Can the GM cheat?

[GameOgre]

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.

I would argue that the responsibility for creating a enjoyable game environment is a player one and not really a good DM goal. The DM should optimally be impartial. He shouldn't help or hinder the parties pursuits and should act as a indifferent Judge or median by witch players can view the fictional world.

If I as a player decide to attack the kings guard the DM's responsibility to the game is to bring the matter to its natural conclusion. It would ruin our fun to have him suddenly alter the Kings Guard to make it a fitting challenge for our level ect. It's our dumb arses that decided to take on the Kings Guard at 3rd level! Or our call if we want to take them out at 17th. Either way I'm fine with the result as long as it isn't false. False really can only mean altered from what the DM thinks it should be to fit the party.

Some of the best games I have EVER played resulted in my characters death.

Some of the worst games I have EVER played resulted in my character continuing on.


It is not important if my character lives or dies. It is important to feel the thrill of danger,the joys of success and yes,now and then to feel the despair and agony of defeat. The thing is....in Pathfinder even Death is a lie. The End often means until later.

I do agree that too much death is a bad thing.

Sometimes bad things happen for a reason though. Sometimes I need to be reminded to run away from some fights. Sometimes someone else needs to learn to do there job better in a fight. Death teaches us like no other teacher.

Rotten Luck as well as Outrageous fortune are equal opportunity visitors. If you curtail one from the table it weakens and lessens the fun.

 

[Ryltar]

If I as a player decide to attack the kings guard the DM's responsibility to the game is to bring the matter to its natural conclusion. It would ruin our fun to have him suddenly alter the Kings Guard to make it a fitting challenge for our level ect. It's our dumb arses that decided to take on the Kings Guard at 3rd level! Or our call if we want to take them out at 17th. Either way I'm fine with the result as long as it isn't false.

Absolutely. If the players attack the king's renowned champion (i.e. higher-level NPCs) at 3rd level, this is stupidity and warrants PC death.

However, consider the opposite scenario: 10th level PCs encounter level 2 bandits on the road. Due to a string of bad rolls, a PC dies in what you as the DM had planned as a random encounter to liven up a boring journey. Now, the position is certainly valid that even high-level PCs are not invulnerable and that bad luck can happen to everyone. However, neither does the PC want to lose his character nor does the DM want to lose the character and all his/her plot connections due to mere coincidence. Realistic? Perhaps, insofar as that is possible in a fantasy RPG. Good for the game? I would disagree. A situation like the above may not be a problem where resurrection is available, but depending on the tone of your campaign that is not always the case. In such a case, I would always let fun override pseudo-realism in my game.

 

[GameOgre]

If 10th level pc's get wiped out from a minor bandit encounter then something is really wrong. Either the DM made mistakes or the party did. Some pretty major ones to. A few lucky rolls and a few misfortune ones isn't enough.

I would argue that in fact its HARD for a DM to kill pc's unless he truly doesn't understand the official encounter building system or the party makes major mistakes. My point with this is most PC deaths are due to PC mistakes.

Pushing on when to weak and out of resources is a major pc killer. In game player skill sets are gained over time learning how to keep the party alive.

Overconfidence,so easily acquired with the official encounter building mindset,is another killer. Knowing when to run away is KEY for long term survival trait for any player with a DM who doesn't pull the punches.

The list goes on and on.

What seems at first glance like just a bad roll or mischance is more than likely the result of bad playing habits. Letting players live by altering the random outcomes of dice cheats both parties of the chance to learn from this,masks a problem within the game or encourages bad behavior that will ultimately lead to the DM having to fudge more and more.

It could also be a DM who doesn't use the encounter creation system or doesn't understand it. Place my 1st level group against four Beholders and yeah either I'm gonna talk my way out with some of the best in character role playing you have ever seen or dead. Fudging the die roll wouldn't help the game in that situation.


