Handling Cheating
- Thread starter Lexeme
- Start date
No deep down I don't know this.
Your player was a jackass some DMs are jackasses.
But not everyone who has ever fudged a dice roll is a jackass.
As I said I have seen it done for a lot of different reasons and being a jackass has been on the bottom of the list.
Then, you're fooling yourself!
So....
We all decide to play by the 3.5 rules.
Now, a situation comes up. In between game sessions, the GM spoted a monster that took his fancy, and now, the PCs are fighting that monster.
Except, the monster is tearing up the party. The GM made a bad call and put something way too hard in the game for the PCs to fight. The GM knows that its likely that this monster will likely kill half the PC party--when that wasn't the original intent at all. The GM only wanted to have a fun encounter as the PCs went from town to town. The GM wasn't looking for a major boss-type fight (I hate using MMO terms when talking about RPGs, forgive me, please).
Had the GM intended this, it would be a different story.
But, let's say we're dealing with a smart GM. He doesn't let on that he may have chosen an inappropriate monster for this intended function. What the GM does is add 5 points of damage to every successful attack the PCs make. This works out great, and the PCs defeat the monster. In the end, the GM adjusted to make the encounter what he originally intended.
Was the GM cheating?
No, because of the GM's role in the game. He cannot cheat.
If a player added five points to his damage roll when he was fighting what he perceived to be a big threat.
You bet. Cheater.
A GM may run NPCs in the game, but he's not a player. He's the ref. He's the god of that universe.
And, god can't cheat.
What's laughable is that you think the GM can cheat!
How many times do I have to say it?
NO. THE GM CANNOT CHEAT.
I lie to my players all the time for the good of the game. They love it (not the lying but the effect my lies have). Would they expect me to lie to them in RL? Nope.
In the game, they expect me to run a good, interesting, challenging, fun game.
And, that's what I do, and I sometimes lie to achieve those results.
Lies like, "I planned that all along." Or, my favorite, "Had you not done X, you would have never have found Y. Good job, man! Good job!"
As a GM, I'm a story teller. I'm a screen writing, producer, and director all built into one. The players are my actors who have a strong say in what happens. But, in the end, it's my decision and my responsibility to deliver a fun, intriguing game.
If lying gets me there, then so be it.
If fudging dice rolls when I said I wouldn't gets me there, then so be it.
As long as everybody is happy, and the game is fantastic, no body cares.
And, of course, I try not to do things that my players insist they won't like (unless I have a strong emotion otherwise).
The GM, no matter what, cannot cheat.
Those of you who think he can are not grasping the GM's job or are not thinking it all the way through.
Anyhoo
I was talking about this at dinner tonight with my roommate and fellow gamer. She is a very competitive person in strategy games she plays to win.
If someone cheated in a game like that she would be furious and would call them out.
As a DM she said she would ignore it if it was not a regular occurrence. I asked her why and she said that with RPGs everyone is involved in telling a story. You play your character for more than one game and you get invested in it.
She says that she is fine with a DM fudging the dice or the hit points or what ever to make the game better. So she is willing to cut the same slack to a player. Say a spell is really needed and the wizard did not memorize it but says they did. If it moves the plot along and prevents a TPK then she views that has helping the story along the same way a DM who says they missed a PC instead of killing him.
She also said since as a player she has cheated once and awhile herself when she has gotten really frustrated she is not going to condemn any one else for doing it.
I think it is a matter of degree. Some who is cheating all the time can have an negative impact on the game but then so can a DM who is fudging a lot.
I played with a DM whose wife was in the game I and a couple of other players started to feel that he fudged in her favor all the time. She never got knocked to minus figures. If she failed a save she always took minimal damage.
Another DM had an iron grip on the plot and if she felt we were solving things faster than she wanted she would throw all kinds of obstacles in our way or flat out feed us wrong information even if we rolled a great gather info check.
Both these DMs were lying to us and they were taking steps to control their game world.
And in both these cases I will say that I think the DMs were cheating plain and simple.
So like I said it comes around to degree.
I was talking about this at dinner tonight with my roommate and fellow gamer. She is a very competitive person in strategy games she plays to win.
If someone cheated in a game like that she would be furious and would call them out.
As a DM she said she would ignore it if it was not a regular occurrence. I asked her why and she said that with RPGs everyone is involved in telling a story. You play your character for more than one game and you get invested in it.
She says that she is fine with a DM fudging the dice or the hit points or what ever to make the game better. So she is willing to cut the same slack to a player. Say a spell is really needed and the wizard did not memorize it but says they did. If it moves the plot along and prevents a TPK then she views that has helping the story along the same way a DM who says they missed a PC instead of killing him.
She also said since as a player she has cheated once and awhile herself when she has gotten really frustrated she is not going to condemn any one else for doing it.
I think it is a matter of degree. Some who is cheating all the time can have an negative impact on the game but then so can a DM who is fudging a lot.
I played with a DM whose wife was in the game I and a couple of other players started to feel that he fudged in her favor all the time. She never got knocked to minus figures. If she failed a save she always took minimal damage.
Another DM had an iron grip on the plot and if she felt we were solving things faster than she wanted she would throw all kinds of obstacles in our way or flat out feed us wrong information even if we rolled a great gather info check.
Both these DMs were lying to us and they were taking steps to control their game world.
And in both these cases I will say that I think the DMs were cheating plain and simple.
So like I said it comes around to degree.
Recall how in another thread you mentioned how people should refrain from making assumptions about people they don't know well.
Introduce yourself to a mirror.
Many of us don't agree with that "deep down". It isn't a bad wager to say we know ourselves better than you.
Just above, I told folks to not respond to rudeness. I meant it. Don't make this personal, people. ~Umbran
Of course they can. They do have broad abilities to justify their cheating, but it's still cheating.
