Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5879966" data-attributes="member: 64209">First, to Terrya: No.&nbsp;Now to address Water Bob. You're stating basically two separate things, but seem to have them rolled into one.&nbsp;1. The DM cannot cheat.2. If the DM cheats it's ok.&nbsp;For instance, if a DM agrees to not fudge rolls and then fudges one...I'd call that cheating. I think you would too, which is why your hypothetical DM does something else (like the morale check). If there is a contract that all rolls are in the open and none are fudged, and that contract is broken (the DM rolls privately or fudges a roll), the DM has cheated. Would you not agree to this? In this example, while he COULD do something else, he doesn't. He DOES in fact fudge the roll after explicity agreeing not to.&nbsp;&quot;Ok,&quot; one might say, &quot;but he's doing it for the benefit of the players. It's not cheating when you're helping someone else; only when you do it to benefit yourself.&quot; To this I'd respond with two points. The first would be that the players MAY NOT ENJOY IT MORE if they have an inkling at all (or are fully aware). In fact, players that went ahead and specifically asked for no fudging are probably the type of players who want a &quot;chips fall where they may&quot; type of game. If they begin to feel rescued, they may no longer feel the pride of &quot;an actual accomplishment&quot; because the dm has put them on &quot;god mode&quot;.&nbsp;Secondly, helping others (the players) is a slippery slope argument. What if a player cheats in some way to avoid a tpk? &quot;Oh yeah, I memorized teleport today...I don't know why my sheet still has cone of cold on it.&quot; What if that makes all the players at the table happier? What if that makes the DM unhappy?&nbsp;&nbsp;Another issue with this &quot;DM flexibly modifies the world&quot; stance is that sometimes it's too little, too late. A DM doesn't have total control if he rolls dice in the open. That ogre's critical hit that does x3 or x4 damage and drops a player from full hp to dead isn't something that can be &quot;taken back&quot; with morale checks or adding a sudden ally or whatever. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As with all blanket statments of &quot;always&quot; or &quot;never&quot;, it is clearly possible to poke holes in the &quot;A DM can never cheat&quot; statement. Is it harder for a DM to cheat? Sure. Does a DM have more tools and flexibilty than a player? Sure. Can a DM who is arbiter of a game, but also a player engaged in a social contract of gaming with others, cheat? Of course.&nbsp;Rocks fall. Everybody dies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 5879966, member: 64209"] First, to Terrya: No. Now to address Water Bob. You're stating basically two separate things, but seem to have them rolled into one. 1. The DM cannot cheat. 2. If the DM cheats it's ok. For instance, if a DM agrees to not fudge rolls and then fudges one...I'd call that cheating. I think you would too, which is why your hypothetical DM does something else (like the morale check). If there is a contract that all rolls are in the open and none are fudged, and that contract is broken (the DM rolls privately or fudges a roll), the DM has cheated. Would you not agree to this? In this example, while he COULD do something else, he doesn't. He DOES in fact fudge the roll after explicity agreeing not to. "Ok," one might say, "but he's doing it for the benefit of the players. It's not cheating when you're helping someone else; only when you do it to benefit yourself." To this I'd respond with two points. The first would be that the players MAY NOT ENJOY IT MORE if they have an inkling at all (or are fully aware). In fact, players that went ahead and specifically asked for no fudging are probably the type of players who want a "chips fall where they may" type of game. If they begin to feel rescued, they may no longer feel the pride of "an actual accomplishment" because the dm has put them on "god mode". Secondly, helping others (the players) is a slippery slope argument. What if a player cheats in some way to avoid a tpk? "Oh yeah, I memorized teleport today...I don't know why my sheet still has cone of cold on it." What if that makes all the players at the table happier? What if that makes the DM unhappy? Another issue with this "DM flexibly modifies the world" stance is that sometimes it's too little, too late. A DM doesn't have total control if he rolls dice in the open. That ogre's critical hit that does x3 or x4 damage and drops a player from full hp to dead isn't something that can be "taken back" with morale checks or adding a sudden ally or whatever. As with all blanket statments of "always" or "never", it is clearly possible to poke holes in the "A DM can never cheat" statement. Is it harder for a DM to cheat? Sure. Does a DM have more tools and flexibilty than a player? Sure. Can a DM who is arbiter of a game, but also a player engaged in a social contract of gaming with others, cheat? Of course. Rocks fall. Everybody dies. [/QUOTE]

Verification