Can the GM cheat?

[timASW]

I basically mention to any new players "I hold you to realistic consequences, I will kill you if the dice show up that way, etc." and then answer any questions they have about what I mean. Also, as a player, I've asked two GMs before not to fudge with me (a friend and my brother), but never not to fudge at all. So I know that it's explicit oftentimes when I'm involved, but I have no idea how widespread it is. As always, play what you like

Hmm, when I'm a player I dont ask about fudging at all. I trust the GM to do it if/when its best for the game and to do it seldom enough and subtly enough not to mess up my perception of the games events. Basically the same courtesy I expect of players. If it gets really obnoxiously obvious I might ask him to tone it down and let us live by the dice a bit more i guess but thats never come up. I didnt get to be a player too often until recently when I started switching off with another GM.

I've noticed after spending a lot of years being behind the screen when I'm playing I find myself thinking a lot more about how to help the GM along and play along with where he wants to go and generally assist what he's trying to do then I did when I first started and only had experience as a player.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hmm, when I'm a player I dont ask about fudging at all. I trust the GM to do it if/when its best for the game and to do it seldom enough and subtly enough not to mess up my perception of the games events. Basically the same courtesy I expect of players. If it gets really obnoxiously obvious I might ask him to tone it down and let us live by the dice a bit more i guess but thats never come up. I didnt get to be a player too often until recently when I started switching off with another GM.

I've noticed after spending a lot of years being behind the screen when I'm playing I find myself thinking a lot more about how to help the GM along and play along with where he wants to go and generally assist what he's trying to do then I did when I first started and only had experience as a player.

It's just a play style difference. For me, if I'm low on health and the bad guys miss (often or not), I start to wonder, "should that have hit me? Should I be dead or down right now?" It's impulse, and it hurts my immersion. That's why I've asked two GMs not to fudge stuff for me (but not to stop fudging altogether). I'm less picky about "coincidental" stuff happening, but fudging stuff to help me (or having a policy where you're willing to do that, even if you don't) can get under my skin, since I get pulled out of immersion.

But, I really don't mind other players / groups not adhering to that. And, I've also played with my brother in many campaigns that I haven't mentioned it in (and he used to fudge a couple times per session, I'd say). Mainly, for me, it's the policy that pulls me from immersion, not so much the actual fudging. Again, though, I don't mind other groups playing with it.

At any rate, I was just answering your question, by saying whether or not I bring it up as a GM / player. And in this post, why I do that, I guess (as a GM, I bring it up so people aren't surprised). I do agree with you that being a GM can definitely affect or change how you act as a player, though. And mostly for the good of the GM you're playing under. On the same note, being a player occasionally can really help you as a GM, too. As always, play what you like

 

[timASW]

When it comes to fudging I generally fudge for drama and pacing.

I dont do a ton of combats, I try to spend an hour or so of each 4-5 hour session in combat. But some sessions are much more combat heavy....

In those sessions sometimes players curbstomp every encounter mainly by dumbluck, and in those cases I will say some enemies hit that didnt and roll damage. Not in a way that will kill or seriously hamper the party, but in a way that gives that sense that "yes these guys are dangerous, we arent at a picnic". Which requires very few hits in all actuality.

And sometimes the party gets in fights that should be winnable and over and over they are just getting hammered by repeated dumb luck. In those cases I might make some bad guys miss. Never that last shot that drops a character, that one lands. But if they've really been beat up that day I might make some hits miss and just narrate it in a way that seems dramatic (subdual damage is a good substitute). Again, hopefully not enough to make the difference between winning and losing, but enough to make the outcome seem much more on the hairs edge between them whichever way it eventually falls.

And to be honest we all do it. That decision to have archers shoot at the tanks instead of the wizards? Yeah thats fudging.

Intelligent archers would pincushion the guys in robes first. You start chanting? After the guy in robes dies your next no matter what your wearing.

See someone wearing holy symbols? he dies after the wizards. Thats just basic logic. Unless your enemies are high enough level that they expect the cleric to be able to resurrect, then he dies before the wizards.

Frankly unless your organized monsters are having 1 tough monster engage your tanks in face to face battle while everyone else ranges or tumbles to the back row your fudging.

Its really just about how you do it.

 

[SirAntoine]

You need to do what you believe your players would think is right in this context, and it wouldn't hurt to try to put yourself in their position. Would you want a DM to fudge dice rolls and change the scenario at will? How would you feel if that happened, especially if it happened after you and your friends "worked hard to get where they did, to have a chance to win". Some players will find this unacceptable. Players also know that their dice rolls can go badly or well for them, so why shouldn't they expect the monsters to face that?

 

[JamesonCourage]

And to be honest we all do it. That decision to have archers shoot at the tanks instead of the wizards? Yeah thats fudging.

(1) I don't see this as "fudging", but I do get what you mean.
(2) I don't do it. If the tank has a reason to be targeted, then they'll target him. If the others have a reason to be targeted (like being unarmored yet highly dangerous), then they should be expecting some arrows their way.

Intelligent archers would pincushion the guys in robes first. You start chanting? After the guy in robes dies your next no matter what your wearing.