And a GM is most definitely a player. Not solely a player, but a player none-the-less.
We disagree.
You cannot factually prove a GM can't cheat. You can certain come up with all sorts of scenarios where a rules change on the fly and claim - ta da! not cheating. That doesn't prove all instances of fudging and the like are not cheating. It's not an inductive statement or proof.
Absolutes are really tricky things to have in your statements, because really, we only need one scenario of a GM cheating to prove that a GM can, in fact, cheat.
Hmm... I notice that all of your examples contain the caveat that "as long as everyone is happy" and the like.
So, if the GM does something and the players aren't happy... did he cheat?
if a villain makes an attack and misses my AC, and then makes a second attack, gets the same roll with the exact same modifiers - ie, nothing has changed - and now it hits... you wouldn't consider that cheating?
Yes, the GM could suddenly introduce other things into the game - a hidden ally, or a new one-a-day ability on the villain - but we're considered the situation where the GM doesn't change anything but the result of the roll. There is no attempt at justifying it, just straight up arbitrary fiat.
I would consider that cheating.
Last edited by a moderator:
Olaf the Stout
Legend
I don't think this thread is going anywhere anymore. Several posters (myself included) think that the GM can cheat.
Water Bob thinks that they can't.
Just agree to disagree I guess.
Olaf the Stout
Water Bob thinks that they can't.
Just agree to disagree I guess.
Olaf the Stout
jmucchiello
Hero
I find the GM cheating fascinating. I mostly agree with Water Bob: I would call the actions of the GM inappropriate, not cheating. Suppose a chess noob asks his friend who is good at chess to teach him how to play chess. The noob knows his friend can clean his clock anytime he wants to and he tels the teacher not to hold anything back. If he subsequently goes easy on the noob, he would accuse the teacher of going easy on him. But the noob shouldn't call him a cheater.
So, I have a question for the folks who say the GM CAN cheat: Suppose there's a game group where the GM/player contract is the GM will not fudge rolls to go easy on the group: all rolls in the open, etc. The players want a world where if they screw up, they die.
The party has been beat up a lot in a prior encounter and they open the next door and find out 6 skeletons rise up to attack. The adventure says there are 8 skeletons in the room, but he's dropped it to 6 to avoid a possible TPK. Did he cheat? Does your answer change if the module is his own home brew versus a real printed adventure?
Suppose the GM is just whinging it and he decides there are 6 skeletons in the next room on the spur of the moment. But based on the EL of the rest of the dungeon a proper encounter would have 8 skeletons. Did he cheat?
So, I have a question for the folks who say the GM CAN cheat: Suppose there's a game group where the GM/player contract is the GM will not fudge rolls to go easy on the group: all rolls in the open, etc. The players want a world where if they screw up, they die.
The party has been beat up a lot in a prior encounter and they open the next door and find out 6 skeletons rise up to attack. The adventure says there are 8 skeletons in the room, but he's dropped it to 6 to avoid a possible TPK. Did he cheat? Does your answer change if the module is his own home brew versus a real printed adventure?
Suppose the GM is just whinging it and he decides there are 6 skeletons in the next room on the spur of the moment. But based on the EL of the rest of the dungeon a proper encounter would have 8 skeletons. Did he cheat?
fanboy2000
Adventurer
First of all, I want to make sure that I'm only talking about a scenario where the GM and the players agree that there is no fudging of die rolls and that no other restrictions have been agreed to by anyone.
My reasoning is fairly simple: the GM still has their world building and encounter building responsibilities and nothing has been agreed to that changes that.
The argument that the result is the same doesn't fly with me. Changing a hit into a miss, or vise versa is exercising direct control over the outcome of the combat. Changing the difficulty of the encounter (unless it's a drastic change) is much more subtle and still leave room for an encounter that goes in unexpected and unplanned directions.
No, the GM did not cheat and my answer does not change based on whether or not the module is pre-fabricated or homebrewed. Nor does it change based whether or not the DM is making it up on the spot.
My reasoning is fairly simple: the GM still has their world building and encounter building responsibilities and nothing has been agreed to that changes that.
The argument that the result is the same doesn't fly with me. Changing a hit into a miss, or vise versa is exercising direct control over the outcome of the combat. Changing the difficulty of the encounter (unless it's a drastic change) is much more subtle and still leave room for an encounter that goes in unexpected and unplanned directions.
Last edited:
Not the same situation.
However, if the experienced player said, "we'll use a set of chess rules that don't allow castling or taking en passant", and then proceeded to actually use castling or en passant, then it would be cheating.
Doesn't matter.
We're not saying the GM always cheats. We're not saying that he's not allowed to adjust things on the fly. We're saying one of the tools in the GM's toolbox is to cheat. It's not the best tool. It's not an encouraged tool. But the tool is there none-the-less.
And again, we don't have to show every situation is cheating. The vast majority probably are not. But some are.
The "GM can't cheat" folks are dealing in an absolute. Since they are the ones arguing that every single situation and action a GM takes is not possibly cheating, then they are the ones who must enumerate and prove each and every one of those. Picking one and saying "See? Not cheating!" has no bearing on any other situation or action since they're independent for the most part, unless you can prove a direct connection between them*.
For us "the GM can cheat", we need only show one situation. And we have presented a few in this thread that have not been addressed by the "GM can't cheat" folk that we consider cheating. And as soon as there is one cheating action available to the GM, you can no longer say "the GM can't cheat".
We're not saying the GM should cheat. Or that GM's always cheat. But they can.
* Such as an inductive proof - Prove step one, and then prove that for any other step, it is true if the previous step was true. I'm happy to be shown wrong, but I don't think you can do something like that for the actions a GM can take. Maybe some subsection of them, but not all.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