Give me three good companions and I will beat Pathfinders encounter system time after time. Heck even two or three +3 encounters is doable. I'm nothing special. Most Pathfinder players could do it. Pathfinder is entirely set up to give us,the players huge edges. It's not a fair fight.

 

[Ryltar]

GO, your experience obviously differs from mine - which is fine, but does not render my point less valid. I really think that we are making the same point, just phrasing it differently, FWIW .

I did not state that the Pathfinder encounter system was tipped against the PCs. I did not even contest that most character deaths are a consequence of stupid decisions on the part of the players (too true, in my experience). But situations can and do happen in which one failed save decides everything, or a string of 1's and 2's versus several high rolls from enemies can mean that a character goes from "just a scratch" to "dead and gone" in one round, despite all careful planning, despite all protective spells in place, despite wealth by level. And that has nothing to do with cheating the players, cheating yourself as the DM or even helping 'bad' playing behaviour to sneak in. It is just a consequence of the inherent randomness of the system.

Players want to be heroes, and they do not derive the least amount of enjoyment from failing miserably when even all their planning is for naught. If you run a beer-and-pretzels game, no problem, roll up a new character. But if you have a long-running, story-heavy campaign, being a stickler for letting the dice fall where they may is just shooting yourself in the foot if you are the DM, IMHO.

 

[GameOgre]

GO, your experience obviously differs from mine - which is fine, but does not render my point less valid. I really think that we are making the same point, just phrasing it differently, FWIW .

I did not state that the Pathfinder encounter system was tipped against the PCs. I did not even contest that most character deaths are a consequence of stupid decisions on the part of the players (too true, in my experience). But situations can and do happen in which one failed save decides everything, or a string of 1's and 2's versus several high rolls from enemies can mean that a character goes from "just a scratch" to "dead and gone" in one round, despite all careful planning, despite all protective spells in place, despite wealth by level. And that has nothing to do with cheating the players, cheating yourself as the DM or even helping 'bad' playing behaviour to sneak in. It is just a consequence of the inherent randomness of the system.

Players want to be heroes, and they do not derive the least amount of enjoyment from failing miserably when even all their planning is for naught. If you run a beer-and-pretzels game, no problem, roll up a new character. But if you have a long-running, story-heavy campaign, being a stickler for letting the dice fall where they may is just shooting yourself in the foot if you are the DM, IMHO.

I'm now going to shock and awe folks and agree with you.

My way of DMing/Playing does indeed ruin our fun from time to time. I will go further and say that I do see why others play differently and even point out that at times I am sorely tempted to dip into that play style.

Having the dice turn a otherwise awesome game into bloody chum sucks Wereshark arse.

I fault you and others not one bit for fudging things from time to time.

I just have found that for us,when taking the long road or big picture that we have more fun letting the dice fall and dealing with it. I can think of PLENTY times where taking the fudging path was heavily discussed.

Each time we decided against it. Said out farewells to a character or whole campaign and broke out the dice to roll up new guys.

I will tell you that we all find that it adds something special to a game/characters and campaign when it does work out. When it all falls into place there is nothing like it.

Even when it all goes down into chum it sometimes gives us stories to talk about for years and years.

 

[billd91]

I just have found that for us,when taking the long road or big picture that we have more fun letting the dice fall and dealing with it. I can think of PLENTY times where taking the fudging path was heavily discussed.

Each time we decided against it. Said out farewells to a character or whole campaign and broke out the dice to roll up new guys.

I will tell you that we all find that it adds something special to a game/characters and campaign when it does work out. When it all falls into place there is nothing like it.

Even when it all goes down into chum it sometimes gives us stories to talk about for years and years.

I have to say that's the best defense of leaving the dice fall where they may I've read, in no small part because it avoids any implication of badwrongfun play styles, GM manipulation, GM power trips, and moral failings. I've seen too many posts that are tantamount to going down those roads...

 

[Mallus]

Why can't he play by the rules just like I have to?

The simple answer is: the GM's goal (or job) is different from the players.

