My DM just told me he fudges rolls....

[enrious]

Am I still cheating if I'm the one who decides what the rules are? That's part of the social contract at my table: what I say goes. In all things. I am not bound by any constraints placed on me by the players. Other DM's in my group are treated likewise.

Given Merrian-Webster's definition of rule as being:

Definition of RULE
1
a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

And given that in D&D (and quite a few other games) the DM/GM is expressly permitted to violate or alter the rules, then if you're playing one of those games then no, a DM/GM cannot cheat if they violate or alter the rules.

After all, a DM/GM in that circumstance isn't violating the rules - they are abiding by them - because they include permission for the DM/GM to violate them.

This is a better koan than the sound of one hand clapping.

 

[Dausuul]

If everyone agrees on how the game is to be played, and one person chooses to violate that agreement--I consider that cheating, yes. You can call it breach of promise if you prefer, or lying.

I'd draw an analogy to sleeping with someone other than your husband/wife. You're not "cheating" in the sense of trying to gain an advantage in a competition, unless your marriage is extra screwed up. But we do still use the word "cheating" to describe such activity, and I think it's appropriate... unless, of course, you have an open marriage, in which case it's fine.

Likewise, if you and your group agree that it's okay for the DM to fudge, then it's not cheating when the DM does it. However, if you and your group have agreed that the DM will not fudge, then it's cheating. If you don't have an explicit agreement on what's acceptable... well, then it gets iffy.

 

[enrious]

If everyone agrees on how the game is to be played, and one person chooses to violate that agreement--I consider that cheating, yes. You can call it breach of promise if you prefer, or lying.

I'd draw an analogy to sleeping with someone other than your husband/wife. You're not "cheating" in the sense of trying to gain an advantage in a competition, unless your marriage is extra screwed up. But we do still use the word "cheating" to describe such activity, and I think it's appropriate... unless, of course, you have an open marriage, in which case it's fine.

Likewise, if you and your group agree that it's okay for the DM to fudge, then it's not cheating when the DM does it. However, if you and your group have agreed that the DM will not fudge, then it's cheating. If you don't have an explicit agreement on what's acceptable... well, then it gets iffy.

I agree, assuming everyone explicitly agrees to it. And note, this doesn't mean everyone has to like it, just that some amount of comprise has occurred.

What I don't get is for anyone to accuse another of having bad/wrong/naughty fun.

 

[Umbran]

It might be funny, but it might rub certain groups the wrong way, no?

Of course it might. It wasn't intended as an argument for carte blanche discarding of rules whenever anyone wants.

But last time I checked, rubbing someone the wrong way didn't justify accusation of being a "cheater". You seem to want to dismiss the connotations there, but I think they are heftier than your arguments.

Right. So, not in the context of game, I agree.

Well, I was trying to be demonstrative, not exhaustive. The point is that both the term "game" and "rule" are pretty flexible, such that yes, sometimes it is appropriate in context of a game, too.

I totally agree. Which is why I was saying for certain groups, this is a problem. When Mark CMG stated that the GM can never cheat, I disagreed because it's only true some of the time.

Yes, well, certainly Mark's a bit overstated there. But arguing that you can call *any* violations of rules a cheat is no better, in my humble opinion. They are both overstatements, and one doesn't justify the other.

Better to simply come up with a single counter-example, as this is sufficient to disprove an absolute. For example: In a tournament context, it is possible for a GM to cheat, intentionally altering play to influence the standing of a player in the lists. This is a case where the RPG play *is* competitive, and the idea of cheating certainly applies.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yes, well, certainly Mark's a bit overstated there.

Indeed, though appropriate in context.

Better to simply come up with a single counter-example, as this is sufficient to disprove an absolute. For example: In a tournament context, it is possible for a GM to cheat, intentionally altering play to influence the standing of a player in the lists. This is a case where the RPG play *is* competitive, and the idea of cheating certainly applies.

A fair example that goes beyond the context of my statement. Certainly, in situation where a rule system is being used in an alternate state, this falls under the above suggestion of mine that there are hybrids, then there can be situations where even I would use the word "cheating" to describe some behaviors. For example, if an RPG system is being used as part of a tournament at a convention where the players are all acting independently to achieve individual goals and the rules they expect to play are given in advance, then a GM favoring one particular player by adjusting die rolls on the fly (before or after the fact, would be, in my eyes, an example of a GM cheating on the part of that one favored player. But in this situation I would have to counter that the RPG system was being used as a sort of hybrid of RPGs and wargaming. I've run such games and would not condone changing the results of dice in the favor of one player over another.

So, too, in tournament play where several groups were playing independently from one another and against one another, if the rules of the tournament state that all of the groups were under the same rules, then I would also consider it cheating for one group to have dice rolls changed to favor one group over another (no matter whether it was a single GM running multiple groups or separate GMs where one was changing die rolls and another was not. But, again, this is a hybrid situation where the RPG system is being used to create a game tournament more akin to wargaming tourneys, and the GM in this situation isn't cheating for the GM but for one group over another. It's also a but out of context for my previous statements though I believe I covered that with my points on hybrids and alternate systems.

 

[Umbran]

I Certainly, in situation where a rule system is being used in an alternate state, this falls under the above suggestion of mine that there are hybrids...

The thing is, in order to speak about hybrids, you have to rather strictly define, "this is an RPG, and that is not". I don't want to draw that fine a distinction.

