If a DM can't cheat, can a player cheat?

[S'mon]

In a Gamist game like D&D, GMs certainly can 'cheat' IMO - eg secretly altering a die roll to enforce your own preferences against the wishes of the players; eg to keep a pet NPC villain alive - definitely _is_ GM cheating in my book. Altering a roll to favour player preferences is ok if the social contract at your table allows for that; ie if the players are ok with it. Likewise players cheat when they deceive the GM & other players to favour their own agenda; by altering a die roll, giving themselves extra hit points, etc. In a typical Gamist D&D game, this is NOT OK.

 

[S'mon]

Another example for plot immunity would be to request that one's character is never tortured or raped

Personally I would never grant a PC plot immunity along the lines of "Your PC will never be tortured or raped", OTOH I would be willing to give a guarantee along the lines of "I will never _describe_ your PC being tortured or raped (unless you request it)". In a Simulationist type game that emphasises in-game realism PCs can be tortured or raped just like anyone else. OTOH in a more Narrativist game (eg Conan RPG) I will put some effort into not deprotagonising a PC; so (real in-game example) if the attractive young female barbarian PC gets drunk on Kothian grain spirit and passes out unconscious on her own in the rough part of Shadizar the Wicked, most decadent city in Zamora, I'll aim to think up justifications for why she might not be raped - maybe the swarthy NPC mercenary caravan guards she's been chatting to have taken a liking to her and stand guard over her all night, keeping the wolves away until she awakes with a sore head next morning... that actually created a nice bond between the hungover PC and the guards that played really well in the rest of the scenario.

 

[Ranes]

As a DM, I don't care to ignore the dice. I try to keep my improv to interpreting the dice. This point is known to and accepted by the players. They are generally reassured when a typical planned attack begins not along the lines of:

"Suddenly, the door to the east flies off its hinges, its ancient beams shattered by the ravenous troll hurtling through it. The creature is already upon you."

But like this:

"Suddenly, the great eastern door shudders with a loud crash on the other side, followed by a monstrous roar that is part fury, part pain. Roll init..."

Nevertheless, I had a persistent cheater in my game once. The cheating spoiled my fun more than it spoiled the other players' fun but they still resented it.

I talked to the cheater who freely admitted to it and wouldn't change. Circumstances demanded I would have to be the one who changed group, so I did, with no regrets.

Now, YMMV.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Cheating. Ah yes.

Players
Not only can this unbalance the game in favor of the cheating player, ruin the fun of the player, GM and/or other players and everything else that's been stated here, but if the cheater is found out and the GM does nothing about it, it can lead to severe problems within the group. It's not fair to every single other player in the group (including the GM). Cheating for players is a no-no.

It's hard for people to cheat in my games, though. We play via OpenRPG or IRC and dice rolls are made right there on the screen.

GMs
GMs fudging rolls...well...that's a bit different. If the GM is fudging rolls just to protect his pet NPC or out of spite for the party, that's not right. If the GM is fudging rolls to help the story or keep the PCs out of too much trouble, I see no issue with that. It actually helps the players out in that case. That is the difference.

 

[Ghostknight]

In a Gamist game like D&D, GMs certainly can 'cheat' IMO - eg secretly altering a die roll to enforce your own preferences against the wishes of the players; eg to keep a pet NPC villain alive - definitely _is_ GM cheating in my book. Altering a roll to favour player preferences is ok if the social contract at your table allows for that; ie if the players are ok with it. Likewise players cheat when they deceive the GM & other players to favour their own agenda; by altering a die roll, giving themselves extra hit points, etc. In a typical Gamist D&D game, this is NOT OK.

But what if the purpose of keeping that NPC alive is to enhance a plot thread that leads to further player enjoyment? To me rule 0 is - players must have fun in my game. To that end all other rules are subject to my "cheating". Yep, my worlds are not based on player power, if they are stupid enough to take on something well above their power level they will die, but I will not put unnessecarily kill them just because they have a few unlucky rolls or I have a run of good rolls!

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Have little sheets with your PCs stats and make them roll in the open for everyone to see... (make everyone do it so Cheater McCheater-pants doesn't feel totally singled out).
Let them experience the excitement of possibly failing and possibly winning.

 

[diaglo]

in my opinion he is only cheating himself and his fellow players.

yes, i've played with (and still do) cheaters.

i've grown accustomed to it from 1 player and take all of his rolls with a grain of salt.

it is funny now to me. to see just how many natural 20s he calls out.

 

[Piratecat]

I shunted a player out of my game once for cheating. He would cheat on dice rolls (pissing off the other players), and I called him on that -- then I found out that he was making up random amounts of gold for his character. That wasn't something I was comfortable with.

I played in someone else's game where this same guy was a player, too, and ridiculing his cheating was a running joke. One night when he wasn't there and someone else was playing his character, the DM asked everyone to roll initiative. The person running his PC answers, "I rolled a 7. . . so my initiative is 27." Everyone laughed, but it was that nasty bitter laughter that isn't much fun. I'm just as happy I no longer game with him.

 

[S'mon]

But what if the purpose of keeping that NPC alive is to enhance a plot thread that leads to further player enjoyment? To me rule 0 is - players must have fun in my game. To that end all other rules are subject to my "cheating".

I think any GM fudging detracts from the Gamist challenge-oriented approach that the 3e D&D rules are based around. If the players are happy to see NPCs given script immunity for 'story' purposes - in particular if it increases the drama somehow by creating an interesting dramatic choice for PCs later on - I don't have a problem with that, although it wouldn't personally be my approach. And in a non-D&D game, say a Supers game, keeping a pet villain or sidekick alive might be well within the genre conventions & unremarkable. In D&D I'd be very careful to ensure that the players did like this approach though, it's not suitable IMO to the pure-Gamist (usually kill-things-take-stuff) approach standard 3e D&D advocates. I'm not personally keen on GM intervention to maintain the integrity of a pre-scripted story ('railroading'), and I'd always advise against keeping NPCs alive for that purpose unless you were absolutely sure that following-the-story, rather than beat-the-villain, was the primary player desire.

 

[krazykid]

Sort of on topic

This quote is sort of apt about now...


Calvin (in bed): "Any monsters under my bed tonight?"

From under bed: "Nope." "No." "Uh-Uh."

Calvin: "Well there *better* not be, I'd hate to have to torch one with my flamethrower!"

Hobbes (in bed with Calvin): "You have a flamethrower?"

Calvin: "They lie. I lie."

- Calvin, The Monsters Under His Bed & Hobbes