Roughly speaking, the players are out to win. To successfully overcome in-game the challenges and further their characters goals. The GM is out to challenge the players, not to win (that's too easy, and also pointless). That said, this often means the GM should play be the same rules as the players -- but not always, not necessarily.

And with complex system like D&D 3.5/Pathfinder (which I'm running now), it's important to recognize when the rules are mainly for the player's benefit -- specifically, I'm thinking of the complicated (and massive) set of character building/developing options. It's fun for the players to build/tinker with all those options. It's fun for them to display their system mastery.

For the GM --well, GMs like me-- all those options are a big pain in the ass. The players have one PC to lavish time one. I've got to create a steady stream of them over the course of the campaign. Books of pre-build NPCs like the NPX Codex help, as do sites like this, but I'm sure as hell simply going fudge some NPCs, just give them ballpark number that look right, because I'm not willing to spend the time to do all of them "by the book(s)".

Sure, I'm probably make the major, classed, opponents "legitimately". Mostly. Maybe.

I don't "cheat" to push a specific, predetermined outcome. It's just that my job as GM is fundamentally different. Plus, I don't get a lot of satisfaction from showing off my system mastery as GM -- well, I get little, from time to time.

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 often ignore rules --especially the specifics-- simply to save time at the table. For example, I'll ballpark DCs instead of looking up the formal rule. Is that cheating? To me, it's a necessary time-saver. Part of good GMing is knowing when to sacrifice accuracy for speed-of-play.

Basically, not all fudging/rule-breaking is about steering the outcome/making the players into passive audience members. That's way too simplistic.

I would argue that in fact its HARD for a DM to kill pc's unless he truly doesn't understand the official encounter building system or the party makes major mistakes. My point with this is most PC deaths are due to PC mistakes.

I think you're placing too much faith in official encounter-building rules. My experience is they're an... inexact science, at best. Helpful, but frequently prone to bad results and, in the end, no replacement for common sense and good judgement (which can include a bit of fudging...).

Pushing on when to weak and out of resources is a major pc killer.

Sure. But this assumes the dangers are all relatively static, ie that the PCs can control when they encounter danger, like in a traditional dungeon environment where the ludicrously well-behaved monsters stay in their appointed rooms. Once you open that design up, allow for more dynamic challenges, where dangers can seek the PCs out and bash down their doors, well, the whole "pushing on" thing becomes less true.

It's also less-than-true in systems with rocket-tag combat, ie games like 3.5e/Pathfinder where PCs have offensive capabilities that far outstrip their defenses, and most PCs can be crippled/killed in a single round, especially by mid-to-high level.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Players have a right to know what kind of game they are signing up for. Managing expectations is part of being a GM. If the players are really wanting an honest game, and are more than willing to take thier lumps when deaths occur, how is cheating and engineering outcomes making things more fun for the players? If I was promised an honest game and the GM fudges to prevent my character from dying then the GM HAS in fact, made the game no fun for me in a personal way.

If the players desire for a satisfying story is thier primary source of fun, then tinkering around behind the screen to get outcomes that suit the story isn't really cheating because the game is being conducted as the players prefer it to be.

So the only badwrongfun in my opinion is not providing the style of game that was advertised. Promising one type of game and running another IS cheating.

 

[GameOgre]

I don't think anyone is complaining about the DM making house rules or ignoring certain parts of the rules in general. If you want to roll a D6 for group Init,I'm fine with that as long as I knew that going in.

What I am talking about in the last post was: The DM rolled a D20 to hit me and isn't happy with the result(either way).

See it's all perspective. In all actuality the DM is a God and I am subject to his whim. I'm fine with that! Just keep the curtain up and don't let me see him doing it.

I know if you let the dice fall where they may the DM can still do whatever he wants. The Goblins running at you could number four or four hundred,it's all up to him. Just give me my illusionary dice rolling and keep the rest hidden behind the curtain.

 

[Mark Chance]

In all actuality, the DM is just another person at the game table.