Can the GM cheat?

[Janx]

I don't know what the issue really was. I think the players just didn't like my GMing style or something. I am just trying to make sense of this.

I thought there was sufficient data in your prior posts to deduce it.

The players who quit had the most powerful PCs in the party. Anytime you have players with significantly more powerful PCs, those players probably value power in the game over anything else (aka power gamers).

You directly neutralized them during combats, which goes against the kind of game a power gamer wants to have.

That is why they left. Game style preference mismatch.

 

[Umbran]

I'm always a little uneasy about "story trumps rules" as a justification for fudging. Because that suggests that the DM has a clear story in mind, which can (but, importantly, doesn't have to) lead to railroading and other forms of abuse. If the DM truly has a fixed story in mind, I'd generally rather he just write it up and email it to me.

A GM can use fudging to push a predetermined story, sure. But even "story trumps rules" doesn't really suggest what you think. For example, pacing is a major part of story, and fudging is one of the best darned tools around for pacing management. Fight numerically a foregone conclusion, but only after a half-hour of grind? Fudge it, get it over with, and move on!

Which is to say, presence of a shovel does not imply that the guy wants to bury a body.

 

[delericho]

A GM can use fudging to push a predetermined story, sure. But even "story trumps rules" doesn't really suggest what you think. For example, pacing is a major part of story, and fudging is one of the best darned tools around for pacing management. Fight numerically a foregone conclusion, but only after a half-hour of grind? Fudge it, get it over with, and move on!

Fair point.

That said, I consider that "numerical foregone conclusion/half-hour of grind" combination to itself be a system issue (and it's a classic complaint about 4e, though I've also seen it recently in 3e with regenerating trolls and PCs lacking fire attacks). If it truly is a half hour of meaningless grind, then it's an indicator that combat (or at least some combats) just isn't swing-y enough - there should be at least the possibility of that 1-in-1000 critical hit changing things up. (Though as I said in my previous post, sometimes system issues are best handled by the DM smoothing them, because the rest of the game is worth it... and of course, there is no perfect system.)

Which is to say, presence of a shovel does not imply that the guy wants to bury a body.

Indeed. I said... Edit: Oops. No I didn't. My apologies.

 

[billd91]

I'm generally in the camp that the GM can't cheat - by definition. He may violate the trust or goodwill of his players, but since there's a wide variety of things that may do either of those, even adhering to the letter of the rules, I wouldn't lump all of that as cheating.

 

[Umbran]

If it truly is a half hour of meaningless grind, then it's an indicator that combat (or at least some combats) just isn't swing-y enough - there should be at least the possibility of that 1-in-1000 critical hit changing things up.

Well, this is the thing with pacing - in D&D, for example, there probably is the *chance* that the critical hit changing things up, sure. But how long do you want to wade through things to find out if it will? In "story first" terms - there is dramatic value in that chance event, should it happen. But there's also dramatic value in keeping the pace up. It becomes, basically, an exercise in risk management.

(Though as I said in my previous post, sometimes system issues are best handled by the DM smoothing them, because the rest of the game is worth it... and of course, there is no perfect system.)

Yah. This is the basic thing. The system isn't perfect. The GM isn't perfect. The Players aren't perfect. Sometimes, just making adjustments on the fly can be a good choice of action.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

DM is... mostly free to fudge unless it's been agreed otherwise, and once again we see how important it is to discuss with players prior to beginning the campaign what they expect from the campaign and how the DM intends to run it. This issue is the result of a lack of communication. The DM didn't explain his "story trumps all" approach. Players didn't explain their dissatisfaction with it when they experienced it.

Personally I believe that it's not only the DM's right to fudge it's the DM's JOB to fudge - but not anytime, anywhere. It requires judicious use. That DM fudges best who fudges least. In a game where the DM is making arbitrary decisions constantly in order to keep some PC's down and lift others up then it's going to show. The players whose PC's are being kept DOWN are going to react negatively and react most strongly. They would have every right to do so. In a game where the DM has expressly allowed any and every type of character to be created, to then turn about and by repeated actions demonstrate that, no, in fact any and every character is NOT being allowed, players have every right to object in the strongest possible terms including packing up and leaving. They should have, however, attempted to discuss it rather than just walk out.

I think the problems started with the very idea for the campaign. Allowing characters who are effectively 20th level to mix with characters who are effectively 3rd level and then fudging to make them equally challenging is like... trying to race NASCAR cars against riding lawnmowers and expecting the NASCAR drivers not to notice and complain about never being able to shift out of first gear while the lawnmowers are having JATO rockets strapped on to them. What other result could you have possibly expected?

A campaign that had such disparate characters might work I suppose, but no version of the game is designed for it.

 

[GameOgre]

I think the DM is just another player of a game. Granted this particular player gets bagged with most of the work and the vast majority of the responsibility but if that person didn't love those things they wouldn't do it.

The DM agrees to a set of rules just as much as the other players do. Just because the dice don't go the way you want is no reason to (Fudge) them any more than its ok for any other player of the game to (Fudge) them.

If you are not happy with random results in your shared fantasy game then why use them? If you are happy with random results then why not use them?

People who fudge dice rolls but still proclaim they want the randomness of dice rolls make me laugh.

When I'm DMing I don't care what the roll is,I use whatever comes up. Sometimes that has cut our fun short,sometimes it has added tons of fun.

It's random.

 

[Umbran]

If you are not happy with random results in your shared fantasy game then why use them? If you are happy with random results then why not use them?

The logical flaw in your argument is simple - your phrase it as digital, two choices, all or nothing. Either you should *always* use the random results, or *never* use the random results. As if a full range of "sometimes" are not also among the options.

 

[Rune]

What is cheating in this context?

Does it mean altering the rules and/or misrepresenting dice rolls on the fly?

Or does it mean being unfair?

In the first case, most systems have an expectation that the GM can or should do so as the situation warrants. In such cases, doing so cannot be construed as cheating, solely on those merits.

However, being unfair is always cheating, even if done within the parameters of the established rules. Moreover, it is detrimental to the maintenance of the trust-covenant that bonds a GM and his/her players. Without that, no amount of adherence to, nor deviation from the rules of the game will matter.

 

[Oryan77]

I'm in the boat that says the DM can cheat, but he still has to be fair when he's cheating.

Do you have any specific examples of a moment that you cheated that may have been noticeable to these players? I would like to hear it before being critical about your "cheating".

Like others said, if a DM is going to cheat, it cannot be obvious. If it is obvious, then you are cheating in a negative way and the players have a right to complain about it.

From my experience, complaining about a DM cheating is usually the result of two things:

1. The person complaining is a powergamer who expects to never be challenged and to never fail. The DM cheats because he cannot challenge this PC without going out of his way to do so, and challenging him fairly will be unfair to the rest of the group. Usually the powergamer will complain whether or not the DM was obvious about cheating, and usually even if the DM didn't actually cheat. This is why I don't DM for anyone that will build PCs that are noticeably overpowering when compared to the other PCs. It's too much hassle to deal with.

2. The DM cheats in an obvious way because he's trying to railroad a situation or keep a prized NPC from dying. I stat out every single NPC that I will be using in an encounter. Sometimes even players that are not powergamers, but are whiners, will accuse me of "cheating" when I'm not. I've shown my NPC sheets many times to prove that I had "just the right spell" listed right there. I started doing this because I hated when my old DM would not prepare an NPC spell list and he would pull spells out of his butt in order to thwart all of my actions. That is what I consider cheating in a bad way.