On taking power away from the DM

[Zogmo]

Best example of DM cheating is fudging or ignoring dice rolls.

Lets say your running your game and your players are confronting the BBEG, and your ready to run a knock down drag out fight. You have spent months building up to this point in the game. Its time for the final, climactic act.

You roll initiative, and the Cleric goes first. He throws out a Hold Person. You roll the save behind the Dm Screen (as you always do, for the purposes of this example). It comes up as 1.

Now, an honest DM will let the dice fall where they may. BBEG is now Held, rogue calmly walks up, performs a Coup de Grace, BBEG is now dead.

But, as a DM, you think it will be more fun if the fight goes a bit longer. You tell the players he made the save.

That example is fairly inoccuous. But lets consider if instead of starting the fight, this was meant to be a recurring NPC villain, and he always escapes? What if after that point the dice start to favor the villain heavily and you manage a TPK? At the start of the encounter, the players had won. Now they have lost. It is a slippery slope, but there is a point where rather than enhancing the game, the DM is just cheating his players and protected a pet NPC.

When that line is crossed, it is DM cheating.

END COMMUNICATION

Here is the difference in your game and mine.

I have promised my players a really fun time.

I run my BBEG's as if they had all the smarts and resources that the players have and that's why he's in charge of this particular dungeon or whatever.

If my players finished off the BBEG like you said they would be sure that it was just a lackey or a decoy and keep looking for the real BBEG because they have learned that when I DM that has never happened.

If the party got into trouble and started dying they would retreat and come back better prepared another day with even more excitement and vengeance in their hearts when they meet again. Sometimes the BBEG has moved on by the time they get back and they are even more determined to hunt him down, thus beginning a new story arc perhaps.

The BBEG expects a confrontation and has all kinds of protections on and around him. The players prepared and so did he with trapped floors, walls and statues along with a good dose of illusions and magic dispelling devices and possibly at some point reinforcements. Not all of it has to be there and used but it's at his disposal.

They expect to have harrowing adventures with lots of danger and mysteries. They expect me to play smart and have learned that to have the most fun they need to play smart too.

I do let the dice fall as they may but I have prepared for TPK's and the PC's rolling massive crits and lucky rolls. I have things in reserve that are implemented as needed to make sure it was an excellent encounter or adventure.

 

[barsoomcore]

I've been in so many of these discussions that I'm too bored with them to even bother again.

Of all the hilarious untruths posted in this thread, this is both the most hilarious and the most verifiably untrue.

 

[Zogmo]

Best example of DM cheating is fudging or ignoring dice rolls.
When that line is crossed, it is DM cheating.

Oh yea, about this too. Who the hell drew this line?

If there were two DM's and only one group of players and one DM never fudged die rolls, ever and the other fudged die rolls regularly to guarantee really fun D&D sessions I can promise the guy fudging is gonna have that group of players all the time.

It's like reading a novel. Which kind of ending would you prefer? Quick and dull or wild adventure? It's weird concept I'm going to relate here, but if a writer wrote his book using dice to determine the outcome of the "Big Battle" at the end of the book your taking a chance that people reading your novel really won't like it at all. So, he is ALWAYS going to fudge the rolls to ensure a good experience. Really enjoyable adventure should always come first. DM's should treat their games like it's a novel.

When it's all said and done the fun adventure is what's going to be remembered not the die rolls the DM might have fudged.

 

[DragonLancer]

Best example of DM cheating is fudging or ignoring dice rolls.

Lets say your running your game and your players are confronting the BBEG, and your ready to run a knock down drag out fight. You have spent months building up to this point in the game. Its time for the final, climactic act.

You roll initiative, and the Cleric goes first. He throws out a Hold Person. You roll the save behind the Dm Screen (as you always do, for the purposes of this example). It comes up as 1.

Now, an honest DM will let the dice fall where they may. BBEG is now Held, rogue calmly walks up, performs a Coup de Grace, BBEG is now dead.

But, as a DM, you think it will be more fun if the fight goes a bit longer. You tell the players he made the save.

