DM Cheating

[Mark Hope]

It depends on the kind of game that I am running and what sort of gaming experience the players are looking for. Generally speaking, I prefer not to fudge the dice. Instead I try to make sure that I have a sound understanding of what kind of challenge is appropriate to the encounter in question, and build the bad guys appropriately. Some types of game call for a no-nonsense "let the dice fall where they may" approach. Other games call for a more generous approach, especially where you are building a more narrative-based structure (and in such cases, it's often a good idea to not bother rolling at all!) And, most important of all, if a dice result would make for a sucky game experience, I ditch it. Death need not be sucky, of course - sometimes the most appropriate thing for the game is for a PC to go down in a blaze of glory.

 

[Pbartender]

So long I don't know, I don't care.

"The greatest trick the dungeon master ever played was to convince the player-characters he doesn't exist."

 

[Maine-iac!]

I loathe having my character survive due to "friendly" DMing.

My thoughts exactly. Without that threat, I'd rather not play.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

As a DM, I have pulled punches before. I don't like it when a crit takes a person from full HP to dead in one blow. I perfer to drop them to just a couple of HP and let them decide whether they should still go on and possibly die heroically, or try to withdraw to fight another day. It still puts the "Oh, Sh**" into them, but doesn't make them feel like they are a helpless victim to the dice.

I asked the players in my old group about this and they didn't mind my taking that liberty. The other DM in that group let the dice stand. In one fight we lost two PCs in the first round of a fight because of insane rolling by the DM (Crit - one dead, cleave, crit - two dead). Sure, it did a great job of making us fear for our characters, but it also made the two players who lost their PCs so fast feel kind of useless as well.

 

[S'mon]

As GM I always roll in the open. If I'm going to roll dice, I'll abide by the result. I give the PCs Fate Points to lessen risk of random death.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

When I ran AD&D and BD&D and several other older systems, I was an inveterate fudger (fudge being a rather more polite term than 'cheat' when the GM does it ). Die rolls were vetted for dramatic effect.

In vanilla 3e, I still do this. But then, I don't run vanilla 3e.

Fudging is, IMO, a kludgy, early generation RPG solution to the same problem later addressed more elegantly by narrative mechanics. Namely, that random chance only randomly produces an enjoyable story.

Nowadays, I'm far more inclined to dole out powerful narrative control mechanisms to the players, and a limited narrative control mechanism to the GM, so both sides can declare within the gameplay when something is important from a story perspective.

This, IMX, allows for very intense, tactical challenges that also result in cool stories. The older method usually involves meaningful tactics (dice fall where they may) or cool stories (GM fudges), but only randomly - and rarely - produces both. This also lets the players decide what they think would be cool rather than hoping the GM agrees with them, and lets the GM arbitrarily decide what he thinks is cool, while still playing cut-throat, competitive and tactical, without being unfair.

 

[Ourph]

If, by cheating, we're referring specifically to altering the results of dice rolls or altering the result needed for success after the fact, then I would have to say I prefer, as both a DM and player, for the DM not to cheat.

I don't mind if the DM doesn't adhere strictly to the rules when setting up an encounter for instance, but once the "facts" are set and the action is occuring I'd like the DM to stick to the preset parameters.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Do you feel the DM should cheat in the PCs favor? Also, are you answering as a DM or a player?

Just curious how others prefer it.

Considering my approach to gaming is off from most D&D players, (and while I play it, it isn't my primary system) - I'm all for the GM shifting things if it makes for better scenes and stories - although the changes have to be possible (no adjusting a die roll to 24 or something).

I'm not in the game for resource management, or for tactics, or to try and survive (or win) and encounter. I'm in it for escapism and fun, and worrying about a chance for character death is not fun for me. Part of the reason another game is my primary system.

 

[Jacob the Impaler]

I like to simplify complex rules to make things easier on me, especially since the group barbarian grew fond of tripping and grappling. If he rolls a certain number that seems reasonable, I say "sure". Usually we're not huge sticklers.

I also think longspears and shields at the same time are perfectly acceptable for a frontline of orcs. So is a black dragon drinking a healing potion safely underwater.

 

[Umbran]

DMs are human. Sometimes, they make mistakes, and design an encounter or adventure that's more tough than they imagined.

In that sort of instance, it isn't so much cheating as real-time correction of their design errors, and I have no problem if they feel the need to fudge a die roll or two to deal with the situation. Especially when I consider that as a player I'm not supposed to know how tough the thing is in the first place. I would prefer they not tell me, simply so I can't come to expect it.