DM Cheating

[Mark CMG]

Part of what's irritating you in this situation, I suspect, is the inherent hypocrisy. If your DM requires chapter and verse for every rule the players call on, he had better be ready to give it up as well. If he can't cite the basis for his rulings, then you can insist that he stop this nonsense and run the rules as written. He has established that strict adherence to the rules is a standard in his game, and you can and should hold him to it.

The DM is often privy to factors of which the players are not aware, nor can be for the game to maintain a portion of its inherent fun. Players who demand all the details from the DM are in danger of spoiling some of the mystery and fun.

 

[Odhanan]

Where in the DMG does it advise you to alter die rolls?

I don't have my DMG by my side, but even though I don't think it spells it out in these terms (and I could be wrong), it actually very much implies it by putting forward the idea that nothing should be an obstacle to the group's fun, including the rules themselves. It does explain that only you, as a DM, know what's fun for your group, and that the bottom line of the DMG and by extension the whole game is a sum of advice and rules designed to bring fun to the game table, not teach the "one true way of gaming". If having fun means discarding a rule on the spot, do it. If that means altering a die result, do it. The only important question is: is it fun for everyone around the game table? That's what matters.

 

[buzz]

Polaris is essentially formalized fudging.

We must have played different version of Polaris, then.

By your statements, it's seems more accurate to say that you've learned to love D&D by lowering your expectations.

That's probably not entirely inaccurate, but I'd prefer to say that I've realized that D&D is the most fun when I embrace what it is, rather that expect it to be what it's not. But if there's an implication here that the D&D I play is basically miniatures wargaming, I'd have to lay the smack down.

Okay. I guess AoOs don't exist then.

Not to derail the thread, but I don't find anything about AoOs un-fun (especially when my PC has Combat Reflexes and a decent Tumble). Combat gets a lot less interesting without them.

Now, Grappling... that's un-fun.

 

[buzz]

I don't have my DMG by my side, but even though I don't think it spells it out in these terms (and I could be wrong), it actually very much implies it by putting forward the idea that nothing should be an obstacle to the group's fun, including the rules themselves.

The 3.5 DMG doesn't actually state this. Page 6 talks about the DMs role as "final arbiter" and that they can supersede the printed rules, if there's a good reason to do so. It then goes on to emphatically state that you should base any ad hoc ruling on existing precedent if possible, and then communicate that ruling and be consistent with it going forward.

Nowhere does in go into the usual "don't use the rules if they get in the way of the fun" schtick, nor does it ever communicate the idea that the DM should be altering die rolls. The only reason I think people assume it does is because the idea has been so ingrained over the years as being part and parcel of GM'ing.

 

[Zimri]

For some people. For me, a lot of the time genuine fear of character death (or, more precisely, genuine fear of permanent character death) actually makes the game less interesting. I'm much more interested in having the possibility of defeat and serious repercussions for character errors/failures, and death is only one among many possibilities to that end, as well as - IMNSHO - one of the more boring. So in my games I've generally taken death in general and permanent death in particular out of the equation unless the player wants it.

See now there are many "bad" things that can happen that make the game more challenging and fun. A wise old bird once said "you'ld be surprised at what you can live through" We've had to temporarily raise ... then find a good home and caretaker for ilithid spawn, one of us lost an eyeball and had an eversmoking socket, disfigurements, pacts with people you'ld rather not be beholden to.

 

[Shadeydm]

The DM is often privy to factors of which the players are not aware, nor can be for the game to maintain a portion of its inherent fun. Players who demand all the details from the DM are in danger of spoiling some of the mystery and fun.

Exactly!

 

[Warbringer]

Warbringer-

I really like this option-- I like the idea of having the players being 'active' for both attack and defense. I might try it in my next turn at the GM seat.

Bear with it. It can be a little confusing for players to roll their AC, but they soon catch on. I'm also moving them to "I dodged his blow", or "My armor absorbs the hit" rather than "passed".

I'm also going to roll damage in the open as I say

"the dragon swoops towards you, teeth the size of daggers glistening in the morning sun. His mouth snaps with a blow roll: 37 damage that will surely snap you in half...."

so they can gauge the size of the blow .... I'll let you know how that goes...

 

[Crust]

In response to the OP, as DM, I often "cheat," though I don't necessarily get that guilty feeling you get when you are actually cheating at something. That's probably because I don't think it's cheating.

I fudge rolls here and there. I've never fudged rolls to kill a good, solid PC. I've allowed players to run alternate PCs for a time: vampires, drow, malaugrym even, and I've had to kill them off eventually to further the story, but I've never had it out for any player enough to deliberately lie about die rolls and kill a PC. I can't imagine ever doing that.

Recently, I've really been fudging rolls to save the PCs. The four core PCs are so solid from a hack-n-slash and a role-playing standpoint that I want them to continue for as long as fate will allow. I use the screen to hide notes, but not necessarily to hide die rolls. I do hide most die rolls, simply because I don't want my players seeing me pull punches.

 

[shilsen]

See now there are many "bad" things that can happen that make the game more challenging and fun. A wise old bird once said "you'ld be surprised at what you can live through" We've had to temporarily raise ... then find a good home and caretaker for ilithid spawn, one of us lost an eyeball and had an eversmoking socket, disfigurements, pacts with people you'ld rather not be beholden to.

Precisely. I joke that killing a PC permanently would mean a failure on my part since he'd escaped being totrtured further, but I'm only partly kidding. Permanent death as a result of failure means the PC doesn't have to deal with the repercussions. But failing and surviving? That means you get to see exactly what the result of your failure is, suffer through the results, and also have a chance to try to rectify the failure even if it's likely to be much more difficult now, which probably leads to lots more interesting experiences and adventures. It's a situation where the players and DM both benefit, even if the PCs suffer. That's my idea of a good time.