That example is fairly inoccuous. But lets consider if instead of starting the fight, this was meant to be a recurring NPC villain, and he always escapes? What if after that point the dice start to favor the villain heavily and you manage a TPK? At the start of the encounter, the players had won. Now they have lost. It is a slippery slope, but there is a point where rather than enhancing the game, the DM is just cheating his players and protected a pet NPC.

When that line is crossed, it is DM cheating.

I disagree. With a situation like that, it would be a boring anticlimax if that was how it played out. Fudging that dice roll for the Big Bad is keeping the game fun for all involved - players & DM. It's not cheating unless the DM does that for every single encounter that the party has.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I would not go so far as to say that fudging thing against or for the PCs is cheating. Even in campaigns where I have seen some DM vs. player friction, I do suspect more fudging was done to save PCs from pathetic random deaths than to benefit any NPCs.

But I can say it is a real SOD killer when you come to believe that no powerful NPC will ever fail a save during the first 2 rounds of combat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, I had one DM like that, too...successive checks that in the end added up to "no chance".

Heh.

"Start making Fort saves. Roll until you fail."

-Hyp.

 

[Doug McCrae]

With a situation like that, it would be a boring anticlimax if that was how it played out. Fudging that dice roll for the Big Bad is keeping the game fun for all involved - players & DM.

Not for me, I prefer unfudged D&D fights. In the last campaign I played in, the penultimate BBEG was killed in the first round by being bullrushed into a hole. It was f---ing awesome, a great tactical move, and totally unexpected.

 

[Zogmo]

Unfudged all the way!

Not for me, I prefer unfudged D&D fights. In the last campaign I played in, the penultimate BBEG was killed in the first round by being bullrushed into a hole. It was f---ing awesome, a great tactical move, and totally unexpected.

Unexpected and creative (when my players have out thought me) play alway gets rewarded even if it means the premature ending of a BBEG. That's always cool and makes it fun for me when I can get surprised in my own campaign.

Not changing the die rolls makes it a greater creative challenge to me and the players, but I don't begrudge any DM for doing it. I totally understand why it would be done (as long as it's within reason) to maintain an exciting gaming experience for the players.

Unfudged all the way!

 

[Kraydak]

I disagree. With a situation like that, it would be a boring anticlimax if that was how it played out. Fudging that dice roll for the Big Bad is keeping the game fun for all involved - players & DM. It's not cheating unless the DM does that for every single encounter that the party has.

So you are completely fine with the DM effectively casting a no-save daze on the caster using save-or-dies, and erasing a spell slot from his sheet. If the player used the spell, he wants it to suceed. If you are going to fudge those rolls, at least *tell* the players that, and, if they cast the spell against an opponent you'd fudge the roll for, let them take back the action and refill the spell slot with a relevant spell. For a sorceror that gets a little wierd, admittedly (pity the sorceror specializing in save-or-dies if BBEGs are immune to them).

(I've played a cleric loading lots of Destruction/Slay Livings who took Spell Focus: Necromancy. Bets on how many people failed the save? Fun having an entire character design made useless...)

 

[billd91]

I had a DM (for one game session) who used the blind rolling method of decision making:

DM: Okay, roll d-percent.
Me: <rolls> 53.
DM: Okay. . . roll d6.
Me: <rolls> 2.
DM: . . . Okay. . . roll d20.
Me: <rolls> 14.
DM: . . . Okay. . . you succeed.

I think he was just stalling for time to think, because I didn't know, and never learned what all those rolls were for.

Quasqueton

I'll admit to doing this from time to time and have played in games where it has been done. And it largely has been to stall while I decided whether or not something succeeded and to make it seem like there was some possibility the PC either could succeed (when really they couldn't) or couldn't succeed (when really it was a sure thing).
For example, back in 1e, if the armored halfing wanted to make a running jump and clear the 35' chasm (no chance at all without magic), I'd have him roll a d20. The roll would fail but it let the player know that they could try anything in the game.