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

[Hand of Evil]

The point of the game is to have fun and I have found I do not care about 'fudging' dice rolls as long as it does not affect pacing in the game BUT the player has to be great with his adjectives and description actions. If it is just about dice rolls I think it does tick me off when a player adjust rolls.

As far as other ways of cheating, changing stats, increasing pluses, adding skills and feats - I really dislike and will do bad things to the player when I find out. One of my house rules, talk to me.

 

[Old One]

I had a serial cheater in a long-running FR campaign. The more intense the action got - the harrier things got for his PC - the higher the cheat factor. While most of the group were "social gamers", this guy LIVED for D&D, so I never really understood the reason(s) for cheating beyond a deep-seated desire to "win" the game at any cost.

He led directly to my now concrete policy of open rolling...for both the players and DM. In fact, my table rules - handed out to each player - specify high-contrast dice and rolls made in full view of the table. He also indirectly led to my adoption of hero points, which have gone through numerous iterations. Since the hero/action dice mechanic gives players a limited number of "outs" if the dice are totally against them, it lessens a cheater's need to cheat, IMO.

If I caught a player cheating today (as a DM), I would give them one warning, then boot them from the group. I think that cheating...which is usually fairly obvious...lessens the enjoyment of all.

~ Old One

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

But DMs CAN cheat!

I take issue with the idea that a DM cannot cheat. The DM can cheat under the exact same circumstances as the player - fudging a roll for the selfish gain of being "better" than someone else or wanting to "win".

A DM has an awesome responsibility to make the game interesting and hopefully fun for everyone. Because of this the DM has a lot more latitude in making changes on the fly. With this is a certain element of trust. The players trust that the DM is not out to intentionally screw them. As long as that is the case, the DM is not cheating. The minute the DM starts fudging rolls not because he wants the BBEG to live more than two rounds so the party can be challenged, but because he wants the BBEG to kill one PC before they can kill him, the DM has broken the trust and is cheating.

The players' responsibility is to play the game according to the rules agreed upon and trust that the DM will handle things as fairly as possible while providing an entertaining adventure.

 

[Iuz]

Not only is he cheating himself by altering the results in his benefit. He's cheating the rest of the party as well. He's artificially inflating his "importance" to the adventure and thus lowering everyone elses. He also makes the encounters, in general, less of a challenge for everyone else.

I would say the same thing about DMs who fudge (aka cheat), but I know I'm in the minority.

 

[Ghostknight]

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.

But we have a fundamental difference in how we view the rules. I do not see it as "Gamist" or DM vs players. The DM is not there solely as a referr in a match between players and NPCs. To me it is a co-operative game. The DM is there to create atmosphere, intersting situations (challenging or otherwise), NPC interactions etc. Providing battles and challenges is part of the co-operative nature of the games. As such the DM meeds to judge when it is apprpriate and when it is not appropriate for the rues to be strictly applied.

Will it interrupt flow to make a roll that the rules call for but is irrelevant? Ignore the roll! The only time te rules need to be strictly followed is if you are part of something like Living Greyhawk or at a competition, both situations where consistency across DMs is needed. Outside of that, what happens in your local game should purely be based on what the DM judges is appropriate for his game!

 

[Mystery Man]

we game to have fun.

if his "cheating" is making the game more enjoyable for him and it's not negatively impacting the other players, then what's the problem?

That it's cheating?

 

[Henry]

Here's a good opinion question: Does GM "cheating" only limit itself to die rolls?

Let's say I am playing D&D, and I have already drafted up my scenario for the night. Then, the day of the game, two people I didn't expect show up early and want to make characters and play. I now need to adjust my encounter numbers, because I'm certainly not going to hurt a friend's feelings and tell them they can't play that day. Is this cheating?

A more mundane example. Let's say that you're playing a new campaign, and you've got your plans. However, the PC's your players have made find your entire game a cakewalk - they've just spectacularly crushed your heavy hitters, you've only got one encounter left - the big bad for the night - and you look at his stats and realize you've vastly underestimated certain abilities the PCs had. You alter the encounter to be slightly tougher, to make them sweat a little more than a breeze-through. Is this cheating?

Or, as is often what happens, your player go COMPLETELY off the map, and want to do something totally unprepared. You pull out a couple of stock NPC's, some pre-genned monster stats, come up with a plot on the fly - or maybe you just pull EVERYTHING, monster stats and all, from your posterior. Is THAT cheating?

 

[Ghostknight]

Here's a good opinion question: Does GM "cheating" only limit itself to die rolls?

Let's say I am playing D&D, and I have already drafted up my scenario for the night. Then, the day of the game, two people I didn't expect show up early and want to make characters and play. I now need to adjust my encounter numbers, because I'm certainly not going to hurt a friend's feelings and tell them they can't play that day. Is this cheating?

A more mundane example. Let's say that you're playing a new campaign, and you've got your plans. However, the PC's your players have made find your entire game a cakewalk - they've just spectacularly crushed your heavy hitters, you've only got one encounter left - the big bad for the night - and you look at his stats and realize you've vastly underestimated certain abilities the PCs had. You alter the encounter to be slightly tougher, to make them sweat a little more than a breeze-through. Is this cheating?

Or, as is often what happens, your player go COMPLETELY off the map, and want to do something totally unprepared. You pull out a couple of stock NPC's, some pre-genned monster stats, come up with a plot on the fly - or maybe you just pull EVERYTHING, monster stats and all, from your posterior. Is THAT cheating?

IMO- definitely not, that is what DMing is about. to those who see the game as a series of challenges that are pre-setup and the DM is merely a referee, yep. But to me that kills the whole point of being DM. If the DM is unable to react and adjust on the fly, then you may as well be playing a CRPG (and even there the better ones adjust themselves to the character's level and vary the challenges.) Now CRPG's have their pros (I enjoy them when i am not gaming with buddies), but feel that the table top is where far more creativity is expected from the DM, including adjusting the encounters and challenges as necessary.

 

[Henry]

we game to have fun.

if his "cheating" is making the game more enjoyable for him and it's not negatively impacting the other players, then what's the problem?

One problem - some games as has been pointed out have class abilities or mechanics that "simulate" cheating - the Luck Clerical domain, for example. This shafts anyone who actually has that ability, and paid for it with their own choices. If Player B is going to cheat like mad, then I'm better off cheating like mad too, and picking up something useful like the Strength or Destruction domain; or better yet, why not pick up five or six other cleric domains, while I'm at it?

 

[diaglo]

One problem - some games as has been pointed out have class abilities or mechanics that "simulate" cheating - the Luck Clerical domain, for example. This shafts anyone who actually has that ability, and paid for it with their own choices. If Player B is going to cheat like mad, then I'm better off cheating like mad too, and picking up something useful like the Strength or Destruction domain; or better yet, why not pick up five or six other cleric domains, while I'm at it?

are you sure you aren't playing in Hotlanta? no joke.. i've seen this. a cleric with 4 extra domains