Handling Cheating

[Water Bob]

But this is certainly a pointless discussion. You clearly have a lot invested in your POV.

You're right. I'll knock back off this thread again. It's just that it is so clear to me that there really isn't another side of discussion possible. I can't recognize any variance.

People who say a GM can cheat are akin to people who say something against an established fact, like, "There is no postal service in the US," or, "Pink should be worn at funerals rather than Black."

If you want to agree to disagree, I'm okay with that. Your call, and if you want to, let me know -you can have the last word.

I respect your opinon, James. I always have. But, what you're saying to me is akin to saying that Longswords in your 3.5 D&D game do 1d30 damage. That's fine, if that's your house rule, but that's not the rules.

And, a GM cannot cheat.

 

[Argyle King]

And, a GM cannot cheat.

I disagree. While I am aware that some groups are ok with some amount of fudging on the GM's part, I would disagree with the idea that the GM cannot cheat.

During an encounter, if the GM (without some really good story reasons why, and even then it would be suspect) starts rolling d30s for the enemy's longsword damage, I would say that is far beyond 'fudging' and quite possibly enters into 'cheating.' Likewise, if the GM declares "you all die right now because I say so; rules be damned," I'm inclined to view that as cheating. At best, I'm inclined to no longer be a player in said GM's game.

If it's your opinion that GMs cannot cheat, fine, but comparing such an idea to an 'established fact' is (in my own opinion) not a valid comparison.


edit: Interesting quote earlier from D&D 3rd Edition's DMG. However, note that not everyone plays third edition; heck, not everyone plays D&D. If I'm running a GURPS game, it really doesn't matter to me that a D&D 3.5 book says it's not possible for a DM to cheat.

You also inquired about GM lying. Honestly, as a GM, I do not lie to the players. If I'm playing the part of a NPC, I might very well lie to their characters. However, as the GM, I am honest with my players. In the rare event that I feel a need to change something about how a game works, I am honest about it. I prefer knowing that I can be honest and the players can have a sense of trust in me to provide a fun experience rather than feeling as though I have to mislead them. I prefer gaming to be a collaborative and shared experience; I feel that it takes a good relationship with the group to get the best results. In much the same way that I do not believe a romantic relationship should be based on lies, I also do not feel a relationship among friends and a gaming group should be based on lies.

 

[gamerprinter]

And, a GM cannot cheat.

We just fired our last GM for cheating. How can a GM cheat? The same way he cheats as a player. He almost never has his character sheet. When he GMs he has some things written down, but often the monsters are not written down - nor are the Saving throws. So when we attack or cast spells on his monsters, they seem to make their saves always and the saves seem to vary. This GM has favorite players allowing some to hit with a low roll and others to miss with a high roll. If you corner the GM with the knowledge that he doesn't have stats laid out - he'll tell you its in his head.

I've asked outside the game for that person not to be allowed to play at our table, but it's not my house, so I can't order him out of our game. Some of our players are more forgiving, I am not.

In a reasonable game, perhaps GMs uses fiat now and again. While I don't care for this as a player, it's acceptable. However, we did not have a reasonable game, when that GM was running the game. Now he's been voted out of office...

 

[Argyle King]

We just fired our last GM for cheating. How can a GM cheat? The same way he cheats as a player. He almost never has his character sheet. When he GMs he has some things written down, but often the monsters are not written down - nor are the Saving throws. So when we attack or cast spells on his monsters, they seem to make their saves always and the saves seem to vary. This GM has favorite players allowing some to hit with a low roll and others to miss with a high roll. If you corner the GM with the knowledge that he doesn't have stats laid out - he'll tell you its in his head.

I've asked outside the game for that person not to be allowed to play at our table, but it's not my house, so I can't order him out of our game. Some of our players are more forgiving, I am not.

In a reasonable game, perhaps GMs uses fiat now and again. While I don't care for this as a player, it's acceptable. However, we did not have a reasonable game, when that GM was running the game. Now he's been voted out of office...

For what it's worth, I don't think doing things on the fly or having things "in your head" is cheating. However, in the context of the person you mentioned, I agree that is cheating. If Bob rolls a 3 and hacks the dragon's head off while everyone else cannot hit no matter what they roll, something is wrong there. Likewise, if a monster's stats change mid-encounter for no reason, that is something I would consider cheating.

If prior to the session I decide the D&D black dragon the PCs are facing will have a fire breathe weapon rather than acid; fine. (but, personally, if that were the case, I'd drop hints in game that it may have atypical abilities.)

If I refluff a flaming skeleton into a 'death chill skeleton' and base it around a cold theme rather than the fire theme the book has for the base creature, that's fine too.

If I decide mid-battle that orcs suddenly become immune to magic missile because I dislike the player controlling the party sorcerer, I categorize that as cheating. I would not feel right doing that.

