheated. Would you not agree to this? In this example, while he COULD do something else, he doesn't. He DOES in fact fudge the roll after explicity agreeing not to.

"Ok," one might say, "but he's doing it for the benefit of the players. It's not cheating when you're helping someone else; only when you do it to benefit yourself." To this I'd respond with two points. The first would be that the players MAY NOT ENJOY IT MORE if they have an inkling at all (or are fully aware). In fact, players that went ahead and specifically asked for no fudging are probably the type of players who want a "chips fall where they may" type of game. If they begin to feel rescued, they may no longer feel the pride of "an actual accomplishment" because the dm has put them on "god mode".

Secondly, helping others (the players) is a slippery slope argument. What if a player cheats in some way to avoid a tpk? "Oh yeah, I memorized teleport today...I don't know why my sheet still has cone of cold on it." What if that makes all the players at the table happier? What if that makes the DM unhappy?


Another issue with this "DM flexibly modifies the world" stance is that sometimes it's too little, too late. A DM doesn't have total control if he rolls dice in the open. That ogre's critical hit that does x3 or x4 damage and drops a player from full hp to dead isn't something that can be "taken back" with morale checks or adding a sudden ally or whatever.



As with all blanket statments of "always" or "never", it is clearly possible to poke holes in the "A DM can never cheat" statement. Is it harder for a DM to cheat? Sure. Does a DM have more tools and flexibilty than a player? Sure. Can a DM who is arbiter of a game, but also a player engaged in a social contract of gaming with others, cheat? Of course.

Rocks fall. Everybody dies.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, there's no way the GM or ref can cheat. It just not possible.

What part of "if the GM makes an agreement with the players, and then breaks it, he's cheating" is difficult to understand? It is somehow impossible for the GM to break his side of an agreement?

It seems to me that sticking to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it, is a big part of the "character" you claim to value. If the GM says he won't do something, and then finds some way to do it that isn't *technically* in violation, but still accomplishes what he darned well knows the players don't want him to do, he's still violating trust. That registers far more on my jerk-o-meter than mis-calling an occasional die roll.

I'm not all that big on sticking by game rules as written, but I am pretty darned strict on sticking by what social contract is in place between the people at the table. That's a set of higher rules than anything put in a printed rulebook.

 

[Water Bob]

1. The DM cannot cheat.
2. If the DM cheats it's ok.

Actually, it is the same thing.

In other words, we all know that the GM will do things to help ensure that the players have a good time playing the game. Is this called bending the rules or GMing?

I say the GM can't cheat because you're talking about the source that makes up what happens.

If the players go off the direction of the adventure, and the GM has to ad-lib...you're trying to tell me he can CHEAT?

Ridiculous.

For instance, if a DM agrees to not fudge rolls and then fudges one...I'd call that cheating.

What you're basically saying is....if the GM agrees not to fudge rolls and he sticks by that, that he's not cheating.

You don't think the GM can stack the deck in other ways?

See...you can't apply "cheating" to the GM.

What part of "if the GM makes an agreement with the players, and then breaks it, he's cheating" is difficult to understand? It is somehow impossible for the GM to break his side of an agreement?

See the above.

If the GM says he won't do something, and then finds some way to do it that isn't *technically* in violation, but still accomplishes what he darned well knows the players don't want him to do, he's still violating trust.

But, it's OK if a GM "cheats" but the players want him to do it? As with my example of not catching the archer flatfooted above?

That's why I used that example--it's a violation of the rules in the PC's favor.

So, now, we've got to boil GM "cheating" down, not as a viloation of the rules, but as something the "players don't want him to do".

If you do that, you're not talking about the GM "cheating". You're talking about the GM doing something the players don't want him to do.

Again, the GM cannot cheat. He's the designer of the universe. He's the referee of the rules.

How can anybody, who makes up rules on the spot or decides how the printed rules are applied to the game, be accused of cheating?

He can't.

He can do things the players don't like, surely. But "cheat"? Nope.

 

[terrya]

How can anybody, who makes up rules on the spot or decides how the printed rules are applied to the game, be accused of cheating?

He can't.

He can do things the players don't like, surely. But "cheat"? Nope.

Bingo

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Actually, it is the same thing.

In other words, we all know that the GM will do things to help ensure that the players have a good time playing the game. Is this called bending the rules or GMing?.

Bending the rules is GMing. Explicitly deciding on player / DM rules and breaking those is cheating. It depends how he ensures the players have a good time. Sometimes he might be cheating. Sometimes his bending of rules might cause short term enjoyment and long term distaste with the campagin (as in my "God Mode" point).

Originally Posted by Water Bob:
What you're basically saying is....if the GM agrees not to fudge rolls and he sticks by that, that he's not cheating.

You don't think the GM can stack the deck in other ways?

OF COURSE HE CAN STACK THE DECK IN OTHER WAYS. No one is saying that he can't. If you're arguing against that, it's a strawman.

But the variable ways he can stack the deck are more and less satisfactory...."Uhhhhh Elminster shows up and wins the fight for you...man that was too hard an encounter."

Originally Posted by Water Bob:
If you do that, you're not talking about the GM "cheating". You're talking about the GM doing something the players don't want him to do.

That's out of context here, but if you're saying he agrees to never fudge and then fudges it's not merely "something the players don't want him to do." It's a rule he agreed to for the game and decided not to follow.


But, what about the obvious question?

It's starting to become laughable how you ignore a very clear cut example every single

every single

every single time.



Please, if it is within you, answer the following:

A dm agrees to never fudge a roll. The DM, despite having many other options that he could choose, chooses not to do them, and instead still decides to fudge a roll. Has the DM cheated?

or, if that's too wordy:

A dm agrees to never fudge a roll. The DM then fudges a roll. Has he cheated?

I notice you continually gloss over this fairly central, and straighforward, point to bring up your agenda of rules bending, world shaping, etc. etc.

Howsabout just answering the straightforward example for once?