Can the GM cheat?

[Manbearcat]

@Umbran 10-4

 

[timASW]

Boy reading some responses in this thread make me wonder if I'm the only GM on this site that cant remember a single time in 18 years of running games when a player asked me about a social contract or whether I fudge dice before starting a game. Is this actually common where you guys play?

 

[Oryan77]

Boy reading some responses in this thread make me wonder if I'm the only GM on this site that cant remember a single time in 18 years of running games when a player asked me about a social contract or whether I fudge dice before starting a game. Is this actually common where you guys play?

I've never been questioned about fudging dice. Maybe I'm good at not being obvious about it? I don't know how my players feel about it. I've never had a conversation about it with any player during my time. Nobody seems to mind what I'm doing, so I guess they don't care.

I'm not sure about social contracts. I guess I've had 1 or 2 players blow up at me when they'd come into an existing game with some sort of expectation and then find out after joining that things don't work like that when I DM. In these instances, I never debriefed them on my DMing style and what I find acceptable in-game. So the surprise may have irritated them. Then again, I have a feeling these players would have found something else to blow up at me about even if I did give them the run down.

I would assume that any players that react negatively to any spoken or unspoken social contract are usually the drama queens that are always problem players in any group. I think it is less about the social contract and more about the person being a problem player to begin with.

 

[Umbran]

Boy reading some responses in this thread make me wonder if I'm the only GM on this site that cant remember a single time in 18 years of running games when a player asked me about a social contract or whether I fudge dice before starting a game. Is this actually common where you guys play?

I've never been asked by a player about fudging dice. When I started my Deadlands campaign, I did ask my players if they cared if I fudged - none of them did.

"Social contract" is just a jargon way of saying, "the expectations or understanding for how we're going to play the game." I wouldn't be surprised if in most cases it is taken for granted (the expectations are still there, mind you - if you don't talk it out, it will just be an implied or assumed contract). We, however, have a whole jargon for talking about such stuff, because we talk about it so much.

 

[S'mon]

Boy reading some responses in this thread make me wonder if I'm the only GM on this site that cant remember a single time in 18 years of running games when a player asked me about a social contract or whether I fudge dice before starting a game. Is this actually common where you guys play?

No, players don't ask - but good GMs tell! Eg when I'm posting a campaign pitch I'll usually put something like "I roll all dice in the open and let them fall where they may". I think this is good
practice and like I said upthread, I think all GMs should be frank about their style. If I don't want to play in a fudging game I don't want my time wasted when it turns out the GM is a fudger. And players who require fudging shouldn't be lured into no-fudging games.
Whether or not GMs commonly do tell the players, they really ought to.

Edit: It's usually only an issue when you game with new people, in a long term established group there is
usually a well established implicit social contract.

 

[S'mon]

"Social contract" is just a jargon way of saying, "the expectations or understanding for how we're going to play the game." I wouldn't be surprised if in most cases it is taken for granted (the expectations are still there, mind you - if you don't talk it out, it will just be an implied or assumed contract). We, however, have a whole jargon for talking about such stuff, because we talk about it so much.

I agree with that. People assume a particular contract/GM style.
Playing at the London D&D Meetup, I think the most common expectation is that the GM won't fudge, followed closely by one that the GM may fudge at his/her discretion. I've rarely seen an expectation that the GM should/must fudge to keep PCs alive, but it did happen a couple times when I was running 3e in 2008-9, using converted Basic D&D adventures which are pretty lethal. One guy was furious at his 1st level Wizard PC being chopped up by the Bone Golem in B7 'Rahasia'; I came across him still complaining on the Internet several years later!

 

[timASW]

Well that was interesting. When describing a campaign online I usually follow what other GM's were already doing here when i first got on meetup.com. Something like a paragraph or two about the sort of campaign and system(sci-ci, fantasy,steampunk, etc.) and then something about how gamist it is. The trend here in vegas is percentages. Like 60% roleplay/40% combat. Then I usually clarify that I prefer a small number of difficult combats to lots of little easy combats and close with "email me any questions".

So far its worked pretty well. The biggest problem is that if the system says anything but pathfinder around here it takes forever to build a group. I'm pretty sure if I said it was a modern supers game using pathfinder rules it would fill up overnight, but mention mutants and masterminds and the post will languish for months.

No one seems to give a fart about fudging or not. I do it sometimes for pacing or drama but I wouldnt say that because if they know I'm doing it it creates problems. I also roll dice on my phone though so i dont have to worry about anyone else seeing them.

 

[Umbran]

I agree with that. People assume a particular contract/GM style.
've rarely seen an expectation that the GM should/must fudge to keep PCs alive, but it did happen a couple times when I was running 3e in 2008-9, using converted Basic D&D adventures which are pretty lethal. One guy was furious at his 1st level Wizard PC being chopped up by the Bone Golem in B7 'Rahasia'; I came across him still complaining on the Internet several years later!

I cannot speak to that specific incident, of course. But if, for example, he's signed up for a four or six hour game, and he died in the first hour, disappointment is an understandable thing. I'd not worry too much about the exact way that disappointment is expressed - the guy's upset, so maybe he says the GM should have fudged, but he's not in the best place to analyze the issue.

 

[S'mon]

I cannot speak to that specific incident, of course. But if, for example, he's signed up for a four or six hour game, and he died in the first hour, disappointment is an understandable thing. I'd not worry too much about the exact way that disappointment is expressed - the guy's upset, so maybe he says the GM should have fudged, but he's not in the best place to analyze the issue.

He would have been ok if I had immediately stopped the game and had him bring in a new PC. But when the battle was still going on half an hour later and I hadn't let him bring in a new character, he flipped.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Boy reading some responses in this thread make me wonder if I'm the only GM on this site that cant remember a single time in 18 years of running games when a player asked me about a social contract or whether I fudge dice before starting a game. Is this actually common where you guys play?

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