Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8591995" data-attributes="member: 42582">Cheating is relative to expectations and the rationale of play.If the expectation is that the story beats will happen roughly as intended, and the rationale of play is to enjoy those story beats, then changing stats on the fly seems like it is not cheating. The DL modules flag this sort of thing, at least in a proto-fashion, and I think the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks put it front-and-centre. (An alternative to changing stats is just changing dice rolls - these are perhaps technically different things but mostly seem like they are the same in their practical implications.)If the expectation is that the GM is presenting a challenge which the players are going to try and beat, then changing the parameters of the challenge during the attempt probably needs to be more constrained. If the change in parameters is internal to the logic of the challenge - eg a loud noise attracts reinforcements, or the opponents attack in waves - then that seems fine. But if the change in parameters is done purely "externally" or in a "meta" fashion in order to manipulate the outcomes, then that seems to contradict the rationale of play. And so would be a type of "cheating", or something comparably pejorative in that general neighbourhood.I think [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] was thinking just as much, or even morseo, of adjusting the challenge parameters to make sure the PCs (and thus the players) succeed.In a system, like most contemporary approaches to D&D, that gives the GM a lot of latitude in framing situations and introducing adversity into the shared fiction, there normally shouldn't be much need to make "meta"/"external"/"fudging" changes in order to step up the challenge. Because you can just introduce more opponents by using your authority over the relevant fiction. I did this in my 4e GMing quite a bit. It doesn't deprive the players of anything they're entitled to: you just note the additional XP added to the encounter so that (i) the players get the XP they're entitled to, and (ii) the encounter's contribution to milestones and hence accruing action points and daily item uses is properly factored in.(I've referred to "contemporary approaches" because in some more classic approaches the GM doesn't have the same degree of authority: monsters that have not already been placed in the dungeon key are supposed to be regulated by wandering monster roles rather than GM fiat.)But adjusting the parameters to make sure the PCs survive isn't so easy to do. It's always possible for a GM to use their authority over the fiction to introduce a helper or rescuer - thus sticking to an "internal" logic rather than going "external"/"meta"/"fudging" - but this doesn't seem to be a very popular approach. The only RPG I can think of that expressly advocates it as a GM technique is Prince Valiant - but much as I love Prince Valiant it's not something I've ever done, because it can really seem pretty cheap. I prefer systems that allow flexibility in consequence narration, so that even if the PCs fail in a challenge the overall game can go on (I've used this approach in Prince Valiant, in Burning Wheel, and in 4e D&D).</blockquote>

Verification