 

[Water Bob]

We just fired our last GM for cheating. How can a GM cheat? The same way he cheats as a player. He almost never has his character sheet. When he GMs he has some things written down, but often the monsters are not written down - nor are the Saving throws. So when we attack or cast spells on his monsters, they seem to make their saves always and the saves seem to vary. This GM has favorite players allowing some to hit with a low roll and others to miss with a high roll. If you corner the GM with the knowledge that he doesn't have stats laid out - he'll tell you its in his head.

That's not cheating, according to the 3.5 DMG and other sources on DMing.

You may not like his play style, but he's not "cheating". He's running the game in a manner that you don't like.

One of the most fun games I've ever had as a player was a Classic Traveller game run by a gifted GM who made up everything on the spot.

Now, D&D is a different game, and the GM you mention runs his game more Old School style. I'm not sure I'd like the way he's does it, either. But, I wouldn't call him a cheat.

As GM, it's his world. He can mix, change, bend things to his liking.

Where he's failing is that his players aren't having fun. And, that's a pretty big failure as a GM.

But, he's not cheating.

I disagree. While I am aware that some groups are ok with some amount of fudging on the GM's part, I would disagree with the idea that the GM cannot cheat.

Check out page 18 of the 3.5 DMG. Top right hand side of the page discusses "fudging".

The cardinal rule with fudging, mention on that page (and something I agree with) is to never let the players catch you doing that. They'll lose faith in your GMing abilities.

During an encounter, if the GM (without some really good story reasons why, and even then it would be suspect) starts rolling d30s for the enemy's longsword damage, I would say that is far beyond 'fudging' and quite possibly enters into 'cheating.' Likewise, if the GM declares "you all die right now because I say so; rules be damned," I'm inclined to view that as cheating. At best, I'm inclined to no longer be a player in said GM's game.

Agreed about not playing in that GM's game.

Again, he's failing at the "fun" part, but he's not cheating.

Giving a few men-at-arms longswords that do d30 damage or fighting a huge number of Orcs all at once--it's the same thing. The GM controls it.

You can't call one thing cheating and the other not cheating.







The GM can do things you don't like. And, you can set up House Rules to help "govern" your GM. But, in the end, when you sit down to play, you agree that one person will be the absolute authority on the game. And, that person is the GM.

With that kind of authority and power over the game, he cannot cheat.

He can do things you don't like. And, you can decide not to play with him.

A smart GM won't do those things (or let you know that he's doing those things), because the GM's number one job is to make sure everybody has fun. If his players think he is "cheating", even though it's impossible for him to cheat, then the GM is failing at his job.

If it's your opinion that GMs cannot cheat, fine, but comparing such an idea to an 'established fact' is (in my own opinion) not a valid comparison.

The GM being unable to cheat is fact, not just my opinion. I've listed examples. I've pointed to a page in the rule book that says the same thing. I've provided more support to back up that fact than anybody else has when saying that a GM can cheat.

 

[gamerprinter]

That's not cheating, according to the 3.5 DMG and other sources on DMing.

I really don't care what the 3.5 DMG states, in my book (in our game) that's cheating, he's been caught red-handed on more than one occasion, and he's been removed of his GM status because of it. Besides I play PF, not 3.5 what the DMG says means nothing - if it doesn't say so in PF, it's not there. There's a very good chance he might be removed as a player as well, it depends on what he does as a player this time around.

Because of the frequency of his cheating in our game, at the start of this current campaign under the normal GM, it was stated that we are cleaving to the rules very closely, with only one or two exceptions of house rules. For all intents and purposes, we are not using house rules at all. The way we generate PCs already includes the only house rules allowed.

One thing I didn't mention, he was a guest GM, while I was away at a family funeral, and the regular GM needed a short break. So he wasn't even running his own world, rather running a short adventure in the mountains of the normal GMs world.

Our party is at 11th level. At the end of that adventure that the bad GM was running, he gave out 6 artifacts as treasure - 5 philosopher stones, and a Hammer of Thunderbolts (the bad GM's favorite magic item). We normally don't grant any artifacts to players. Sometimes we have one party item that might be an artifact, but it won't show up as available until the party is at least 18th level.

This temporary GM went out of his way to break the current GMs world, party rules, as well as his normal 'the sheet is in my head' statement.

 

[Argyle King]

That's not cheating, according to the 3.5 DMG and other sources on DMing.

You may not like his play style, but he's not "cheating". He's running the game in a manner that you don't like.

One of the most fun games I've ever had as a player was a Classic Traveller game run by a gifted GM who made up everything on the spot.

Now, D&D is a different game, and the GM you mention runs his game more Old School style. I'm not sure I'd like the way he's does it, either. But, I wouldn't call him a cheat.

As GM, it's his world. He can mix, change, bend things to his liking.

Where he's failing is that his players aren't having fun. And, that's a pretty big failure as a GM.

But, he's not cheating.









Check out page 18 of the 3.5 DMG. Top right hand side of the page discusses "fudging".

The cardinal rule with fudging, mention on that page (and something I agree with) is to never let the players catch you doing that. They'll lose faith in your GMing abilities.



Agreed about not playing in that GM's game.

Again, he's failing at the "fun" part, but he's not cheating.

