Can a GM cheat?

[diaglo]

worst part about the above scenario...the DM didn't even describe it that well. i added some flavor text so you could actually understand what happened.

after the fight is over

DM: you guys attack everything you see. you don't spend any time trying to figure things out.

Players: :\ .... we are level 9

DM: quit metagaming. levels don't exist in game.

Players: then how did the goblins know who to attack first?

DM: they observed you... they plan everything. that is how they survive. unlike you guys.

Players: who won the fight?

DM: the NPC had to bail you all out.

 

[Philip]

If in a very climactic scene, the party whacks the big bad with one shot, I fudge his hit points/save/whatever to keep things interesting.

snip...

Nothing worse in a roleplaying game than the anti-climactic ending. I know when it happens when I'm a player, I feel cheated because it was too easy. "I fought through all that for this?"

I strongly dislike this kind of DM behaviour. It invites metagaming. I happen to have a wizard fascinated with spells like polymorph, baleful polymorph and flesh to stone. He even casts it against opponents with high Fort saves just because he thinks their 'cool' spells (low Wis).

I repeatedly casted these spells against BBEG's, but they ALWAYS made their saves. This was suspicious, especially if the BBEG's were wizards or others with low Fort saves. When I asked the DM about this out-of-game he admitted he fudged the rolls so that the BBEG's would not be disabled in the first few rounds of combat.

I explained to him that to me that meant: 'don't cast Baleful Polymorph, Stone to Flesh or whatever at the BBEG in the beginning of combat, because they will never work anyway. Just stick with magic missiles, fireballs etc.'

I like the game because it offers me a freedom of choice. Battles are not exciting because I don't know how they will go, not because it takes several rounds to take down the BBEG.

This kind of fudging comes down to railroading, and nothing worse in a role-playing game than railroading, I would say.

 

[diaglo]

...and nothing worse in a role-playing game than railroading, I would say.

i have to disagree. there are plenty of things worse. just ask me. i have a whole notebook full of them from some bad DMs.

 

[Shallown]

From Meriam Webster Dictionary

cheat

transitive senses
1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
intransitive senses
1 a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly (as at cards or on an examination)

I am not so sure Cheat or cheating applies to DMing. I Know fairness and honesty do but the word Cheat has negative conitations and mind set.

I know its called a role playing "Game" but its not a game in a lot of senses.

So a gm fudging/altering things doesn't meet any of the dfeintions above.

Of course I could be wrong but I don't think cheating (as a GM) is possible.

Now players can cheat only in the sense of the use of deceit to gain an advantage such s cheating at rolls. The player would be advancing themselves before other players. A GM's role is not to be a player but to be a GM.

Later

 

[Bauglir]

i have to disagree. there are plenty of things worse. just ask me. i have a whole notebook full of them from some bad DMs.

Do tell! (perhaps in a separate thread though?)

 

[Thanee]

Depends on what "cheating" is. If the DM fudges some rolls to carry the story along or make a fight more interesting or prevent one character to die from a streak of bad luck for the 3rd time in a row, then it's not only fair, but almost required to do so. If the DM fudges some rolls, because those poor monsters should win, not those bad adventurers, then it's not ok.

In the same light, the DM should try not to metagame against the players. For example, one should always try to seperate DM knowledge and NPC knowledge! I'd consider it cheating, if an NPC dispels the cleric, because the DM knows, that the cleric has lots of buff spells running, but the NPC doesn't even have a clue, that the PC is a cleric.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Henry]

Any GM who runs games on the fly is cheating. Any GM who lets his player reroll a bad set of stats to be more in line with the other players is cheating. Any GM who ever let a trapdoor close a second too quickly to allow the evil guy to fight another day is cheating.

Do I cheat? Of course. Then again, most GMs seem to, they just don't call it that, they call it GM'ing.

Fudging dice rolls are a different matter. In my experience, it's more fun when you let the dice fall where they may, but I have also found rare circumstances when dice threaten to undermine something a player has worked very hard to do (like a really cool attack he had planned, or a spectacular action that people would pay money to see in an action movie). In those cases, I'd hate to have someone go through all that trouble, assign an arbitrary number for success, and tell the player they failed by 1 or 2 points. It's rare, but I have done it before.

In general, I say no.

If you cheat, then you are breaking that trust that your players have in you (even if you get away with it without them noticing!). Your players are expecting that you roll honestly and even if that means the death of their PC due to the whim of the dice they will respect you more for this than for fudging the roll and giving them a break.

