Can the GM cheat?

[Mallus]

Let me answer this by asking another question: what's the relationship between the rules (ie, the formal system mechanics) and the GM?

I've always seen the rules as tools to help the GM adjudicate in-game situations. The GM uses them, but isn't necessarily bound by them. A GM can modify the rules, override them, suspend them, add to the body of formal rules used (house rule), put ad-hoc, situational rules in place, etc.

Put another way, the GM is the rules.

Even when a GM follows the formal rules strictly, each time they assign something like a situational modifier, they're inserting their judgment in the task-resolution process. For that reason, I don't see a lot of difference between giving a player +4 bonus to an action and just assigning by fiat a percentage chance to succeed, ie doing an end-run around the formal rules, when convenient and/or appropriate.

That said, I don't really like fudging. I'd prefer to add something to the rules than override a die roll. For example, if a PC fails a save and "dies", I'll give the party 1 round to "do something" to save them. Second chances not explicitly granted by the rules are fine, fudging, not so much.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It all comes down to player expectations. If the game is presented as story first type of campaign, with the mechanics and dice subordinate to that and everyone is on board then fine.

If the players believe that they are playing in a fair campaign, and whatever happens just happens then the GM absolutely can cheat.

Either way, players have the right to know what kind of table they are at. Be up front with the players about whatever type of game you want to run and no illusionism or deception will be needed.

 

[airwalkrr]

The most common technique I employed was adding hp to bad guys who otherwise would have been one-shotted by the two uber players, but if the bad guy was simply meant to die, if that was the bad guy's purpose, I let the dice decide the outcome, which was essentially a forgone conclusion. If the bad guy was meant to present a continuing menace, even if only a few sessions, I would add enough HP that it could survive a few attacks so that it could survive to harry the PCs for a while.

The second-most common technique I used was soft-balling a roll against the weaker players. I usually designed encounters with multiple aspects. There were bad guys for the uber players to fight and there were puzzles or skill-type challenges for the other players. Sometimes the weaker players would get involved in the fights though, and if that was what they wanted to do, I tried not to punish them. They would have a streak of "good luck," where the bad guys would mostly miss them or suffer minimum damage.

The least common method of "dice-massaging" or fudging was when what was supposed to be a particularly challenging encounter wound up being a snooze fest because of poor luck on part of the bad guys. I would either let the PCs kill the bad guys off early by letting the next attack kill them or force them to deal a little damage by fudging a good roll just to wake the players up. I never killed a player or gave them a debilitating disease or anything like that as a result of such actions.

90% of the time I followed the rules as written (at least as far as I interpreted things). I feel that's a pretty acceptable rate.

I don't consider any of that cheating, unfair, or wrong, especially in a story-centered campaign.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't consider any of that cheating, unfair, or wrong, especially in a story-centered campaign.

Provided your players knew it was happening and were ok with it sure, no problem.

If you did any of this and tried to hide it from the players......BIG problem.

 

[airwalkrr]

Provided your players knew it was happening and were ok with it sure, no problem.

If you did any of this and tried to hide it from the players......BIG problem.

See, this is a big issue I have. It is sort of a tangent because it doesn't apply to my situation. But I don't feel a GM should HAVE to make his common knowledge beforehand. The world is his, it should bend to his whim, and the players shouldn't be surprised by that. I am not saying, nor have I ever, that GMs are entitled to abuse their players. And I think player rolls should never be reversed or discarded. But if a GM desires a particular outcome. He ought to have the right to make sure it occurs. And no GM should ever have to explain that to his players. It should always be done with tact and with them. But I take issue with the fact that there are people out there who think that just because the GM fudges with out letting his players know that he is going to do it is a big problem. Unless the GM is a tournament referee or judge in such a case as may be at convention play or competitive play, there should never be a question of whether the GM has the right to fudge.

Again, this does not apply to my situation. I am aware of the current day atmosphere and feelings regarding fudging. So I do make my players aware if I will do so in the campaign. Nevertheless, I do not feel like I should have to, nor do I feel that "The GM is cheating" is a legitimate excuse for having a problem with the game. "The GM is cheating to make the game no fun for me in a personal way" is a legitimate reason, but the two are very different.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The world is his, it should bend to his whim, and the players shouldn't be surprised by that. I am not saying, nor have I ever, that GMs are entitled to abuse their players. [SNIP] But if a GM desires a particular outcome. He ought to have the right to make sure it occurs.

I think you're right about the GM having that right; it's his game, and unless he gives some authority away, I agree with you. However, I think that a GM fudging (without informing the players) is potentially abuse of the players. I know I'd feel cheated if someone did this without my knowledge.

But I take issue with the fact that there are people out there who think that just because the GM fudges with out letting his players know that he is going to do it is a big problem.

I get that you take issue with it. But, have you seen how many people have come down on "it can be cheating" in this thread? And, in particular, my reasoning for that? It hurts my immersion, and it makes me feel like my in-game accomplishments aren't as valuable. It's damaging my enjoyment at the table, and it's potentially doing so while breaking the rules I agreed to play. (This wasn't the case in your game from the OP, but we're talking about the "tangent" now.)

It's not a "big problem" in that I don't trust you to run a fun game. It's that it inherently hurts my fun on a couple of different fronts.

Unless the GM is a tournament referee or judge in such a case as may be at convention play or competitive play, there should never be a question of whether the GM has the right to fudge.

Again, I pretty much agree with you about the GM's right to fudge. I just disagree about whether or not it's "cheating".

Again, this does not apply to my situation. I am aware of the current day atmosphere and feelings regarding fudging. So I do make my players aware if I will do so in the campaign. Nevertheless, I do not feel like I should have to, nor do I feel that "The GM is cheating" is a legitimate excuse for having a problem with the game. "The GM is cheating to make the game no fun for me in a personal way" is a legitimate reason, but the two are very different.

