Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[marune]

I think this is a given. I also think 99% of story driven games do this. But, when all of those statistically modified random results that did help build a story come to a lurching halt from time to time, many GMs and players both fudge to get the best entertainment possible. Notice I said many, not all. I do think most of the time a good GM can work with whatever the dice say happens, but a good storyteller knows when a random result ruins months of effort and they are doing nothing wrong by bending rules. That is why in nearly every role playing game it says that the GM can break the rules when they deem it appropriate.

When the story is already written by the DM and then "played", it's not a "story-driven" game but also a simulation-driven one.

Keep in mind, there are entire camps within the roleplaying hobby that are advocates of diceless role playing or games without systems at all. They tend to be high drama and story driven, require a degree of maturity to resolve disagreements and usually spend time exploring character development, puzzles and the hidden aspects of the campaign's world. These groups using this play style use common sense and drama, incuding allowing characters to die, when the story and the player's actions deems it necessary.

Some story-driven RPG uses dices others only use ressources management. The techniques used to resolve the conflicts are only a little part of what make an RPG story-driven or not.

 

[Benimoto]

Even as a DM who rolls all dice in the open, I feel the need to "cheat" from time to time. Recently, I allowed a villain to stick around an extra round after his HP ran out, just because I felt the extra longevity added to the climactic nature of the encounter. When I create advanced monsters from the book, I occasionally add extra abilities or HP without following a strict formula for CR. (It wouldn't strictly matter anyways, since the campaign follows a formula for XP awards that doesn't depend on ELs--perhaps another form of cheating.)

As a player, I occasionally cheat, usually by making mistakes and then not reporting them later long past when the time is relevant. I sometimes see other players cheating, for example by rolling their save quietly against an effect first when it's announced, and then re-rolling when the the DM asks for their result. Or I'll see situations where the player is not playing by the rules, but may not be aware of it, such as players who take too many swift actions in a round, or incorrectly determine cover or their ability to charge.

I consider a lot of this fairly harmless, as the player or DM doesn't really have the plan of making things less fun for everyone. I do think that things like action points will reduce some parts of this casual cheating, by giving the player more control over how to respond to a threat (like a failed save) in proportion to how important it is to his character, and I like it.

 

[LostSoul]

I wasn't being all inclusive. From my experience and what others have said, story driven GMs tend to fudge over simulation driven GMs.

Cool, I just wanted to bring up a different point of view.

I also think 99% of story driven games do this. But, when all of those statistically modified random results that did help build a story come to a lurching halt from time to time, many GMs and players both fudge to get the best entertainment possible. Notice I said many, not all. I do think most of the time a good GM can work with whatever the dice say happens, but a good storyteller knows when a random result ruins months of effort and they are doing nothing wrong by bending rules. That is why in nearly every role playing game it says that the GM can break the rules when they deem it appropriate.

Hmm.

A while ago I was running a story-driven game. Two characters were about to start shooting at each other. I didn't want my NPC to die, and the player didn't want his NPC to die. I didn't really care to kill his NPC, he didn't want to kill my NPC.

Before we engaged in combat, we took death off the table. "If I win, my guy storms the palace and takes it for himself, and your guy has to retreat into the desert." We roll the dice, knowing that success and failure will both be okay, excited to see the outcome.

I lost the roll. In the game, the two guys fought, and my guy was defeated and had to retreat.

We used the dice to resolve what happened, but there was no "bad" outcome. We'd be cool with success or failure.

Also, it may be important to say that we were not using the system to model realilty or anything like that.

edit: Oh yeah, the point. When you're playing with this kind of technique, there isn't a need to fudge to keep the random dice rolls from blowing up your game.

The conclusion is still, a GM who fudges dice from time to time is not cheating or spoiling the experience as long as they are not taking anything away from the player's choices and allow positive and negative consequences to occur.

I agree, though I think it's hard to allow fudging and maintain meaningful player choices at the same time.

 

[MisterWhodat]

I honestly can't recall the last time I didn't cheat.

 

[marune]

A while ago I was running a story-driven game. Two characters were about to start shooting at each other. I didn't want my NPC to die, and the player didn't want his NPC to die. I didn't really care to kill his NPC, he didn't want to kill my NPC.

Before we engaged in combat, we took death off the table. "If I win, my guy storms the palace and takes it for himself, and your guy has to retreat into the desert." We roll the dice, knowing that success and failure will both be okay, excited to see the outcome.

I lost the roll. In the game, the two guys fought, and my guy was defeated and had to retreat.

We used the dice to resolve what happened, but there was no "bad" outcome. We'd be cool with success or failure.

Also, it may be important to say that we were not using the system to model realilty or anything like that.

Oh yeah, the point : When you're playing with this kind of technique, there isn't a need to fudge to keep the random dice rolls from blowing up your game.

Of course ! But that's not how D&D/d20 is to be played.

 

[Fenes]

Of course ! But that's not how D&D/d20 is to be played.

Says who? If it's not fun, then you're playing it wrong - for you.

 

[marune]

Says who? If it's not fun, then you're playing it wrong - for you.

Of course you can always do something else with a game than what it was designed for (children are very good at it) but you have no guaranteed results.

What I don't understand, is the idea that D&D should be able to be modified to meet every playstyle and that using RPGs built to support those playstyles is not preferred.

I prefer to let D&D be itself and use a different game when I want a different playstyle.

 

[Fenes]

According to the rules, death is just a temporary setback until the raise dead/ressurection/true ressurection can be applied, so - if you play it as if your character would die, you're not playing as it was meant to be played.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I prefer to let D&D be itself and use a different game when I want a different playstyle.

While logical, a lot of people don't like learning new systems. I mean, I'm not one of them since I have like seventy of the godforsaken things, but these people exist for which D&D is the only game.

 

[DSRilk]

Perhaps it's generally an age thing, but cheating in D&D? Not since 3rd grade (nigh 30 years ago). My group fesses up if they see a condition they've forgotten, even if it's bad for them. "Oh, sorry, my AC is actually 22, not 24; he hits," has been heard plenty of times (given the volume of modifiers in D&D that us old guys forget). I've had one player cheat in my last 25 years of gaming, and when it was discovered, we didn't invite him back. If you're cheating, then you're missing the point (the way I play the game at least -- as an RPG group story telling device), and I have no need of that at my table.

Someone mentioned retroactively going back and "fixing" things. Finding an accidental error that occurred in the past is not grounds for backing up time, and not going back is not cheating. Good pacing is one of the jobs of a DM (and not an easy one at that). Jumping back and redoing things because your forgot a modifier breaks the intent of the rules and the point of the game.

DM's can't cheat. Rule 0. It's the most important rule in the book. It's not about stopping arguments about what a rule really means, it's letting you know up front that the rules are guidelines that sometimes get in the way of the goal of D&D and that it's okay for the DM to ignore the rules as necessary. My job as a DM is to generate an enjoyable time for myself and my players. Sometimes that means turning a hit into a miss or giving a BBEG extra hit points if he would have gotten taken out by a crazy crit in the first round -- that's boring, and again, my job as DM is to provide an interesting and enjoyable time, not to act as a rules lawyer.

It may be cliche to say that if you're cheating, you're only cheating yourself (well, you're gaming group), but in a way it's true. Nothing real is hinging on these rolls, but if you're cheating, I really feel like you're focused on something that is stopping you from enjoying D&D to its fullest extent.