I don't cheat when I GM, but then again, I've never got myself into a situation where all the PCs are going to die. An inexperienced GM may have more of a tendency to accidentally do this.

If I had to "cheat", then it wouldn't be fudging the dice rolls, I'd probably have an NPC step in and save the PCs or something. But even then, this can irrate players if they are "let off the hook" all the time. Players want to feel that their PC's lives are threatened and that death is a very real possibility. One of the great things about RPGs is that they're not exactly stories; they're also a simulation of life's randomness. In a story the author can have his hero get out of all sorts of scrapes, but in an RPG this isn't necessarily the case.

What are other people's thoughts?

 

[Bigwilly]

I plead the fifth

Okay, so I might have fudged the odd dice roll, but I'm not admitting to anything.

There may have been a couple of BBEGs who made a save when they shouldn't have (+20 discretionary DM saving throw bonus)

There may have been the occassional error in calculating how much damage a PC took - "How many HP do you have left? What a coincidence that's exactly how much damage you take"

And there might have been the occasional BBEG who lasted a bit longer than he should have - "He's STILL standing" - even though he's actually on minus 42 hp.

Even if I did do these things it was only to keep the game moving and fun. However, I will kill off a PC if he does something stupid or gets in the way of a ton of damage and normally let the dice stand as they fall - although that's usually to the detriment of my NPCs.

Bigwilly

 

[d4]

Your players are expecting that you roll honestly and even if that means the death of their PC due to the whim of the dice they will respect you more for this than for fudging the roll and giving them a break.

disagree. players expect the GM to provide an entertaining game. that means different things to different people. for some people it means "let the dice (and PCs) fall where they may." for myself, my enjoyment of the game severely decreases if i know the GM will let my PC die from random die rolls. i have more respect for a GM who gives a beloved PC a break than one who lets one arbitrarily die "because the dice said so." i expect the GM to be the final arbiter of the game, not the dice.

If I had to "cheat", then it wouldn't be fudging the dice rolls, I'd probably have an NPC step in and save the PCs or something. But even then, this can irrate players if they are "let off the hook" all the time.

i think every gamer i have ever met would be MORE irritated by being saved through some GM's NPC than by being saved through a fudged die roll. having an NPC step in to save the party is blatant, whereas a fudged die roll can be invisible to the players.

Players want to feel that their PC's lives are threatened and that death is a very real possibility. One of the great things about RPGs is that they're not exactly stories; they're also a simulation of life's randomness.

strongly disagree. this is true of some players, but not of all. i find games where death of PCs is a very real possibility boring and extremely unfun. i hate playing in those types of campaigns. i want to feel that my character is a hero, and special, and i want to have the security of knowing that i can nurture and grow him over the course of the entire campaign.

not everyone wants a "simulation of life's randomness," either. in fact, that's exactly what i'm trying to get away from when i role-play. i get enough of "life's randomness" the other six days of the week. when i game, i want to act out the kinds of things i see in stories and movies; things that aren't realistic and don't have the same kind of arbitrary randomness that real life deals us.

 

[diaglo]

disagree. players expect the GM to provide an entertaining game. that means different things to different people. for some people it means "let the dice (and PCs) fall where they may." for myself, my enjoyment of the game severely decreases if i know the GM will let my PC die from random die rolls. i have more respect for a GM who gives a beloved PC a break than one who lets one arbitrarily die "because the dice said so." i expect the GM to be the final arbiter of the game, not the dice.

i expect the DM/GM to be a referee. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

no fudging. death is a part of this game. no pc death in a game is boring as hell.

i think every gamer i have ever met would be MORE irritated by being saved through some GM's NPC than by being saved through a fudged die roll. having an NPC step in to save the party is blatant, whereas a fudged die roll can be invisible to the players.

i agree with the first part. they even have a name for it. Deus Ex Machina

strongly disagree. this is true of some players, but not of all. i find games where death of PCs is a very real possibility boring and extremely unfun. i hate playing in those types of campaigns. i want to feel that my character is a hero, and special, and i want to have the security of knowing that i can nurture and grow him over the course of the entire campaign.

games with death does not diminish the chance for the PC to be a hero. death increases it.

not everyone wants a "simulation of life's randomness," either. in fact, that's exactly what i'm trying to get away from when i role-play. i get enough of "life's randomness" the other six days of the week. when i game, i want to act out the kinds of things i see in stories and movies; things that aren't realistic and don't have the same kind of arbitrary randomness that real life deals us.

and not everyone wants the game to play without the involvement of the players. if we did we would just go to the movies or read a book.

dice in every game they are used add something to the game.