Sorry that my problem with fudging (especially in my favor) isn't "legitimate" to you. All I can say is the reason on why it bugs me. And that's definitely legitimate. As always, play what you like

 

[Kingreaper]

See, this is a big issue I have. It is sort of a tangent because it doesn't apply to my situation. But I don't feel a GM should HAVE to make his common knowledge beforehand. The world is his, it should bend to his whim, and the players shouldn't be surprised by that.

The world is his. The Player Characters are the players.

The Game is everyone's. The GM doesn't OWN the game, they run it.

If you start taking over the PCs, whether overtly or through continuous fudging, you are overstepping the role of a GM

I am not saying, nor have I ever, that GMs are entitled to abuse their players. And I think player rolls should never be reversed or discarded. But if a GM desires a particular outcome. He ought to have the right to make sure it occurs.

This never needs to involve fudging; unless either: A) the GM fails to set up the scenario properly or B) The players make it their goal to ensure that outcome doesn't occur.

In case A, the GM is fudging to make up for their own failure to plan. I've done this, I'm not proud of it but I have.
In case B, the GM is fudging in order to render the players actions pointless. This is unacceptable.

And no GM should ever have to explain that to his players. It should always be done with tact and with them. But I take issue with the fact that there are people out there who think that just because the GM fudges with out letting his players know that he is going to do it is a big problem. Unless the GM is a tournament referee or judge in such a case as may be at convention play or competitive play, there should never be a question of whether the GM has the right to fudge.

I disagree. The GM has no more right to fudge than the players do, unless agreed otherwise by the group.

Again, this does not apply to my situation. I am aware of the current day atmosphere and feelings regarding fudging. So I do make my players aware if I will do so in the campaign. Nevertheless, I do not feel like I should have to, nor do I feel that "The GM is cheating" is a legitimate excuse for having a problem with the game. "The GM is cheating to make the game no fun for me in a personal way" is a legitimate reason, but the two are very different.

Too much fudging is the same as going "I'll decide the outcome of every challenge".

Even if you have permission to fudge, fudging is a LIMITED occurence. Fudge once every three sessions, and no-one will care except the most hardcore dice-fall-where-they-may. Fudge three times every session and most people will disapprove.

Fudge ten times a session, and you're playing the wrong game.

 

[GameOgre]

If I am playing a game and the DM controls the entire world,all the creatures in that world but me,all the Gods and Powers,Everything that walks crawls or fly's in the entire universe,Why can't he play by the rules just like I have to?

Why does he feel like HE gets to ignore rules,ignore dice rolls and steer the outcome of game the way he wants? That's not a game,That is Storytelling.

I am not playing the game to sit and listen to his story.

It's a game. One that he ALREADY holds all the power,he ALREADY sets up adventures and ALREADY controls what happens to a large degree.

If he is going to take that last step and remove chance from the outcome then count me out. Frankly,I would rather go read a book.

I don't want his help to save my character from a ignoble death. If I earned a death GIVE IT TO ME.

If I one hit killed your bad arse npc's GIVE IT TO ME.

The FUN of these games is that good planning by both DM and players can pay off. That sometimes it doesn't!

Sometimes the dice are simply with you! Sometimes the Dice Gods laugh and curse your name!

Either way,it's fun.

 

[hopeless]

The answer is yes GM's can cheat I even had one gm admit he did so because he thought certain players were annoying and I thought the way he did it was wrong by declaring each hit was a critical when there are other ways of handling it.

Oh that door you opened had a glyph on it, you have no idea where you are, whilst you're waiting here run this character and I'll get back to you once your character wakes up...

What annoyed me was when he deliberately misintrepretated rules to accomodate his decisions when he had an insanity glyph effect someone who couldn't even see the glyph and came across as particularly spiteful unless it was concerning someone he felt was important part of his gaming group.

I usually roll out in full view and if I fudge its because I run the game for the mutual enjoyment of the group not to "win" I've made some decisions that have been queried but I still listened.

In regards to the above would they have willingly accepted running a more appropriately levelled character if something separated their higher level characters from the rest of the party say a door that when opened sends the party to certain parts of the dungeon except being so obviously powerful the higher level characters discover they've been stuck on another plane and by the time they get back the other party has gained a few levels to even out the difference...

Would that be acceptable to your players if it was specifically to make the game more enjoyable to all of them or are they truly fixated on those higher level characters that you might be better off having the other create higher level characters of their own to accomodate the entire group?

 

[Ryltar]

GameOgre,

the GM should not fudge dice rolls or alter the rules to screw players over. I think no one is really contesting that point.

However, I want to provide you with a different perspective. The GM's burden is to create an enjoyable gaming environment for the entire party. And while I am an advocate for not overly pulling punches, I am also of the opinion that there are few things more disruptive to a story than continuous player deaths. You lose their background, you lose their plot hooks, which also often makes it more difficult for other players to immerse themselves in the story. During one of my campaigns, which started out as the players forced to work together by outside circumstances, 3 out of 4 players had their characters die, and their replacements just were not invested in the story to the same degree. (Trying to achieve this puts an additional burden on the GM, which is to come up with good plot hooks at any point of the story whenever someone's PC dies.) The result was that we abandoned the campaign.

What I am trying to say is that there is a middle ground between hand-holding and letting the dice fall where they may. I will fudge dice rolls whenever I feel that it is not just bad planning on the part of the PCs, but rather rotten luck with the dice that leads to a PC death - in the interest of story coherence and immersion. I will not fudge dice rolls when a player is falling victim to Darwin's law or whenever they decide to attack despite overwhelming odds.