Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[Henry]

Cheating is defined as "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" and that's exactly what the DM is doing.

Again, I'm not saying it's bad. Too many people see the word "cheating" and their brains translate it to "badwrongevilmustkillKILLKILL!!!!". It's a loaded word. Unload it for the purpose of this discussion. The original poster and his point are talking about the dictionary definition of cheating - violating the rules deliberately - rather than the loaded "all cheaters are evil SOBs that deserve to die" that most people instantly associate with the word.

But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.

 

[mach1.9pants]

But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.

Yep I agree a DM cannot, by definition, cheat. However he can really really annoy the players....

 

[Professor Phobos]

Correct, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The rules say X. If you do not do X exactly, by definition, you are cheating. For the purposes of this discussion, cheating is not instantly and irretrievably wrong, because we're using a strict definition of cheating.

But the rules say that before you do X, remember that X is open to interpretation, revision, selective enforcement and the arbitrary whim of fate.

 

[marune]

Well, even from the "Challenge Game" perspective (as opposed to the "Interactive Storytelling" one) it is occasionally necessary to fudge; it is part of the GM's job in that school of gaming to produce reasonable challenges.

I agree with this.

I'm more of an Interactive Storytelling type myself, but in the off-chance I'm running a Challenge-based game and I find myself slaughtering the PCs because I made my challenge too tough, I'll quietly lower the stats of the enemies or do whatever it takes.

My favorite playstyle is definitly "interractive storytelling", but when I play D&D it's not what I'm looking for because D&D doesn't support it (doesn't mean it "can't be done").

Now, granted, if I'm in a group wholeheartedly in support of the "Be Challenged!" paradigm the line between "Too Hard" and "Challenging" is tough to gauge; in a "Challenging" scenario there is the possibility of defeat. Wouldn't want to erode that.

But on the other hand, you want to ensure the possibility of success- and so you fudge in this particular instance.

Both sucess and failure possibilities are a must have in a challenge-based RPG, as a DM that doesn't have a preference for one or the other (i.e. PCs must win & PCs must fail is bad).

 

[Zurai]

But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.

Your own statement gives that the lie.

It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason

Overruling the rules is cheating, by the dictionary definition.



Man, I never thought I'd get so many people incapable/unwilling to look at a subject without bias.

 

[marune]

But the DMG does give final authority to the DM (page 6, "ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding the rules in the book"), over what happens in the game. If it's in the rules, then it's not cheating. It also warns him not to overrule the rules without a good reason, or risk the players rebelling.

Introducing an house-rule during play with players’ consent is not cheating.

Softening up challenges to make PCs win a reasonable challenge they should have failed or setting up the players against unreasonables challenges is. (Even if the DMG bluntly says that the DM can do whatever he wants).

In other words, nitpicking on rules details* is one thing, going against the basic assumption of the game is another one.

*In extreme cases, "power" balance problems can arise, leading to "spot-light" balance problems.

 

[Fifth Element]

OT: yep thats what accountants try to do all the time.

See now, I could take that as a personal insult.

My point was, if it's legal, it's not cheating.

 

[Fifth Element]

Overruling the rules is cheating, by the dictionary definition.

No, violating the rules is cheating. If one of the rules is that the DM can overrule rules, then the DM overruling a rule cannot be cheating, by definition, since it's a rule. Clear enough?

 

[Zurai]

No, violating the rules is cheating. If one of the rules is that the DM can overrule rules, then the DM overruling a rule cannot be cheating, by definition, since it's a rule. Clear enough?

But it's not overruling the rules if you're abiding by the rules.

 

[Fifth Element]

But it's not overruling the rules if you're abiding by the rules.

It's overruling the written rules that are presented in the books. One of the written rules is you can make your own rules, which obviously will not be written in the books.

Note the quote from the DMG above, which mentions superceding rules in the books.