Giving a few men-at-arms longswords that do d30 damage or fighting a huge number of Orcs all at once--it's the same thing. The GM controls it.

You can't call one thing cheating and the other not cheating.







The GM can do things you don't like. And, you can set up House Rules to help "govern" your GM. But, in the end, when you sit down to play, you agree that one person will be the absolute authority on the game. And, that person is the GM.

With that kind of authority and power over the game, he cannot cheat.

He can do things you don't like. And, you can decide not to play with him.

A smart GM won't do those things (or let you know that he's doing those things), because the GM's number one job is to make sure everybody has fun. If his players think he is "cheating", even though it's impossible for him to cheat, then the GM is failing at his job.








The GM being unable to cheat is fact, not just my opinion. I've listed examples. I've pointed to a page in the rule book that says the same thing. I've provided more support to back up that fact than anybody else has when saying that a GM can cheat.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it. Again, as I've said, that's all fine and well if that's considered normal for a D&D 3.5 game, but not everyone is playing that system.

I completely agree that the GM should do what he wants with his world. That being said, it is my view that some things fall outside the bounds of what I would consider 'fudging.' Being that I personally don't like fudging to begin with (even though I understand it's sometimes a necessary evil for some GMs,) that leads me to feel that cheating on the GM's behalf is possible.

You mentioned a few men-at-arms using d30s being comparable to breaking the encounter guidelines and throwing too many monsters at the players. I'd again have to say that only works when considered D&D. In a game where there aren't levels or XP budgets, it may well be normal for the PCs to encounter more than they can handle via their own actions. Even in D&D, if the PCs make woefully poor decisions and that leads to them being at a possibly deadly disadvantage during a fight, that's one thing. I feel that's not cheating. it's something which grew out of the natural evolution of play and the game world.

In contrast (and to make the example a little more ridiculous,) if the GM is running a Lord of The Ring based game, and mid-combat decides the swords of the enemy orcs suddenly morph in Browning M2 Machine guns which spray everyone in the party for 5d30 damage which blows away The Hobbits in a hailstorm of bullets, I do not perceive that as being just simple fudging. (Though, to be fair, I personally hate Frodo as a character, so I might not mind.)

caveat: If later we discover the GM was secretly leading us into a world hopping game in which the LoTR story gets mixed with something else, ok, that's fine. If the weapon morphing only happens when the GM is angry that Bob ate the last Ranch Dorito, I do not feel that's fine.

Even if I agree that the GM cannot cheat. I'd still say that a GM who abuses the ability to 'fudge' is going to have a harder time (in my opinion) of expecting good behavior from the players of the group. I believe cheating is a trust issue, trust is something that should go both ways.

I suppose I can wrap up my opinion by simply saying that I personally feel there are limits to what still falls into the category of fudging.

 

[Water Bob]

Besides I play PF, not 3.5 what the DMG says means nothing - if it doesn't say so in PF, it's not there.

Pg. 33 of the Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide: "And if the GM is truly in control world, and making his or her rolls in secret--is it really cheating at all?"

Most works I've read on the art of GMing say or imply things like this to support the GM can't cheat position.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it. Again, as I've said, that's all fine and well if that's considered normal for a D&D 3.5 game, but not everyone is playing that system.

See above. No matter what RPG you play, there's usualy a section that says, "The GM's the boss, the buck stops with him."

Being that I personally don't like fudging to begin with (even though I understand it's sometimes a necessary evil for some GMs,) that leads me to feel that cheating on the GM's behalf is possible.

Most players do. I don't like fudging either, and I'm a GM. I'm more of a what-you-roll-is-what-you-get type of GM.

Still, if I wanted to, I wouldn't be cheating. The players may feel "cheated", but I wouldn't be cheating.

I can't cheat, because I'm the GM.

What I can do is do things that will make my players dislike the way I run the game. They may incorrectly call me a "cheat". Regardless, if that happens, as a GM, I have failed.

But....I still didn't cheat.





What I think most of you (universal "You") are calling "cheating" are actions taken by the GM that you dislike.

I agree with many of those positions.

But, I also know that, when I accept a person as GM, that there is no way he can cheat because of his position--what he's charged to do with the game. As creator and judge, the GM cannot cheat.

He can do things I won't accept or like as a player, but he cannot cheat.

 

[jmucchiello]

gamerprinter, I don't see what your GM did as cheating either. It was bad GMing and in the context of crapping on someone else's world, I'd call it what I called it earlier in this thread: inappropriate social behavior.

As for the thread, I can no longer get worked up about it. If people want to call it cheating, whatever. It's the wrong term but it carries the correct social stigma so as a shorthand for "inappropriate social behavior" I can deal with it. Sorry Water Bob.

 

[Water Bob]

As for the thread, I can no longer get worked up about it. If people want to call it cheating, whatever. It's the wrong term but it carries the correct social stigma so as a shorthand for "inappropriate social behavior" I can deal with it. Sorry Water Bob.

Agreed. Right behind you.