DM Cheating

[Arnwyn]

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.

I was trying to think of a way to word my opinion on the matter - and this covers it. As a player, I do appreciate "real-time error correction" D), and as a DM I have used it in the past - but very rarely. (What I really like about 3e is that I now have the tools to much more easily gauge encounters, so I almost never have to 'correct errors' - thus, for the most part, the issues in this thread are pretty much moot for us.)

 

[DragonLancer]

I am primarilly a DM so I shall answer from that side of the screen. I don't like to cheat in either direction with dice rolls. The fates dictate what happens. My players prefer a proper edge-of-the-seat style of game and cheating in their favour would not benefit their style of play.

As an occasional player, I don't want the DM to cheat either.

 

[Halivar]

As a player, I accede to Rule 0: the DM cannot cheat. Fudge, or don't fudge, I don't care; just please don't tell me about it. Knowing that the DM has fudged for you is almost emasculating, while not knowing... well, ignorance is bliss. I also acknowledge that the DM is allowed to fudge against me, also. There have been occasions where the DM has changed monster stats on the fly to counteract meta-gaming, or upped the HP on a creature on-the-fly to increase dramatic tension in a session.

 

[buzz]

Or, the rules work just fine but the GM made a mistake planning the encounter, in which case you either play it as is (too easy or difficult as the case may be) or you fudge the numbers a bit to bring the encounter in line. Either way, you simply take note of the problem so you don't make the same mistake the next time a similar encounter crops up, and continue using the same system.

I don't have a real big problem with this, either, unless the lopsided encounter is the result of following procedures in the rule text, and it happens consistently. If it's just, "Man, I underestimated how powerful giving that monster Barb levels would be," then, yeah, the GM can make adjustments. Ideally, the GM is letting the players know about it, and maybe handing out some extra XP in exchange.

With any rule text as dense as D&D and the other popular RPGs, there's obviously going to be times when wacky results occur due to inexperience or unfamiliarity. I'm more concerned with wacky results that occur even when you're "doing it right."

 

[Kafkonia]

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

Likewise.

Besides, there are plenty of ways to play it safe without "cheating." Not every encounter that can lead to combat should lead to combat, and not every combat must be to the death. Some should end with a retreat, others should end with one side subdued but still alive. All of which can be (usually) accomplished without fuding die rolls.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Repeat after me: PC death is not a bad thing.

If you disagree with this statement, why play such a lethal game as D&D? If you agree, why would you feel the need to fudge?

 

[Arnwyn]

Repeat after me: PC death is not a bad thing.

Agree.

If you disagree with this statement, why play such a lethal game as D&D? If you agree, why would you feel the need to fudge?

Because "too much" PC death is.

The definition of "too much" will be different for every single group.

OR

Repeat after me: PC death is not a bad thing.

Disagree.

If you disagree with this statement, why play such a lethal game as D&D?

Because everything else fits our preferences almost perfectly.

 

[Henry]

Repeat after me: PC death is not a bad thing.

If you disagree with this statement, why play such a lethal game as D&D? If you agree, why would you feel the need to fudge?

Side note: Two of us in the gaming group (another player and I, the "regular" DMs of the group) have taken to refusing raise deads and resurrections when our characters CLEARLY die, instead rolling up new characters, as an example to the other players not to put so much emotion into keeping a character around that we should fudge all the time if they die (which is something we used to do quite a bit). We're both trying to show how character death can also be a part of the game, rather than a "design flaw" that needs to be "whacked into shape." Also, it's fun to play with a new character if the old one buys the farm.

That said, I and the other DMs usually roll behind screens just in case we find the need to fudge one way or the other; however, the times I have rolled in the open has also added a visceral aspect to the game, and sometimes in really tense combats I'll specifically change up and take the screen away and roll in the open, just to perk up the players' attention.

 

[buzz]

How about a middle ground? Is there no room between something that is "badly designed" and something that is so perfect it never calls for intervention in its operation?

There's a limited number of systems out there - so I'm expecting that for most groups, it may not be possible to find the perfect one that needs no correction whatsoever. It sounds like you're making Perfection the enemy of Pretty-Darned-Good, and that way lies eternal disappointment.

Well, as I mentioned in my follow-up post, it's when fudging is needed consistently that I'm most concerned about. I'm not saying that you need to put your books up on ebay the second you feel it necessary to fudge a roll.

That said, I'm with good ol' diaglo in believing that life is too short for bad gaming. I've played games that worked as advertised, so I know that it's possible. Ergo, my tolerance level for tweaking mechanics and living with fudging is pretty low these days. Whether that tolerance equates to demanding perfection, I don't know.

Of course, I also have both a high tolerance for learning new systems and a willingness to adjust my expectations to the ruleset. I.e., as opposed to having a predefined idea of what gaming "is" and needing any ruleset I encounter to fit that idea.

And, for clarity's sake, the above is not a slam. I just mean that some of my buddies have this one specific thing they want form gaming, and rules live or die by how well they provide that one thing. While I have preferences like anyone else, I'm willing to simply see what kind of experience a given RPG provides and decide whether it's enjoyable for me or not.

(This is why I often get random results from those "Wat kind of roleplayer are you?" quizzes. It's hard for me to conclusively answer the questions without the context of a specific game.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Because "too much" PC death is.

Death can be toned down by using easier challenges, though. If you don't want PCs dying in random encounters, for example, generally keeping them -3 CR from the party should accomplish this. And, you can still get your requisite death from those difficult boss monsters.

Because everything else fits our preferences almost perfectly.

If this is the case, wouldn't houseruling the lethality work better than fudging? Insta-kill spells drop you to -9 stable, implementing hero/luck/fate points, toning down the critical mechanic. I can only survive so many destruction spells on a 3 before I start to wonder why I'm rolling them in the first place.