Can the GM cheat?

[Shayuri]

If you made it clear the dice were not always going to decide outcomes, and that you'd be the arbitrator of when they did and when they didn't, then you weren't cheating. Cheating is when you break the rules, and it sounds like you made the ability to determine outcomes separately from dice rolls into a rule.

There are deeper issues here, about communication and game style and character generation expectations, and oversight...etc...but the simple question of whether or not you cheated appears to be 'no.'

Similarly, GM's typically reserve the right to do whatever it takes to keep a game moving, including cheating...so your titular question (Can the GM cheat?) can be answered 'yes.'

In my view.

That doesn't mean that any given use of a rule, or a cheat, is wise or correct...it just validates the philosophy that allows such behaviors. You still have to exercise judgement about when and how to use them.

 

[Warbringer]

it's simply a matter of whether the table gives the DM authority to fudge. If not, then the game will end as Airwalker's did.

 

[Salad Shooter]

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.

Probably originally because of the story-based, and semi-collaborative focus of the game.

I find fudging to be A-OK, personally. Most of my GM rolls are behind a screen. I'll kill PCs, when the dice say so and it won't be lame. I'll edit HP and stats on monsters on the fly - sometimes even the best configured encounter can go sideways when the players' dice -JUST- -WILL- -NOT- -BEHAVE- (you know what I mean...encounter 3 CR below the party, and they roll nothing but 1's). I will also roll out in the open on the really high stakes encounters, adds to the tension, I feel. I don't always do this - sometimes it's more fun to roll behind a screen, then look up at the players and grin (Maxim #37: NEVER, EVER Trust A Smiling GM). Depends on my mood.

Bottom line - if it's covered in advance, and done in such a manner to maximize both the GM's and the players' fun and enjoyment, cheat like it's going out of style. If someone isn't having fun, then it needs to be discussed.

Is it cheating? Maybe. Should it be considered cheating? If done in such a manner to hurt the players themselves. Otherwise, I find the rules in RPGs to be more "guidelines" than anything. Just maintain a bit of internal consistency.

 

[Zaukrie]

Wait, I can't be obvious? That is part of the fun sometimes. The goal at my table is to have fun. The rules facilitate that, but I do mot think anyone at my table us a slave to the rules. Obviously, not everyone agrees with that. That is why you all need to agree on your social contract before and during gaming.

 

[gdonwallace]

That's quite the interesting question.

GM's and cheating.

I think there is a balance that can be achieved. If I have an encounter that I want to go a specific way, because of the story I have in mind, I might fudge a die roll or cause a certain event happen that could push things in the direction I want. As a GM, I know how I want things to go. Players are the complete unknown. So a fudge to move things in a direction, I do it.

Out right cheating, where I roll dice and then declare whatever I want. I don't do that. Sure there are times I REALLY want things to happen a certain way; but it doesn't always happen that way. So I have to do what I can to keep things on the story line. All that being said, as the GM I am here to present the game and re-act to what the players do. I will let the dice lay where they will for the most part. If a lvl 1 character picks a fight with a lvl 20 character and dies...so be it.

Also, part of the problem was the difference in levels. An encounter needs to balance the power of the PC's vs. the bad guy. If you had players who's characters were that far apart in power; there is no way to have a balanced encounter. If the pc's were closer in lvl, it would have been a lot better for everyone involved.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Wait, I can't be obvious? That is part of the fun sometimes. The goal at my table is to have fun. The rules facilitate that, but I do mot think anyone at my table us a slave to the rules. Obviously, not everyone agrees with that. That is why you all need to agree on your social contract before and during gaming.

Not to get all pedantic on you, but I would categorize "deliberately obvious fudging" as DM rulings with a wry face.

IOW, a ruling is when everyone knows Rule 0 has been invoked; fudging is when the players aren't meant to be aware that Rule 0 has been invoked. Or at least that's how I've always used the terms.

 

[howandwhy99]

A GM probably can, but a referee shouldn't. Think of it like this: Your players are in the Olympic high jump competition. You're the judge. You hold the bar and set it at exactly the right height for each attempt. That's what the referee's job in D&D is too. Of course the height/difficulty can change and it's understood to go up over the course of play. Now imagine if the Olympics judge dipped the bar just when the high jumper was in the motion of jumping. You know, because it's more fun when they clear the bar isn't it? I mean, what cruel tyrant wouldn't dip the bar?

 

[airwalkrr]

I suppose where I failed was trying to create a narrative where interesting characters with vastly different capabilities were in virtual competition with the story. Superman is clearly the most powerful of the Justice League (some of you nerds might argue with that, but let's say for the sake of argument), yet he has his kryptonite, and other members contribute in different ways to create an interesting story. Teal'c was incredibly stronger and more resilient than the other members of SG-1, but Daniel Jackson had invaluable knowledge of ancient civilizations. There are other ways of creating "balance" in a story, and I guess that just wasn't what the two players who left wanted. They wanted a fair environment which was by-the-book and wanted to power game (although I didn't get that impression from them at first, it is becoming more and more clear to me now, especially after seeing one of them GM another game of which I was a member for a few sessions). The system didn't really lend itself to that, but I chose it for that reason. It allowed you to create virtually any kind of character imaginable from anywhere in any universe. I wanted that kind of Justice League style where characters of various strengths and weaknesses came together to form an interesting narrative. I guess they wanted to roll more dice.

 

[Kingreaper]

I think if you want that kind of narrative, you'd be better off finding a mechanical way to support it.

Instead of fudging dice yourself, give the players some agency by letting them spend "story points" to reroll things, which are earnt by them roleplaying. Make sure you create the situation where Jackson's knowledge is invaluable, so that Teal'C and O'Neill don't just steal the show: and then let Teal'C and O'Neill take charge in combat.

Make "out of HP" not the same thing as dead, so that the non-combatants don't have to be saved by fudging, they just lose something if they fall in battle; maybe they're seriously wounded, or captured.


Fudging dice is a blunt instrument, and when used often it's bound to cause resentment eventually "you let me fail at that roll? Really? But it'd be so cool if I succeed" or "Why does he get to be the one who succeeds at picking the lock?" etc.

You're essentially removing the dice, and taking all the power into your own hands. You need to learn to achieve your goals using subtler tools.

 

[pemerton]

is it possible for a GM to cheat?

In my view, yes - if by "cheat" we mean something like "deliberately break the rules".

That would depend upon whether or not the GM was bound by rules, of course, but I prefer a system in which the GM is so bound.

My opinion is that the story trumps rules (and dice) all the time unless the campaign is specifically designed as a tournament-style challenge.

My personal concern with this is that most tables where this principle is applied don't let the players invoke it, only the GM.

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.

Agreed.

I wanted that kind of Justice League style where characters of various strengths and weaknesses came together to form an interesting narrative. I guess they wanted to roll more dice.

Fudging dice is a blunt instrument, and when used often it's bound to cause resentment eventually "you let me fail at that roll? Really? But it'd be so cool if I succeed" or "Why does he get to be the one who succeeds at picking the lock?" etc.

You're essentially removing the dice, and taking all the power into your own hands. You need to learn to achieve your goals using subtler tools.

Obviously I wasn't there. And I don't know what system you (airwalkrr) were using. But what Kingreaper says makes sense to me.

It may not have been that the players just "wanted to roll more dice". It may be that they wanted to exercise some control over how things turned out, rather than have the GM decide the shape of the "interesting narrative".

Marvel Heroic Roleplaying is a system that may deliver what it sounds like you are looking for. Although it's just been cancelled, PDFs (and maybe books too?) are still on sale until the end of April.