As far as I am concerned, it is an RPG if played in my home, or in a convention tournament. I think trying to draw a line, such that I'm telling someone, in effect, "You're not playing a *real* RPG, that's a hybrid," runs places I don't want to go. YMMV, of course.

I will say that, surely, the different contexts matter in how the game is played, and what the expectations at the table will be. That is my entire point. I prefer to think of the game as still the game, and that it is flexible in its use, rather than to try to classify those different uses as different games.

 

[Mark CMG]

The thing is, in order to speak about hybrids, you have to rather strictly define, "this is an RPG, and that is not". I don't want to draw that fine a distinction.

As far as I am concerned, it is an RPG if played in my home, or in a convention tournament.

Naw. I think it's fair to say that for tournament play (whether player versus player or group versus group) the RPG system might be used but that additional rules or modifications are in effect and adpating the game beyond its design. And, as I have said, in those cases you certainly need to include some extra restrictions to ensure consistency from group to group, etc.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Am I still cheating if I'm the one who decides what the rules are? That's part of the social contract at my table: what I say goes. In all things. I am not bound by any constraints placed on me by the players. Other DM's in my group are treated likewise.

Nope, you're not cheating. Your social contract is such that you're not breaking any rule to deviate from the written rules, alter combat statistics, change any tactics unnaturally, or the like. You're completely fine, in my mind.

It's other groups that this isn't in the social contract for that I consider it cheating. You're breaking the agreement made by your friends in regards to playing the game. To me, that's cheating. You're clear, though. As always, play what you like

Of course it might. It wasn't intended as an argument for carte blanche discarding of rules whenever anyone wants.

But last time I checked, rubbing someone the wrong way didn't justify accusation of being a "cheater". You seem to want to dismiss the connotations there, but I think they are heftier than your arguments.

I disagree, but that's okay. To me, if someone says they're going to do something (or not do something) explicitly, and then they purposely go against what they said, most people consider that lying. In the context of a game, I think it's fair to call that cheating. The dictionary definitely supports my thoughts on this, too.

Now, if there's no agreement being broken, obviously it's not cheating. If people don't mind fudging, it's all cool. Alter away. I honestly hold no ill will to those who play that way. I just strongly disagree with the assertion that "the GM can never cheat" when I think I've clearly shown that's not the case in every circumstance.

If you disagree, that's understandable. We both think our point of view is a little clearer (which is why we have them)

Well, I was trying to be demonstrative, not exhaustive. The point is that both the term "game" and "rule" are pretty flexible, such that yes, sometimes it is appropriate in context of a game, too.

Well, yes, but as I hesitate to throw around actual definitions (because it rubs people the wrong way), I find that doing so can be enlightening to a conversation. As we're currently speaking within the context of a game, and the definition clearly relates to games, I think I'm more than justified in holding to my view.

Yes, well, certainly Mark's a bit overstated there. But arguing that you can call *any* violations of rules a cheat is no better, in my humble opinion. They are both overstatements, and one doesn't justify the other.

Only if it's meeting the definition of cheating, of course

Better to simply come up with a single counter-example, as this is sufficient to disprove an absolute. For example: In a tournament context, it is possible for a GM to cheat, intentionally altering play to influence the standing of a player in the lists. This is a case where the RPG play *is* competitive, and the idea of cheating certainly applies.

That still meets my definition: "2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" and "b : to violate rules dishonestly". In your example, the GM is breaking (new tournament) rules when he alters play. If there is an agreement not to, he's also violating rules dishonestly. I feel my definition does not suffer from your counterexample.

I still hold to my previous example of "cheating" to help a very young child play better. A slightly older child might complain because it's "cheating" -that is, breaking the rules to help a particular outcome occur. Well, the adult is just trying to help the younger child, and make it more fun for them. However, the side effect is that the slightly older child is having less fun. This is a pretty good representation of fudging, in my mind.

I understand that people disagree with me. I just personally don't feel I like have any real holes in my understanding or argument. I am, however, totally okay with other groups fudging. More power to them, have fun and game on. It just doesn't work for my group. As always, play what you like

 

[prosfilaes]

But in this situation I would have to counter that the RPG system was being used as a sort of hybrid of RPGs and wargaming.

Again, you seem to be picking on very standard and old-school ways of playing RPGs as being variants.

 

[Mark CMG]

Again, you seem to be picking on very standard and old-school ways of playing RPGs as being variants.

Not really. These days, I really only get to play "old school" games a few times a year (mostly at Gary Con) so some of what I base this on is experience at a handful of other conventions and gamedays, plus gameplay with a couple of groups who enjoy mixing it up with many of the more current systems and games. Of course, I don't restrict myself to RPGs but also play many wargames and boardgames, often in campaigns and tournaments. My FLGS, a few blocks down the street, is easily one of the top ten stores in the country (if not top five) with an extensive gaming area where we have been holding the Chicago Gameday (organized here on EN World three times a year for the last decade). Sometimes I assist with organizing and/or run games or tourneys (run more than organize) and I always make sure to check out how its being done in other quarters. My experience dates back to the early Seventies when I joined a couple of local gaming clubs to wargame and subsequently play RPGs when D&D came out in 1974. My first big convention was Gencon in 1976 and I've been attending that one most years, probably two or three out of every four, since. In eighteen days I mark the ten year anniversary of the small ePublishing company I began and though it isn't a huge endeavor, it has made me even more attentive to the ins and outs of gameplay, including organized gameplay. I know, I know. It doesn't give me a lot to go on but it's all I've got.