Yep, not too far off in my games. Though, to be fair, martial characters are very powerful in combat in my RPG, so they can effectively bodyguard / be extremely dangerous in their own right.

See someone wearing holy symbols? he dies after the wizards. Thats just basic logic. Unless your enemies are high enough level that they expect the cleric to be able to resurrect, then he dies before the wizards.

Yep, I'd do that in D&D. Not going to target the tank "just because" or "because it's easier on the party" or anything. I'm going to think "what would this NPC do?" and then play them that way, even if it hurts the party and I bypass the tank.

Frankly unless your organized monsters are having 1 tough monster engage your tanks in face to face battle while everyone else ranges or tumbles to the back row your fudging.

Its really just about how you do it.

No, it's not; It's just about how you do it. But like I said, play style difference, etc. As always, play what you like

 

[timASW]

No, it's not; It's just about how you do it. But like I said, play style difference, etc. As always, play what you like

Fair enough, but I think what I described is pretty much SOP for D&D games. When playing Dark heresy, mage, werewolf, call of cthulu or other games certainly things differ. But in D&D games and their derivatives even "the dice fall where they may" GM's will generally play enemy tactics in a way that favors the PC's.

 

[S'mon]

Fair enough, but I think what I described is pretty much SOP for D&D games. When playing Dark heresy, mage, werewolf, call of cthulu or other games certainly things differ. But in D&D games and their derivatives even "the dice fall where they may" GM's will generally play enemy tactics in a way that favors the PC's.

No, I play all my monsters according to their natures; my intelligent monsters intelligently ; they use tactics just like the PCs do. So typically their Soldiers will engage the PC Defenders & Strikers while their Artillery and Controllers try to take out the PC rear line. Skirmishers and Lurkers will also try to avoid the PC tanks and take out the PC Wizards & Clerics. Unintelligent predator animals will typically target a vulnerable looking PC to kill and drag off/devour, this can make them deadlier than intelligent foes since they are trying to get a meal not inflict a TPK they are more likely to inflict a kill and take away the body, preventing raising. My assassin-type monsters will usually coup de gras fallen PCs (possibly needing an Insight check to realise the PC is not dead yet). Some monsters may engage in suboptimal tactics if it's in their nature to do so, and NPC plans are not always perfect, just as PC plans can be weak. But I certainly don't play to keep the PCs alive. One reason I like 4e D&D is that I can go all-out to kill the PCs and yet they often survive! My 'Punjar Saga' campaign did just have three perma-deaths in the last two sessions - one PC eaten by a snake that then swam off; two PCs killed by man-ape assassins and the survivors had to leave their bodies behind. Those were the first perma-deaths in the campaign though (8 sessions), and my Loudwater campaign has only had 6 perma-deaths in 40 sessions - a 4-PC TPK by goblins in session 1 and 2 PCs eaten by a black dragon ca session 32.

 

[Manbearcat]

And to be honest we all do it. That decision to have archers shoot at the tanks instead of the wizards? Yeah thats fudging.

While I don't agree that its mechanically "fudging", what you're describing is indeed a certain subset of "GM metagaming", which interposes the agenda element of "dramatic need or general fun where the rules fail to address one or both" between pure gamist play and in-world causal logic/process simulation. That reasoning lies at the heart of the GM-wrought NPC tactic resolution that you've addressed here in the same way "fudging" does for NPC fortune resolution. They are both generally in the same "GM force" toolbox.

This is one of the reasons that 4e is my edition-of-choice as below by S'mon:

No, I play all my monsters according to their natures; my intelligent monsters intelligently ; they use tactics just like the PCs do. So typically their Soldiers will engage the PC Defenders & Strikers while their Artillery and Controllers try to take out the PC rear line. Skirmishers and Lurkers will also try to avoid the PC tanks and take out the PC Wizards & Clerics. Unintelligent predator animals will typically target a vulnerable looking PC to kill and drag off/devour, this can make them deadlier than intelligent foes since they are trying to get a meal not inflict a TPK they are more likely to inflict a kill and take away the body, preventing raising. My assassin-type monsters will usually coup de gras fallen PCs (possibly needing an Insight check to realise the PC is not dead yet). Some monsters may engage in suboptimal tactics if it's in their nature to do so, and NPC plans are not always perfect, just as PC plans can be weak. But I certainly don't play to keep the PCs alive. One reason I like 4e D&D is that I can go all-out to kill the PCs and yet they often survive! My 'Punjar Saga' campaign did just have three perma-deaths in the last two sessions - one PC eaten by a snake that then swam off; two PCs killed by man-ape assassins and the survivors had to leave their bodies behind. Those were the first perma-deaths in the campaign though (8 sessions), and my Loudwater campaign has only had 6 perma-deaths in 40 sessions - a 4-PC TPK by goblins in session 1 and 2 PCs eaten by a black dragon ca session 32.

