Can the GM cheat?

[billd91]

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

He is... yet he isn't as well. His role in the development and unfolding of an RPG's events makes him a different person at the table. When six people amble up to the table and sit down, yes, everyone is just another player. But once someone's the screen monkey, that player takes on a much greater role and is no longer just another person at the game table.

 

[Hand of Evil]

If you failed to state your GM policies, game concept and house rules from the start, then you failed and have learned from the mistake.

You cannot expect your players to know how you do business without informing them. And yes, GMing is a business, it is time and effort, it is work, planning, thought and has a cost, you as a GM are providing a service; running a game! The players are your customers, you service them and you are judge by that service, just let them know what you are providing and your expectations from the get go.

 

[Mark Chance]

Even when "someone's the screen monkey, that player" is still just another person at the table. My players aren't my customers. They're my friends, and prefer to treat them as such.

 

[S'mon]

I think fudging on task resolution dice rolls is bad practice and I would not do it myself. Dice rolls as an aid to content generation are different, it's good practice to ignore silly/nonsensical results on such rolls.

That said, this is more about play style and expectations. Some players are ok with GM fudging, some are not, some even demand it (eg to keep their PCs alive), and it may vary by the game being played. If you are going to fudge I think you should tell the players up front at the start of the campaign, so that if they don't like fudging they know not to waste time on your campaign. Or if they demand fudging, they know not to play in a no-fudging campaign.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I agree. I'd also say that the majority of players I know dislike GM fudging. One told me "I won't play with GM X again, I'm sick of him fudging to keep us alive". IME it is much more common for players to seek out no-fudging GMs, and GMs who fudge regularly tend to have trouble retaining players. But as I said, there are players who accept fudging and even some players who expect and demand it. Thus it is very important that pro-fudge GMs are matched with pro-fudge players. And this can only happen if GMs are upfront about whether they will fudge or not.

 

[James Eisert]

GM fudge all the time. There is no way to do it sometimes. Role playing is about making a good story. When the dice kills off a main character or villain too early, it has to be rectified. I know that a lot of people like some boardgame with their role play, but the point is they live for those stories​ even combat stories over the board that are exciting. That excitement has to be manufactured. If you wit for chance, it will be a long wait.

My suggestion is too keep the boardgame and roleplaying separate. That way players can play the boardgame without thought to what their character would do, because most boardgame heavy rpg's are not geared to compensate for "less than optimum" maneuvers, such as much roleplaying situations occur.

For this matter, I like my rpg's that are dice rolly and level uppy to be like Descent or D&D 4th ed. All boardgame, but with over the top bravado and role play acts AFTER the combat is done. Pure, indepth pure acting rpg's I give way to FUDGE and FATE (Starblazers and Legends of Anglerre)

 

[S'mon]

GM fudge all the time. There is no way to do it sometimes. Role playing is about making a good story. When the dice kills off a main character or villain too early, it has to be rectified.

You don't think the unexpected early death of a main character or villain can help generate a good story?

 

[Jhaelen]

When the dice kills off a main character or villain too early, it has to be rectified.

No it doesn't!
I disagree with just about everything in this post. But that's fine, since it's just about different tastes and preferences, right?

 

[Campbell]

If you are going to roll dice and cannot accept an outcome of those dice that's pretty much a case of rules/group mismatch. If the rules allow for PC death and that's not an acceptable result than you are using the wrong rule set. At least that's how I look at it.

 

[James Eisert]

You don't think the unexpected early death of a main character or villain can help generate a good story?

Seldom. It's usually anti-climatic. Luke Skywalker does not die to stormtrooper fire. I know he could in a dicey game. He could roll unlucky (or the stormtrooper could be very lucky), and yes, you could make a story around it, but it usually kills off more story than it generates.

Also, dice have a tendency to have this happen more than once in a campaign. If I did make a story arc about the random death of a character, I wouldn't want to do it twice.