Olaf the Stout
Hero
Unless you put them IN CAPS or in bold. At which point they become indisputable truths.
Those that disagree are wrong. Unless of course they are the DM, as the DM can't be wrong!
Olaf the Stout
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Handling Cheating
- Thread starter Lexeme
- Start date
Unless you put them IN CAPS or in bold. At which point they become indisputable truths.
Those that disagree are wrong. Unless of course they are the DM, as the DM can't be wrong!
Olaf the Stout
Yes. The two are completely different. Elf Witch gave some great examples.
I don't generally find 'cheating' a particularly useful concept when it comes to GMing, and IME it is generally not a concept the rule books address at all, so there's no point you appealing to the rule books. They don't say "GMs can't cheat!" and they don't say "Don't cheat, GM!" either.
But there are certainly sorts of GMing that most players (and other GMs) would regard as cheating. For instance, fudging is not the same as cheating. Players may not like fudging, but fudging is not necessarily perceived as cheating.
Fudging dice rolls, monster hp, etc to create an entertaining story or to preserve PCs in an unexpectedly, unfairly overpowering encounter may or may not be seen as good GMing, but is not normally regarded as cheating. From what you've said, this is the kind of fudging you engage in.
Fudging dice rolls, monster hp etc to preserve a favoured GMPC in whose welfare the GM is personally invested, or to preserve a particular favoured PC at the expense of the other PCs, will often be seen as cheating, as Elf Witch says. Doing this to railroad PCs down a certain track may be seen as cheating too.
Whether GM behaviour is regarded as cheating or not is partly dependent on agreed norms, the table contract, which are partly derived from the books. The Conan RPG expects heavier scene/story framing than does OD&D. It seems ok in Conan to follow Conan story structure and plonk down PCs in media res. How the story resolves is up to the players, but Fate Points are there to make PC death unlikely. In Vampire: The Masquerade and some other '90s games, a high degree of railroading seems to be acceptable - eg there may be canon NPCs who can't be killed, and this may be accepted by the players. They may still be annoyed if a PC-level GMPC adventuring with the PCs turns out to be invulnerable, invincible, gets all the best stuff, etc, or if one PC is blatantly favoured, and see the GM's fudging to ensure that as cheating.
Only from the Player's point of view.
The GM can't cheat from his own POV? But you accept that the players may see the GM's behaviour as cheating? If the GM does not accept the view of the other people round the table as carrying any weight, that seems a little sociopathic to me.
Zelda Themelin
First Post
I know some rpg books say gm can do whatever he wants. Not every rpg however. However every time gm says he follows rules/his houserules and then doesn't he cheats. Or lies to his players, whatever word you like to use.
Everytime gm invokes random rolls where players are involved (like combat/social rolls), that are supposed be random, but because he doesn't like result he ignores his roll, he cheats. At least himself. And if gm thinks people can't spot this when it becames habit he is dead wrong. It feels like cheating to other people, because they can't not ignore bad rolls, since they are supposed to be random.
Every time dm changes hp/ac/loot table of monster in middle of encounter when it's already running he is cheating. To hide his bad choices too little/too much power for encouunter, doesn't want pc:s to get items it has he cheats.
Everyone at table should respect rules being agreed to. It's very valid gm style to plan as you go, but middle of combat change is pretty apperant even in those games.
I don't play anymore with people who do that. Well there is one, but he is a good friend, and I don't really invest in that game seriously, so it doesn't matter.
I like rpg:s with rules that apply to everyone. Instead of fudging gm should learn to create more balanced encounter, if he saves his "sucky encounter" result every time by fudging he never gets better. If he doesn't like to kill characters this should be done in form of some subsystem, or non-leathal knockdowns, instead of lying about it to players (sure you can die in my games, yeh right).
I've also known couple of gm:s who liked to make players (though their characters) suffer. And there was lot of cheating involved to make it happen. While making false claims that his npc:s were made/followed the same rules pc:s did.
There is such things as bluffing and cheating in poker games. I think whatever gm cheats follow pretty much same guidelines.
I don't mean that gm:s should explain players mobs hp and assure them that thing are legit. Or do things accordding to raw. I don't mean that gm should follow guidelines for let's say "magic item creation" as something written in stone. When dm does wordbluiding and creates adventures he cant's cheat. But when he starts using competetive rules under false premise he is cheating.
That's why those competetive rules exist in the first place. Since some wise rpg makers came to conclusion that most people don't really like running trust-based games. But want some honest challenge. Thus rules. If gm can't cheat, you don't need any rules. Why coudn't players do whatever they like too to have most fun too?
When people in any social enviroment realize tht not follow the same rules as they do unhappiness follows. And from there anarchly and chaos. Then again many groups think rpg:s are just game not to be taken too seriously. If they enjoy what gm is giving to them they won't likely become overly critical to any amount of fudging. Problems start when it stops being fun.
Sure there are people out there that suffer rpgs in unhappiness little like they would be their underpaid sucky jobs. They show up, play, and hide their true feelings, since they don't want to loose their (job) game. Most of those people have moved to land of MMO but some still linger in rpg-circles.
Not everyone who says "gm is god" runs bad games. Most however, don't really believe that in "I don't have to care what my players think"-kinda way..
Everytime gm invokes random rolls where players are involved (like combat/social rolls), that are supposed be random, but because he doesn't like result he ignores his roll, he cheats. At least himself. And if gm thinks people can't spot this when it becames habit he is dead wrong. It feels like cheating to other people, because they can't not ignore bad rolls, since they are supposed to be random.
Every time dm changes hp/ac/loot table of monster in middle of encounter when it's already running he is cheating. To hide his bad choices too little/too much power for encouunter, doesn't want pc:s to get items it has he cheats.