The robust control, forced movement, and mobility elements of 4e allows the players the mechanical tools and opportunities to utterly dictate target acquisition, move enemies around the battlefield, and move around the battlefield themselves to acquire their own targets. This creates a dynamic where a GM can feel free to go full bore and have those Archers focus fire the Wizard if they wish...and deal with the catch-22 of one or more Defenders' control elements (be it mark punishment or Defender intercession), a Striker's or Leader's immediate interrupt that protects the Wizard or punishes the Artillery unit (or both) for attacking the Wizard. Or perhaps the Wizard has put a Slow Zone and a Damage Zone such that if those assembled Archers don't spend their full round just getting (slowly) out of there then they will pay for it dearly. Etc, etc.

As a GM, there is no "dramatic need or general fun where the rules fail to address one or both". The rules don't fail to address the situation (the players are empowered with the control, forced movement, and mobility elements of the tactical interface) and the dramatic need and fun work themselves out without your intervention or massaging of the outcome (GM force)! I can just spend my mental overhead on providing good color, good mechanical elements to interact with, and challenging situations for the players to deal with and put the onus on the players to properly dictate their own tactical outcomes (whatever they may be).

The less empowered players are to affect their own outcomes and the more squishy they are, the higher the temptation will be for "dice fudging" and "tactical massaging" lest you end up with a game of disposable PCs or PCs who don't act particularly heroic because "boldly facing danger" too many times equals "Bobfighter002".

 

[S'mon]

While I don't agree that its mechanically "fudging", what you're describing is indeed a certain subset of "GM metagaming", which interposes the agenda element of "dramatic need or general fun where the rules fail to address one or both" between pure gamist play and in-world causal logic/process simulation. That reasoning lies at the heart of the GM-wrought NPC tactic resolution that you've addressed here in the same way "fudging" does for NPC fortune resolution. They are both generally in the same "GM force" toolbox.

This is one of the reasons that 4e is my edition-of-choice as below by S'mon:

The robust control, forced movement, and mobility elements of 4e allows the players the mechanical tools and opportunities to utterly dictate target acquisition, move enemies around the battlefield, and move around the battlefield themselves to acquire their own targets. This creates a dynamic where a GM can feel free to go full bore and have those Archers focus fire the Wizard if they wish...and deal with the catch-22 of one or more Defenders' control elements (be it mark punishment or Defender intercession), a Striker's or Leader's immediate interrupt that protects the Wizard or punishes the Artillery unit (or both) for attacking the Wizard. Or perhaps the Wizard has put a Slow Zone and a Damage Zone such that if those assembled Archers don't spend their full round just getting (slowly) out of there then they will pay for it dearly. Etc, etc.

As a GM, there is no "dramatic need or general fun where the rules fail to address one or both". The rules don't fail to address the situation (the players are empowered with the control, forced movement, and mobility elements of the tactical interface) and the dramatic need and fun work themselves out without your intervention or massaging of the outcome (GM force)! I can just spend my mental overhead on providing good color, good mechanical elements to interact with, and challenging situations for the players to deal with and put the onus on the players to properly dictate their own tactical outcomes (whatever they may be).

The less empowered players are to affect their own outcomes and the more squishy they are, the higher the temptation will be for "dice fudging" and "tactical massaging" lest you end up with a game of disposable PCs or PCs who don't act particularly heroic because "boldly facing danger" too many times equals "Bobfighter002".

I agree, good post. If I'm GMing uncoordinated orcs or goblin archers they might split fire amongst several PC targets; if I'm GMing drow they'll focus fire on the squishiest looking PCs. I agree about 4e PCs having the tools to negate enemy tactics, certainly by level 6 or so with reasonably skilled players. Kimberly (Lirael the Ranger) in my Paragon Loudwater campaign is always screwing up my attempts to kill her friends, she has all kinds of disrupting and distracting trick shot Interrupts to keep them alive.

 

[pemerton]

When it comes to fudging I generally fudge for drama and pacing.

<snip>

And to be honest we all do it. That decision to have archers shoot at the tanks instead of the wizards? Yeah thats fudging.

I personally see these as different things.

Deciding which PC the enemy engages - in a system that makes that distinction (Tunnels & Trolls doesn't, for instance, and 1st ed AD&D doesn't fully either) - is part of framing and adjudicating the scene. And it's transparent to the players. (And in 4e also partly under their control, eg via marking mechanics.)

Whereas fudging, to me, implies secrecy.

EDIT: I've just read [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s replies. I'm guessing that I'm a bit more "forceful" in my tactical metagaming than those two. When choosing what enemies do, I keep in mind ingame/fictional considerations (like the sort that S'mon emphasises) and "story" metagame concerns (like what would be fun/dramatic) and "tactical" metaagme concerns (how can I put more pressure on the players).

These aren't mutually exclusive, of course - often (i) and (ii) overlap, for instance, if a sworm enemy confronts a PC, because there is both an ingame reason for that enemy to attack that NPC, and it makes for good drama too; and often (i) and (iii) overlap, because intelligent enemies will try to maximise their tactical abilities. But I have a tendency to let the metagame considerations do a fair bit of the leading here - I can retcon in the fiction if I fell like I have to!

EDIT to the edit: For clarity, generally when I'm metagaming NPC/monster tactics I'm not doing it to softball things, but to hardball them. In 4e I find the game tends to work better when you push the players hard.