Can the GM cheat?

[Bagpuss]

I once had a GM that would always fudge to ensure no character ever died, he would often ask how many hit points you had left before rolling damage for example. It did make the game less enjoyable for me, because I didn't feel any risk.

So in the end I managed to conceal just how damaged my character was before getting into a fight. After rolling a series of attacks against my character he remembered to ask, when I answered -32, you could almost see the colour drain from his face.

Fudging is a fine line, even if done for the right reasons it can spoil a persons enjoyment.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Did I fudge dice and alter numbers on the fly? Absolutely.

So what's your confusion here? The players don't like the way you run games so they don't play in your games.

The GM can cheat only insofar as he can break the rules of the social contract under which everyone agreed to play.

Well, sure. But you can say the same thing about cheating at any game: If everyone silently agrees that the 5 year old can occasionally fudge their die rolls because that makes it more fun for them and it's not really worth arguing with them, then it's not "really" cheating. And if I occasionally fudge my dice rolls when playing Monopoly because I think everyone at the table has more fun when the competition is really tight, well.... if we hadn't explicitly said I couldn't do that, it's basically a grey area, right?

From any objective viewpoint, of course, it's still clearly cheating. (Yes, even if everyone at the table is OK with the cheating.)

If the system requires the DM to fudge rolls in order for it to function properly and remain fun for all participants, there's an issue with the system, not with the DM.

Not necessarily. It's not the system's fault if the GM overpowers an encounter they've designed. Or if the GM is fudging in order to enforce their railroad, that's not the system's fault, either.

 

[Umbran]

From any objective viewpoint, of course, it's still clearly cheating.

No, not *any* objective viewpoint*. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

The difference is an agreement before the fact. If you agree before choosing the Top Hat that you're going to allow some fudging of dice along with having cash under Free Parking, then you're establishing house rules and it isn't cheating. If you don't make that agreement, you should expect the assumption of the rules as written in the box lid, in which the dice roll must be taken as-is.

Of course, for D&D the issue is reversed. The rules, at least as far back to 1e, explicitly allow the GM to fudge. We already have citations on that. It only becomes cheating to do so if you make an agreement before play that it isn't allowed.


*Especially as, by definition, there can only be one objective viewpoint. Objective in this case means independent of individual thought, and perceptible by all observers. If it isn't singular, it isn't free of individuality.

 

[airwalkrr]

I don't even know why I started this thread anymore. Just thinking about it makes me upset. GMs can't cheat. They make the rules. If a player comes to a game with a GM who says "story trumps rules" then leaves the campaign because "the GM cheats" is just bull... you can fill in the rest. I guess I am just really ticked off at chicken---- players who are too afraid to say how they feel and instead leave a campaign to let it collapse.

 

[airwalkrr]

Cheat: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud.

That's just such a strong accusation to make of someone. And within the context of a campaign which is driven by narrative and not dice, it is practically ridiculous as well.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

Wow, I don't even remember that, and I played 1E for a very long time. Thanks for bringing up a very key point. That makes me wonder if the reason is fudging is so well accepted in RPGs while it is not elsewhere is because it was explicitly written into the most important RPG ever made.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't even know why I started this thread anymore. Just thinking about it makes me upset. GMs can't cheat.

Okay maybe by some definitions they can't cheat as such, but the can spoil the game by fudging (even in the characters favour), by arbitrary decisions that don't seem to follow the accepted rules, weighting encounters against the players repeatedly, or in favour of the players.

But yes they should speak to you an air their grievances before quitting and spoiling it for everyone, you should be given a chance to address their problems.

 

[timASW]

Cheat: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud.

That's just such a strong accusation to make of someone. And within the context of a campaign which is driven by narrative and not dice, it is practically ridiculous as well.

Maybe its not necessarily the fudging itself, but the degree of fudging.

Its all good to say our story trumps the dice, sometimes I GM that way, so I know what you mean. But theres a line between the story being the highest priority and players feeling like their playing out an ammy novelists story with no real choices. And those dice results ARE choices.

I think its a matter of priorities, a GM should rate his priorities before his campaign, to himself even if to no one else. Things like fun, fear, drama, challenge, story, grittyness and gamism.

If your story is at 10, your gamism is at 1 and fun is somewhere around a 5 your going to have issues with a lot of players. The same thing if the numbers are reversed.

IME the ideal campaign has story at a 6, gamism at a 4 and Fun at a 9. The highest rating being fun means your going to have to watch your players reactions mid campaign and react to them, potentially changing your story/gamism, numbers or any other factor as the campaign progresses.

Getting mad at people for having a preferred game style is not going to help anyone though.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Personally, I find that cowardly, but that's not the discussion at hand.

This view alone might be a deterrent for me gaming with you. I know that there are good ways and bad ways to deal with someone (letting someone down easy, in any context), but from my experience, the type of people that judge people as "cowardly" for not participating in open discussion of issues are usually more aggressively confrontational. I don't know if you are (and I'm not saying you are), but if you tend to be confrontational at times, I don't blame less confrontational people for avoiding the unnecessary hassle. Again, not saying you are confrontational (I am; I just don't consider it cowardly when people don't want to deal with me).

