Can the GM cheat?

[S'mon]

Seldom. It's usually anti-climatic. Luke Skywalker does not die to stormtrooper fire.

But Obi-Wan Kenobi dies! And the story goes on. I think most people find that unexpected events including NPC deaths can strengthen rather than derail the narrative, because in an RPG the narrative is created in play, not pre-scripted.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

We have had, in the past, threads on "GM cheating" and dice fudging that have devolved into folks beating their heads together for long periods for naught, amidst various folks flinging accusations of badwrongfun and such. This is one of the subjects that often leads to what I have come to call "dichotomy wars" - some (occasionally arbitrary) line is drawn in the sand, and folks line up on opposite sides trying to browbeat the other into submission.

It is okay to have an opinion on the subject. It is even okay for that opinion to be pretty much set in stone. But it'd be awful polite of you to be up-front about it, if it is so. It would help us focus on constructive discussion, rather than allowing folks to beat against brick walls to the point of frustration.

 

[Umbran]

But Obi-Wan Kenobi dies! And the story goes on.

Obi-Wan's death is not unexpected. It's a fairly archetypal thing - the old master and tutor must be removed from the scene for the student to fully come into his own. As a story construct, it is older than dirt.

 

[billd91]

Seldom. It's usually anti-climatic. Luke Skywalker does not die to stormtrooper fire. I know he could in a dicey game. He could roll unlucky (or the stormtrooper could be very lucky), and yes, you could make a story around it, but it usually kills off more story than it generates.

Well, what you have to realize is that Star Wars was originally the story of Obi-Wan Kenobi and how he bring on a youthful ward to go on high adventure. A few sessions into the campaign, the GM had to shift focus...

 

[James Eisert]

But Obi-Wan Kenobi dies! And the story goes on. I think most people find that unexpected events including NPC deaths can strengthen rather than derail the narrative, because in an RPG the narrative is created in play, not pre-scripted.

But much like Star Wars, Obi Wans death, although unexpected to the audience, is still scripted and on purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that you can make these things work, but I think it's the exception more than the rule.

 

[S'mon]

But much like Star Wars, Obi Wans death, although unexpected to the audience, is still scripted and on purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that you can make these things work, but I think it's the exception more than the rule.

Do you actually pre-script the on-stage deaths of NPCs? Is there anything left to chance in your games, or is the story entirely pre-written?

 

[Manbearcat]

Neither my players nor I play RPGs to "create a story". We play RPGs to "see what happens." Story emerges from our process of "seeing what happens." I've always hated fudging. I roll my dice right out on the table for everyone to see. My screen (when I use it) is a quick-reference tool, not a curtain to hide mischief behind. I've never been a player, but if I were, I would not play with a GM who fudges.

So can a GM cheat by fudging? I would say yes. If I were to do that, I would be cheating my players out of the impact and meaning of their decisions and the profundity of the outcomes of those decisions. Further, I would be cheating all of us out of "seeing what happens"...because we already know ahead of time, and I'd just rather watch a movie or read a book instead as it will be "better" than any story that comes out of our play (and I think our play is quite good and yields rip-roaring RPG stories!).

< Insert feel-good caveat about different strokes for different folks >

 

[James Eisert]

Do you actually pre-script the on-stage deaths of NPCs? Is there anything left to chance in your games, or is the story entirely pre-written?

Nothing is written solid in a good RPG. And chance events DO happen. But timing is everything in a good story. The main point is that dicey events can ruin a better storyline in the long run, or one that has been going on for along time. Like a hero that wants revenge on an npc that has been evading the character for ages. His party meets the villan in what was to be a small encounter. A small fight ensues with the henchmen but one of the pc's (not the main pc wanting revenge) takes a shot at the vilian...scores a crit and kills him.

Now this would be no problem if they just met the villan perhaps, but this character was the bane of the one PC. It's like Superman killing the Joker. Batman fans would be ticked right?

I'm not saying you can't make it work. And perhaps even in gritty RPG it would be just fine if the idea is that everyone dies a lot, I can see that style in 1st edition D&D style play. That's the way it was and it worked, but even then people did not talk about the level 2 or 3 guys they played with. It always was the EPIC characters that seemed to survive the odds. That does not usually happen without some divine intervention from the DM.

 

[Umbran]

My screen (when I use it) is a quick-reference tool, not a curtain to hide mischief behind.
...
< Insert feel-good caveat about different strokes for different folks >

Here's a question - if it really is different strokes for different folks, does it necessarily qualify as mischief?

 

[JoshDemers]

I know I'm weighing in late in the game, but I think an important element is that the players need to feel like you, the GM, are on their side. I have been in very adversarial games and they are no fun. But when I'm playing a game and I feel like the GM and players are telling the same story, then there is a lot more that can be done and accepted. This can work even for "seeing what happens" sorts of games. The players still need to feel like the GM isn't out to get them, but is even rooting for them.

If the GM makes a roll with a result that is highly unlikely and thus derails the story, then I have no problem with that roll being ignored. Of course I don't want that to happen much - sometimes things go in unexpected directions. But there are also times when a story "feels" like it need to go a certain way.

In the games I've been running recently, I have made an effort to have a lot more group input. I think that addresses your "different strokes" issue. Sometimes it is better to be above board about the "cheating" so everyone knows you're trying to keep the game interesting for everyone. It gets tricky when you have huge power disparities. All the more reason, I think, to get the group in on the behind the scenes stuff so ou have buy-in from the start.