Handling Cheating

[Zelda Themelin]

This discussion is kinda weird. I think dm can cheat, same way computer a.i. can cheat in strategy games what comes to resources and some other situations. It supposed to be "even" but it's not because it's too hard too make really good computer tactician. So game is programmed to cheat to be able to present more challenge.

Dm can roll die and get 4 and decide it's 19 instead and then proceed with that, he just made whole rolling of die irrelevant. Or change HP:s midfight, which is just lame.

If dm feels situation should proceed certain way he damn well can make it go that way, no need to roll. I find fake-rollers really annoying. I don't mean "trick-rolling" where you roll for nothing to keep players on toes.

When dm and players discuss house rules and themes for game it's lying and highly un-fiendlike to change them. You can have hidden agendas like "I let them make evil characters and then I use my dmpc paladin and friends to gank them and eventually kill them, that will be really fun".

I don't complain if dm fudges secretly and game is really fun. But it will be less fun for me if I find out.

If it's diceless rpg, dm indeed can't cheat as far as game is concerned. But if it's game with element of "random" dm cheats every time he uses random element, is not happy with it and makes up his own result. It's not cheating if dice roll is not really supposed to decide anything and you only roll to make players think it matters. This is sometimes needed tactic for various cover-ups. Like if creature is monster in disguise and immune to that effect. Or person is wearing magical item that protects them against that effect. Or they are really talking with demon lord of temptations and that sort of things.

Combat fudging in usual situations sucks. If it's to avoid pc death just craft some knock out method to make perma death really rare.

Cheating players are awful. I've had couple of them, "always rolls high stats/rolls high" type and "lies how ability works" type. First case got over it after couple of years when memoris of her old bad group game traumas faded and second one got booted.
I think cheating in game should be handled in way how much problems it couses, how good friend is in question and how he/she otherwise behaves in game. Number 2 there turned more and more jerk for example.

There is not single right way to handle it. Sometimes it's not even worthy to mention. It might be trust issue. It might be "wanting to feel heroic", it might be "odds are always stacked way too much against us". Cheating might relate to problem in game, or problem between some players. I also have played with chronic cheater who would always roll and state something else, not even good, just something else. It was bit like kleptomania. I also noticed he never "rolled" "20" but did "roll" "1" occasionally.

So sometimes player cheating can be rather entertaining to follow.

 

[Cor Azer]

The way I see it, GM's CANT cheat. They are effectively god for the entire game. What they say is reality. So how can he be cheating??

Well... one example, as stated above, is that he can roll a 1 in a game where a 1 is an automatic miss, and yet declare it a hit.

Not everything a GM does is cheating. But some things can be.

 

[Halivar]

I'd say the only way a DM can cheat is if his role in the game is primarily adversarial. But then, I don't enjoy playing with such DM's to start with. The whole point of "cheating" is to gain an unfair advantage. But what about when the acting party has nothing to gain in the matter? The DM is not an opposed force, and does not "win" by any conventional means. The only way he wins is if people enjoy his game and are engrossed by it.

 

[Cor Azer]

I'd say the only way a DM can cheat is if his role in the game is primarily adversarial. But then, I don't enjoy playing with such DM's to start with. The whole point of "cheating" is to gain an unfair advantage. But what about when the acting party has nothing to gain in the matter? The DM is not an opposed force, and does not "win" by any conventional means. The only way he wins is if people enjoy his game and are engrossed by it.

That's probably part of it.

The other group of DMs that I frequently see cheating are the "it must happen this way" crowd. They don't mind the players winning, but they fell the need to build up their big scary villain in a particular way, and when the dice don't follow that script, they resort to cheating.

 

[Water Bob]

When the game rules state that a character starts out with X amount of money to buy equipment, and the GM allows a 1st level character a +1 Sword--something that he could never afford even if he spent all his starting money on it--is this the GM allowing cheating?

When the game rules say a character gets X number of languges at 1st level, but the GM says that your 1st level character can only have Y number of languages because of his background....is that cheating?

When the players speak amongst themselves, talking about what they think is behind a door in a dungeon, and, upon hearing this, the GM quickly changes what's behind the door to something that the players expected....or, say, to something that the players didn't expect. Is either move by the GM cheating?





When, on pg. 4 of the 3.5 DMG, it says that the GM has the power to create worlds, control deities and dragons, and is ultimately the master of the game in the way of rules, setting, action, and fun, is the GM cheating when he excercises some of this power?

Or, in other words, when a GM fudges a roll or raises or lowers the hit points on the orcs that the PCs are fighting, isn't he doing his job by definition, in controling the rules, the setting, the action, and the fun?

Or, is that cheating?

Doesn't pg. 13 of the 3.5 DMG say that Good DM Management is performed by a DM who watches all portions of so that nothing gets out his or her control, keeping the game balanced?

Nothing. Out of. Control.

Nothing.

