Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cor Azer" data-source="post: 5880936" data-attributes="member: 870">Recall how in another thread you mentioned how people should refrain from making assumptions about people they don't know well.Introduce yourself to a mirror.Many of us don't agree with that &quot;deep down&quot;. It isn't a bad wager to say we know ourselves better than you.Just above, I told folks to not respond to rudeness.&nbsp; I meant it.&nbsp; Don't make this personal, people.&nbsp; ~Umbran&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course they can. They do have broad abilities to justify their cheating, but it's still cheating.And a GM is most definitely a player. Not solely a player, but a player none-the-less.We disagree.You cannot factually prove a GM can't cheat. You can certain come up with all sorts of scenarios where a rules change on the fly and claim - ta da! not cheating. That doesn't prove all instances of fudging and the like are not cheating. It's not an inductive statement or proof.Absolutes are really tricky things to have in your statements, because really, we only need one scenario of a GM cheating to prove that a GM can, in fact, cheat.Hmm... I notice that all of your examples contain the caveat that &quot;as long as everyone is happy&quot; and the like.So, if the GM does something and the players aren't happy... did he cheat?if a villain makes an attack and misses my AC, and then makes a second attack, gets the same roll with the exact same modifiers - ie, nothing has changed - and now it hits... you wouldn't consider that cheating?Yes, the GM could suddenly introduce other things into the game - a hidden ally, or a new one-a-day ability on the villain - but we're considered the situation where the GM doesn't change anything but the result of the roll. There is no attempt at justifying it, just straight up arbitrary fiat.I would consider that cheating.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cor Azer, post: 5880936, member: 870"] Recall how in another thread you mentioned how people should refrain from making assumptions about people they don't know well. Introduce yourself to a mirror. Many of us don't agree with that "deep down". It isn't a bad wager to say we know ourselves better than you. [color=red][B]Just above, I told folks to not respond to rudeness. I meant it. Don't make this personal, people. ~Umbran[/B][/color] Of course they can. They do have broad abilities to justify their cheating, but it's still cheating. And a GM is most definitely a player. Not solely a player, but a player none-the-less. We disagree. You cannot factually prove a GM can't cheat. You can certain come up with all sorts of scenarios where a rules change on the fly and claim - ta da! not cheating. That doesn't prove all instances of fudging and the like are not cheating. It's not an inductive statement or proof. Absolutes are really tricky things to have in your statements, because really, we only need one scenario of a GM cheating to prove that a GM can, in fact, cheat. Hmm... I notice that all of your examples contain the caveat that "as long as everyone is happy" and the like. So, if the GM does something and the players aren't happy... did he cheat? if a villain makes an attack and misses my AC, and then makes a second attack, gets the same roll with the exact same modifiers - ie, nothing has changed - and now it hits... you wouldn't consider that cheating? Yes, the GM could suddenly introduce other things into the game - a hidden ally, or a new one-a-day ability on the villain - but we're considered the situation where the GM doesn't change anything but the result of the roll. There is no attempt at justifying it, just straight up arbitrary fiat. I would consider that cheating. [/QUOTE]

Verification