Can the GM cheat?

[GameOgre]

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.

Cheating in a rpg is like cheating in a marriage.(insert smiley-face here) Either you do it when you can get away with it or you don't! Being faithful only when it suits your needs is dishonest! Unless you're in that kind of marriage!

 

[GameOgre]

What is cheating in this context?



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.
.

Just out of curiosity where can I find the (fudging) rules/advice in the rules? What game and page? I always hear this said but don't think I have ever come across it other than as advice on blogs or even websites. Not saying it isn't there but I seem to miss it.

 

[delericho]

Do you have any specific examples of a moment that you cheated that may have been noticeable to these players?

No, but I can provide an example of the reverse - an instance where the game was improved because I don't fudge and am known not to fudge.

I make my dice rolls in the open for any player who cares to see. The consequence of this is that I'm basically forced to let the results lie as they are, which has some negative effects (since my luck with dice is truly abysmal).

However, what this also meant was that when the dice fell against the players, and indeed fell in such a way that one of the PCs died, there was absolutely no question about the fairness or rightness of the result. Whereas had the game been open to fudging, the player might have argued that I'd fudged things to keep some other PC alive, and so should have done the same for his.

And the death of that PC improved the game in two ways. Firstly, it made for a better story as the rest of the PCs dealt with the loss of the character and the consequences thereof. And secondly, it demonstrated as nothing else could that IMC player characters can die and that they can die even if the player doesn't do "something stupid".

(All that said, I will note that I'm not claiming that this is the "one true way" to play. It's just one anecdote.)

 

[delericho]

Just out of curiosity where can I find the (fudging) rules/advice in the rules? What game and page?

3.5e D&D DMG, p.6 under "Adjudication" for breaking the rules, and p.18 under "DM Cheating and Player Perceptions" for fudging dice rolls.

 

[GameOgre]

Off to read! Thanks!

 

[Oryan77]

No, but I can provide an example of the reverse - an instance where the game was improved because I don't fudge and am known not to fudge.

I don't make a big deal about rolling in the open or hiding behind a screen. Either way is perfectly fine to me and both have their pros/cons. I'm just not a fan of rolling in the open simply because I don't trust myself to always be accurate in my encounter designs. Rolling behind a screen gives me the ability to balance the game if I need to. I'm not perfect, so I don't want the players to suffer because of my mistake. That seems unfair to me.

I roll secretly for the same reason people roll in the open; to eliminate any need for arguments and to cut down on players complaining about fairness. Rolling behind a screen does not mean I'm catering to the PCs or taking advantage of them. It just means I have the option to keep an encounter balanced the way I want it to be balanced. Players are not immune to death just because I hide behind a screen. I've also seen plenty of crappy DMs that build overpowered NPCs, broken NPCs, don't understand the Challenge Rating system, misuse spells, or unfairly cheat (make up abilities/spells/items), and then think they are being more fair because they are rolling in the open. They are oblivious to their imperfections and think rolling openly means everything is legit.

The way you fudge your die rolls also depends on the type of players you have and the DMs ability running encounters. If a DM thinks he can just fudge die rolls willy-nilly, then he is mistaken. I think that is what a lot of "open-die-rolling" DMs think we're doing.

 

[Umbran]

However, what this also meant was that when the dice fell against the players, and indeed fell in such a way that one of the PCs died, there was absolutely no question about the fairness or rightness of the result. Whereas had the game been open to fudging, the player might have argued that I'd fudged things to keep some other PC alive, and so should have done the same for his.

In tournament, convention, or FLGS play, I can understand the desire for that security.

Me, I play with friends in my home. If we didn't have the basic trust between us that I'd not play favorites like that, they wouldn't be at my table.

 

[delericho]

Me, I play with friends in my home.

One of the relatively few disadvantages of gaming through a D&D not-quite-Meetup site is that I don't have that luxury. We of course try our best to vet people before they join games, and if there was anyone we thought would react badly then they would be ejected fairly promptly.

But the sad truth is that there's what I believe to be the case, and there's what I know. And until that first PC death, I didn't know how it would go down. (Turned out that the response was that we now have a "Wall of the Fallen", in which dead PCs from campaign play are given obituaries by their GMs, and are thus immortalised. So that's good.)

The other sad fact is that, given the opportunity to fudge that die roll to save the PC, I probably would have. Certainly, a few years back I would have without hesitation. But we've since discussed the event, and a few of the players (including the player in question) have said that they actually like that PCs can die. So, yeah, that's good.

But, again, that's purely a matter of what works for me. I don't claim that it's 'better', nor even that it would work for anyone else. This is most certainly an area where YMMV.

 

[Umbran]

Just out of curiosity where can I find the (fudging) rules/advice in the rules? What game and page? I always hear this said but don't think I have ever come across it other than as advice on blogs or even websites. Not saying it isn't there but I seem to miss it.

I have an older reference than delericho's

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1e) DMG, pg 110. In the words of Gygax himself:

"You do have the right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions."

So, the rule that the GM is allowed to fudge has been in the books since at least 1979.

 

[Argyle King]

I prefer to let the dice fall where they may.

I make most rolls in the open. However, if the roll I'm making is one which I don't feel success/failure would be obvious to the character, I do not make it in the open.

For example: If a goblin is attacking a player, I make that roll in the open. It's readily apparently to the target (the character) that the goblin can hit him. On the other hand, a goblin were trying to sneak up on the party, I would not make that roll in the open, and I would likewise make a sense roll for the character in secret. I don't want a dice roll to tip the player off to information that the character is unable to perceive.



Edit: In the rare event that I do fudge, I don't hide it from the players. If the rules create a result which is nonsensical, I will briefly discuss such a situation with the players, and then make a ruling which I feel makes more sense. Such a process is how house rules come about. On occasion, I have also fudged when teaching new players, and I felt that a player made a choice based upon a faulty understanding of how part of the game worked. In a case of that sort, I feel okay about stepping in because it was a lack of player knowledge and not in-game events which produced a situation.