Handling Cheating

[jmucchiello]

What I still find incredible is that the DM can make the enemy stop fighting to start singing Kumbya in the middle of the fight giving the players automatic coup-de-grace action. He can have a kobold wander by giving away +5 Holy Avengers if he wants. But if he ignores a rolled piece of plastic to change a hit to a miss he's suddenly the lowest of the low, rotton, no good, railroading cheater.

Why are the dice more important than the DM's opinion? You wouldn't want the DM to switch to an entirely table driven method of setting up encounters and dungeon designs where fudging is not allowed. But when a kobold has an axe in hand, the DM damn well better not change a crit to a normal hit, or the 9 hp damage to 3 hp damage, because somehow that exercise of his judgement is BAD.

So, summing up, fudging die rolls on random encounter tables and random treasure table: fine and dandy. Heck, if something he doesn't like shows up, he just vetoes it and rerolls. But fudging die rolls in combat: wrong wrong wrong. This is the logic I don't understand. Shouldn't you be just as upset when you are cheated out of a totally random outcome of what treasure exists?

 

[Elf Witch]

What I still find incredible is that the DM can make the enemy stop fighting to start singing Kumbya in the middle of the fight giving the players automatic coup-de-grace action. He can have a kobold wander by giving away +5 Holy Avengers if he wants. But if he ignores a rolled piece of plastic to change a hit to a miss he's suddenly the lowest of the low, rotton, no good, railroading cheater.

Why are the dice more important than the DM's opinion? You wouldn't want the DM to switch to an entirely table driven method of setting up encounters and dungeon designs where fudging is not allowed. But when a kobold has an axe in hand, the DM damn well better not change a crit to a normal hit, or the 9 hp damage to 3 hp damage, because somehow that exercise of his judgement is BAD.

So, summing up, fudging die rolls on random encounter tables and random treasure table: fine and dandy. Heck, if something he doesn't like shows up, he just vetoes it and rerolls. But fudging die rolls in combat: wrong wrong wrong. This is the logic I don't understand. Shouldn't you be just as upset when you are cheated out of a totally random outcome of what treasure exists?

You understand that I think fudging a dice roll is fine now and then.

But a lot of players don't like this. They want the dice to fall as they may because of the randomness this adds to the game. Let me put it this way we all agree to play using dice to resolve an issue did we hit how much damage did we do, did we make the skill check and find that trap.

Now if the DM decides that the dice don't matter that you will fail the skill check no matter what or no matter what you roll it won't be a hit. Then a lot of players have an issue with that.

It is why the advice giving to DMs is to try and avoid doing this often.

Deciding what treasure to put in your game or what kind of weapon to give the kobold is not the same thing.

It is really weird for me to be arguing from this side of the issue because I support rolling behind a screen and the occasional fudging of dice rolls. And have argued for it in many a thread.

But I do understand why a lot of players don't like it. And I can see why if it is done a lot why that is an issue because at that point why are you even pretending that the dice matter.

 

[Water Bob]

What I still find incredible is that the DM can make...

Crazy, isn't it.

I can't XP you, but I would if I could.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Crazy, isn't it.

I can't XP you, but I would if I could.

Well, like you mentioned a page or two back, the problem is that you're arguing against language (I'll use multiple dictionaries to show my point is fairly universal):

cheat
1. To deceive by trickery; swindle
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud
3. To mislead; fool
4. To elude; escape
v.intr.
1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

You're cheating when you agree to do one thing and then do another instead. So, when people say "you're cheating" they aren't wrong. At all. This isn't even a "language versus game jargon" issue like healing surges really "healing" or not. No, this is just the definition of cheating, and you can most certainly engage in it.

I want to make a note of one use of "cheat" listed above ("2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game"). The "rules" of the game are going to differ from table to table (see: house rules*). This means that "cheating" will be different from table to table. Take note of what a "rule" is defined as:

rule
noun
1.
a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.

Note the use of the word "arrangement" amongst other uses. If the group has decided to ban a form of conduct (such as changing dice rolls), and the GM then agrees to the ban, he is cheating if he then changes dice rolls. He has broken the agreement, and the agreement is a rule of the game (again, see: house rules*).

*house rule: a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place

These "rules" are just as valid as "rules" written in a book, they are just defined by the individual group, rather than taken as the assumption. That's what the social contract is. If your group has a social contract (assumed or otherwise) where it is okay for a GM to trump all other rules (even house rules), then no, he can't cheat. However, if a group has the agreement that even the GM can break the rules, then he can, in fact, cheat (at least linguistically).

Your group seems okay with you breaking other established rules (what many people call exercising "Rule 0"). That's cool. Other groups have house rules such a rule to be less prominent ("Rule 0 applies, but it cannot undermine fudging dice rolls, etc."). You may not be cheating with your group, but GMs can most certain cheat at games (Game = "An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime" according to thefreedictionary.com).

tl;dr: If you deliberately violate agreed upon arrangements within a certain group during an activity providing entertainment, you're cheating. As always, play what you like

 

[Water Bob]

You may not be cheating with your group, but GMs can most certain cheat at games (Game = "An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime" according to thefreedictionary.com).

I'm going to change my argument from "A GM can't cheat" to "A GM always cheats..."

"...and therefore accusing him of cheating is ludicrous."

It's the same position expressed in a different way.

Yes! Yes, a GM Cheats! But, he ALWAYS cheats, so what good is it to accuse him of cheating!

Every GM Cheats. Every one of 'em. No matter the play style.

Now, let's see the horde of you post a couple of pages about how you don't cheat.

 

[Water Bob]

I was being facetious above.

Let's take a different approach to this argument.

In as few words as you can, present an example where the GM/DM is cheating.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm going to change my argument from "A GM can't cheat" to "A GM always cheats..."

"...and therefore accusing him of cheating is ludicrous."

See, but, linguistically, this is also wrong. Without re-posting all of my definitions, let me reverse my last tl;dr:

If you follow agreed upon arrangements within a certain group during an activity providing entertainment, you're not cheating.

That is, as long as you're following what the group expects from you, and you aren't deceiving them, and you're playing by the rules they expect, you aren't cheating.

Every GM Cheats. Every one of 'em. No matter the play style.

Now, let's see the horde of you post a couple of pages about how you don't cheat.

I mean, you're linguistically incorrect here, as far as I can tell:

cheat
1. To deceive by trickery; swindle
3. To mislead; fool
1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game

If you aren't trying to deceive by trickery, mislead your players, act dishonestly, or violate rules deliberately, in what way are you cheating? As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

In as few words as you can, present an example where the GM/DM is cheating.

The GM fudges to save a PC after explicitly saying he never will.

 

[Water Bob]

The GM fudges to save a PC after explicitly saying he never will.

So....this GM never lies to his group on any other topic, in any other way, for the good of the game?

 

[JamesonCourage]

In as few words as you can, present an example where the GM/DM is cheating.

The GM fudges to save a PC after explicitly saying he never will.

So....this GM never lies to his group on any other topic, in any other way, for the good of the game?

Your follow-up seems unrelated to this question. Can you tell me how it's related?

But, to answer your question, the theoretical GM never lies to the group about their social contract. If that includes never lying, then no, he never lies. If they say, "we know you only run a game where you have the freedom to lie about things to make things more interesting" and then play in his game, then he might lie during the game "for the good of the game" (as subjective as that is). But, then, he isn't cheating, as he's following the rules that the group has established. As always, play what you like