Doesn't that cover random dice throws? And monster hit dice? And number of monsters fought? And, well everything...because NOTHING should be out of the GM's control.

Isn't that what the DMG says?

And, if it says that (which it does), then how can a GM cheat if EVERYTHING should remain under his control?





The answer, ladies and gents, is as I've said this entire thread. A GM cannot cheat. He is the ultimate power. He controls everything.

It just cannot happen.

 

[Glade Riven]

As a DM I cheat, but only when "Da Rulez" get in the way of fun. As a player, I don't (well, except maybe by accident with keeping track of ammunition). So long as players aren't obvious about it, it's not an issue - unless it's bad Metagaming. Hefty metagaming ticks me off.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

That's probably part of it.

The other group of DMs that I frequently see cheating are the "it must happen this way" crowd. They don't mind the players winning, but they fell the need to build up their big scary villain in a particular way, and when the dice don't follow that script, they resort to cheating.

I know that type. I don't play couple of guys anymore because of that. I started to have too many "rolleyes" when fasing off their favourite advansaries.

This had nothing to do with railroading or lack of it. It was tagged on to certain characters and monsters. Well, one of them was also "novelist": Another dm actually run pretty cool game, I just hated it that luck didn't matter with certain npc:s/monsters.

 

[Sunseeker]

When the game rules state that a character starts out with X amount of money to buy equipment, and the GM allows a 1st level character a +1 Sword--something that he could never afford even if he spent all his starting money on it--is this the GM allowing cheating?

When the game rules say a character gets X number of languges at 1st level, but the GM says that your 1st level character can only have Y number of languages because of his background....is that cheating?

When the players speak amongst themselves, talking about what they think is behind a door in a dungeon, and, upon hearing this, the GM quickly changes what's behind the door to something that the players expected....or, say, to something that the players didn't expect. Is either move by the GM cheating?





When, on pg. 4 of the 3.5 DMG, it says that the GM has the power to create worlds, control deities and dragons, and is ultimately the master of the game in the way of rules, setting, action, and fun, is the GM cheating when he excercises some of this power?

Or, in other words, when a GM fudges a roll or raises or lowers the hit points on the orcs that the PCs are fighting, isn't he doing his job by definition, in controling the rules, the setting, the action, and the fun?

Or, is that cheating?

Doesn't pg. 13 of the 3.5 DMG say that Good DM Management is performed by a DM who watches all portions of so that nothing gets out his or her control, keeping the game balanced?

Nothing. Out of. Control.

Nothing.

Doesn't that cover random dice throws? And monster hit dice? And number of monsters fought? And, well everything...because NOTHING should be out of the GM's control.

Isn't that what the DMG says?

And, if it says that (which it does), then how can a GM cheat if EVERYTHING should remain under his control?





The answer, ladies and gents, is as I've said this entire thread. A GM cannot cheat. He is the ultimate power. He controls everything.

It just cannot happen.

I disagree. The DM may have ultimate control when it comes to the rules, but there is more to D&D than "Da Rulz". There are generally accepted table rules, guidelines of "Good Form" at the table. The position of the DM may be a dictatorship according to the rules, but in practice its more of a representative democracy. The party has certain expectations which should ideally be made clear to the DM, and assuming they are known, their violation by the DM could be considered cheating, cheating the players of their desired experience.

 

[terrya]

I disagree. The DM may have ultimate control when it comes to the rules, but there is more to D&D than "Da Rulz". There are generally accepted table rules, guidelines of "Good Form" at the table. The position of the DM may be a dictatorship according to the rules, but in practice its more of a representative democracy. The party has certain expectations which should ideally be made clear to the DM, and assuming they are known, their violation by the DM could be considered cheating, cheating the players of their desired experience.

That is not cheating, its breaking a verbal contract granted but YOU ARE NOT CHEATING AT DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, which btw was the clear point of this topic. If I agreed something like that with my players, which in some games I have, I still might do it if I felt it was to the benefit of the game. Its my job as the DM to keep the game flowing and ensure everyone has a good time, I would clearly try and avoid it as im a bit a of purist when it comes to dice rolls my self but at the end of the day you can call it rude, wrong and even braking a promise but the situation you all describe is not CHEATING AT DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS OR ANY ROLE PLAYING GAME.

 

[Water Bob]

The position of the DM may be a dictatorship according to the rules, but in practice its more of a representative democracy.

That may be the way it is at your table but not necessarily the way it is at another table.

What you're arguing is play style, though. The GM still cannot cheat. But he can run a game that nobody likes.

For example, if everybody agrees that dice throws should be rolled out into the open, and the GM does this but uses some phantom modifiers on a particular roll, for whatever reason (hopefully, to help the party!), the GM is not cheating. But, he is playing in a way that he knows his players don't like--and the GM is in charge of keeping the "fun".

The GM's not cheating, but he's failing at making the game "fun" when his players don't like his play style.