Everyone at table should respect rules being agreed to. It's very valid gm style to plan as you go, but middle of combat change is pretty apperant even in those games.
I don't play anymore with people who do that. Well there is one, but he is a good friend, and I don't really invest in that game seriously, so it doesn't matter.
I like rpg:s with rules that apply to everyone. Instead of fudging gm should learn to create more balanced encounter, if he saves his "sucky encounter" result every time by fudging he never gets better. If he doesn't like to kill characters this should be done in form of some subsystem, or non-leathal knockdowns, instead of lying about it to players (sure you can die in my games, yeh right).
I've also known couple of gm:s who liked to make players (though their characters) suffer. And there was lot of cheating involved to make it happen. While making false claims that his npc:s were made/followed the same rules pc:s did.
There is such things as bluffing and cheating in poker games. I think whatever gm cheats follow pretty much same guidelines.
I don't mean that gm:s should explain players mobs hp and assure them that thing are legit. Or do things accordding to raw. I don't mean that gm should follow guidelines for let's say "magic item creation" as something written in stone. When dm does wordbluiding and creates adventures he cant's cheat. But when he starts using competetive rules under false premise he is cheating.
That's why those competetive rules exist in the first place. Since some wise rpg makers came to conclusion that most people don't really like running trust-based games. But want some honest challenge. Thus rules. If gm can't cheat, you don't need any rules. Why coudn't players do whatever they like too to have most fun too?
When people in any social enviroment realize tht not follow the same rules as they do unhappiness follows. And from there anarchly and chaos. Then again many groups think rpg:s are just game not to be taken too seriously. If they enjoy what gm is giving to them they won't likely become overly critical to any amount of fudging. Problems start when it stops being fun.
Sure there are people out there that suffer rpgs in unhappiness little like they would be their underpaid sucky jobs. They show up, play, and hide their true feelings, since they don't want to loose their (job) game. Most of those people have moved to land of MMO but some still linger in rpg-circles.
Not everyone who says "gm is god" runs bad games. Most however, don't really believe that in "I don't have to care what my players think"-kinda way..
It doesn't say that because it doesn't need to. When it says that a GM should control every aspect of his game, I think it means...that a GM should control every aspect of his game.
Personally, I never fudge dice throws, but fudging dice throws (what you call cheating) is a way to control the game. It's an aspect of the game that is controlled by the GM.
There's no convincing some of you about this, and that's fine. I don't need to.
But....go re-read your DMG!
I'm going to bow back out of this discussion now as we're just going in circles.
I was actually reading the 2e AD&D Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide today, and it explicitly refers to fudging as "constructive cheating". So there.
I was actually reading the 2e AD&D Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide today, and it explicitly refers to fudging as "constructive cheating". So there.
What page? I'd like to read that.
I don't have my gaming books available as I am moving and they are packed but I seem to recall advice on fudging as something that should not be done lightly and that a lot of players don't like it. And DMs should considered that.
As for DM controlling all aspects of the game world well I think there is some room for common sense here. You don't control the PCs or their actions and if you make their choices not count then you are not being a good DM.
I think control is really the wrong word because the idea that the DM has the power to make the PC choices not count. The PCs kill a popular DMPC the DM does not like that so he makes it where they didn't really kill him or always brings him back from the dead. The DM can do this but he should not be surprised when his players say screw this we are not playing any more.
I have played in one to many games where the DM controlled the game with an iron fist they are not fun your PCs end up being nothing but pawns. Most DM who do this are frustrated writers and are telling a story that requires the PCs to act in a certain way.
As for DM controlling all aspects of the game world well I think there is some room for common sense here. You don't control the PCs or their actions and if you make their choices not count then you are not being a good DM.
I think control is really the wrong word because the idea that the DM has the power to make the PC choices not count. The PCs kill a popular DMPC the DM does not like that so he makes it where they didn't really kill him or always brings him back from the dead. The DM can do this but he should not be surprised when his players say screw this we are not playing any more.
I have played in one to many games where the DM controlled the game with an iron fist they are not fun your PCs end up being nothing but pawns. Most DM who do this are frustrated writers and are telling a story that requires the PCs to act in a certain way.
Page 32 - "Fudging or Constructive Cheating" heading in blue.
"In situations like these, it's ok for the DM to cheat."
"So now we tell the DM to cheat!"
"...the DM is encouraged to fudge - to cheat in a constructive manner."
Note that this is in the context of a lot of a lot of advice saying "the DM must remain impartial. He should not take the side of the monsters against the PCs or side with the player characters..." - but that in exceptional circumstances the GM can put a minimal hand on the tiller.
The GM playing against the players is never a good idea and a rookie mistake. And, this last part of the thread isn't about how often the GM should fudge rolls. I've said, over and over, that I dislike fudging. I don't think the players like it, and doing it doesn't help me with one of my other GM mandates--that everybody have fun and enjoy the game.
But, I've said all along that the GM can't cheat (or that it's OK for the GM to cheat, but not for a player). That he's in charge of keeping his game fun and anything that helps him do that is legal.
So, if I had an agreement with the player not to do something, I probably wouldn't do it because doing so would hurt their enjoyment of the game. If I thought I could get away with doing whatever that is that I agreed not to do, not getting caught, with the result being that everybody would enjoy the game that much more, I'd probably do it and break my agreement with the players clandestinly. Why? Because I know that as GM I control everything and my primary job is to ensure that all of us have a good time playing this game. I can't cheat, no matter what I do. I can hurt the "fun" of the game (and I'm loathe to do that), but I can't cheat.
Or...it's OK for me to cheat in any way I see fit, if I think it will help make the game more enjoyable.
Similar Threads
