IMO, the best DMs are those that cheat and lie.
DMs not playing by the rules (Forked Thread: What are the no-goes for you?)
- Thread starter ggroy
- Start date
IMO, the best DMs are those that cheat and lie.
I'm intrigued. Could you expand on this for me please?
In my legitimate D&D games, I've lied and cheated many times.
For example, I don't like having too many TPKs. If the players are being slaughtered a lot more quickly than I anticipated, sometimes I'll let the weaker monsters in the encounter die more easily. But nevertheless, the tougher boss I'll leave intact. By then, the players will know whether they should retreat or continue on fighting the boss with each player having less than 4 hit points each.
For example, I don't like having too many TPKs. If the players are being slaughtered a lot more quickly than I anticipated, sometimes I'll let the weaker monsters in the encounter die more easily. But nevertheless, the tougher boss I'll leave intact. By then, the players will know whether they should retreat or continue on fighting the boss with each player having less than 4 hit points each.
Last edited:
Several times I've cheated on some encounters in my legitimate games.
One glaring example is the players stupidly going straight to a dragon's lair as their first plan of action. (I originally planned for something like this as a level 8 or 9 encounter at minimum). For the players going directly to the dragon's lair, I didn't even bother doing the encounter. I just told the players that the dragon is away and not home, when they arrived and checked out the lair. They found nothing of value in the lair to loot.
Well, if it works for you and your players, then that's all you could ask for. I'm just sharing my personal tastes.
That said.
Have you considered introducing some sort of action point mechanic or other rule that you could legitimately follow which favours the kind of results you're after?
For a while I used a house rule where someone, PC or NPC, running for their lives gained a +2 circumstance bonus to any check used to save their lives, (including AC) to represent desperation. It may sound rather small but it's usually enough to swing the balance just enough to let the PCs escape a TPK, without making it impossible to for anyone to die.
(This also applied to save or die spells, which I found improved gameplay in general).
If you and your players are happy then all is well.
But as a player I would absolutely hate this. If I'm shielded from my mistakes then that means my victories weren't really my own either. Perhaps it's just a sign that I lean towards the gamist end of the spectrum, but I do like to play D&D for the challenge. Part of that is the chance to lose, which makes any victory all the sweeter.
I have thought about such a thing, but I haven't used any yet. Not enough circumstances have come up yet, where I thought it would be useful.
In my particular TPK example, it turns out the players were actually reckless enough to want to fight the big boss monster, even with each player character only having 4 hit points or less each left. A TPK almost happened. It turns out the sorcerer was the only player left standing, largely due to not being hit by the boss (ie. standing away far enough away) and repeatedly firing volleys of magic missiles at the boss. The other players did enough damage to the boss before they all died, that the sorcerer only had to hit the boss once more with a barrage of magic missiles to kill him.
I generally try to avoid save or die situations.
In the dragon lair scenario I mentioned, I did send the weakest wyrmling I could find to attack the players as they were walking away from the lair. (All the players were level 1 characters). At first the players were made to believe that it was the "dragon" going home to its lair, until they they saw that it was a lot smaller. They got roughed up enough, that they didn't bother going back to the dragon's lair until they reached higher levels.
I pretty firmly believe that there's nothing wrong with fudging dice per say. Its better to fudge a roll than ruin an evening. But I also think it means your rule system has failed you. Better to change the rule system than just consistantly ignore it. Action points are one way to do that, essentially letting the players choose when to fudge.
I like that rule a lot
.As for the experiment, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. I play a lot of different games, and routinely sit down to play a game that I've never read. I'll pick things that look cool, take the GM's or experienced players' advice, and go with it.
Its just an asynchronous ruleset, which is what AD&D and 4e have. The monsters do not follow the same rules as the PCs. Personally, I don't see why they should. The needs of PCs is very different. A PC needs to be able to fill a niche, allow for personalization and customization, and allow for progression. An adversary needs to be generated quickly and easily ran within a fight. I don't care what an orc's chance to cook dinner is, nor do I stay up at night wondering exactly how he's going to advance if he's a good orc for many years. I just need him for the fight
.I learned this in 3e, running RttToEE. There was a scene with Kuo-Toa, which was led by one of their monks, the Monitor. However, when I read the description I said a Minotaur. Even worse, I'd grabbed my huge awesome looking minotaur mini and put him down on the table! I couldn't backtrack now, and the level they were at a regular minotaur wouldn't do - I'd need one with fighter levels, maybe some barbarian or a PrC.
So I lied my way through a statblock. I decided what his AC, chance to hit, and so on was. I had him use whatever feats he'd probably have. He died after I felt like he'd been beat on enough. And like the OP - NO ONE NOTICED.
I love asynchronous rulesets
.Similar Threads