But, this is a side issue, though I think I feel okay stating it based on this post: [sblock]

I don't even know why I started this thread anymore. Just thinking about it makes me upset. GMs can't cheat. They make the rules. If a player comes to a game with a GM who says "story trumps rules" then leaves the campaign because "the GM cheats" is just bull... you can fill in the rest. I guess I am just really ticked off at chicken---- players who are too afraid to say how they feel and instead leave a campaign to let it collapse.

[/sblock]
Seriously, if that's what it felt like when people disagreed with your preferences, I'd let you know (again, I don't mind confrontations). But I don't blame people who want to avoid you calling their opinions "bull" or calling them, as people, "chicken players." But that's me.

Did I fudge dice and alter numbers on the fly? Absolutely.

Okay. If they saw that as cheating, their views are justified, in my opinion, unless you explicitly expressed your way of running the game, which a later post indicates you did. However, I'm answering your general assertions here, and hopefully giving insight into their way of thinking; more on this below.

But did I cheat? No, I feel I did not. The GM cannot cheat.

I very strongly disagree.

Games have rules. Can you change them? Sure. Changing the rules is on the fly considered "cheating" to some groups. And, doing it to prop up some players and hurt others is fine; that works for some groups. However, if certain players don't agree with you about the type of game they're expecting, and you cheat to hurt them and help other players, then, yeah, I totally get why they walked.

Now, this is purely a social contract issue. "The GM cannot cheat" is acceptable at many tables (and it was voiced, explicitly, in the 3.5 DMG). But, for example, I tell my players "I won't fudge to save you, or to hurt you." If I then go on to fudge to save them (or hurt them), then I've cheated them. I've broken one of the rules they think the game runs by. This is also why I roll in the open; I have nothing to hide, and it's largely symbolic of that.

Now, my brother fudges events, dice, etc. when he runs his games. I know that he does, and I accept that. Sometimes, when I've lived through events, I question whether I should have made it (he doesn't always roll in the open, and sometimes enemies might start missing more often once I was low on HP). And, whether or not he fudged, that nagging feeling of "did I earn that victory?" kinda sucks. I mean, I want to know I earned that win, and now I just don't know. I even started playing more and more recklessly (but justifiably) to see if I'd lose a character (I didn't).

When it comes to my brother, I've learned to put the "did I earn that?" feeling on mute. Sure, it's still around, but it's not as important as engaging with things. Would I enjoy the game more if that question wasn't on mute? Definitely. But, I can play without it. And I had to learn to play that way with my brother. However, if your players don't like playing this way, then yeah, I get why they feel cheated. They want to earn things, and they have no idea what is earned and what isn't.

I am not sure what to make of these players, as the situation might be related to something else (especially since I had to hear this from a third person perspective). But I have to honestly ask, is it possible for a GM to cheat? If you are a player, do you care if a GM changes rules behind the screen? My opinion is that the story trumps rules (and dice) all the time unless the campaign is specifically designed as a tournament-style challenge.

This may have been the problem with the players, or with the table. Did you express this to them? If so, then no, you didn't cheat. You played by the rules that everyone knew about. If this is the case, it was a problem with the players.

If they didn't know this is how you intended to run the game, it was a table problem. There wasn't appropriate communication, and the players should have asked your preference / you should have told them yours. In your mind, you clearly aren't cheating, while in their mind, you clearly are. It's a failure of communication in regards to the social contract at the table.

Your "the story trumps rules (and dice) all the time)" outlook is fine, but is definitely not universal. I don't want to play in that style of game, generally. It's not terrible or anything (I like playing under my brother), but I definitely have no interest in it over knowing, for sure, that everything I have I completely earned. I want that feeling. It makes me connect to my character more. For me, it's an immersion issue; if I'm constantly getting pulled out of character thinking "should that hit have taken me down?", it's going to hurt my enjoyment of the game.

Again, your preference is perfectly fine. But, can the GM cheat? Definitely. Just depends on the social contract (what the group is playing at the table). As always, play what you like

 

[Luce]

The phrase "story trumps dice" itself leaves some ambiguity. To some people this caries the implication that at certain points rules will be ignored for creating dramatic tension, while the rest (majority) of the time the rules are not affected. I would parallel this view to being similar to cut scenes and predetermined outcomes in video games. Certain villains (eg. Kefka Palazzo) can only be defeated at scripted times and in other times will will get away no matter what. With the exception of those few individuals/scenes (eg. death of Alys in Phantasy Star 4) the internal consistency of the game is preserved. The story precedence does not invalidate the importance of the dice just supersedes it occasionally.
Coming from this position it is not hard to see IMO how some players can feel that their choices are being invalidated. I am not saying you have done something wrong or cheated, but at the same time I hope you can see that your words may have been misconstrued.