James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Ok, first of all, where does it say Wandering Monsters replace preset encounters? I'll wait.Does that mean that a single instance of, say, a player using a loaded die to guarantee a 20 is not cheating, because a single instance cannot be "constantly"?
I find this requirement that it be a long, sustained, pervasive pattern unwarranted. Even a single instance of deception or misrepresentation can qualify as "cheating." And yes, it is a loaded term. That's kind of the point. It's highlighting how there is a shell game being played here, that things are being presented as though they were something that they aren't.
But that's not what the random monster rolls do. The random monster rolls replace encounters that had to be built by hand. It isn't the GM choosing to insert monsters that weren't there; it is them correctly using the encounter design and creation tools. That's like saying that rolling damage is cheating; it cannot be, that is how non-fixed-damage things work.
Inserting extra monsters that weren't there or rewriting the stats of monsters that are there, simply because you feel like they should be, not because you're using the rules, however, would not be using the rules as designed. Like...pretty much literally not that.
Then they have, as I said, done the work to explain that this is possible. Have they also done the work to explain why these allegedly infinite monsters don't just destroy the players instantaneously? Because that's kind of the double-edged sword here. How can there ever be safety enough for even fifteen minutes' rest, let alone eight hours?
But do you not see exactly why this isn't done? Beyond the above problem of "okay so...how is it that the opposition doesn't just win everything forever?" you get the problem of negated stakes. An enemy with infinite, always-accessible, always-refillable reserves cannot lose anything. Infinity minus one is still infinity. No amount of (finite) subtraction or division can turn the concept of infinity into any finite number, let alone zero. In using such a nuclear flyswatter, you have created a dramatically worse problem in its place.
So a player secretly bringing loaded dice is not bad or good, it comes down to how those loaded dice are employed?
Second of all, "loaded dice" =/= "adding an extra monster to an encounter". If Wandering Monsters do exist that are in addition to preset encounters, then by rights, adding a Wandering Monster to an encounter is something a DM could do, if they feel the need.
Thirdly, the main reason I didn't call this sort of thing cheating is because a lot of people feel strongly about it, and I didn't want to end up fighting random posters for the next page or two jumping on me for saying so.
In my posts, I said this feels like cheating to me. Outside of politics and religion, feelings =/= facts. I don't feel comfortable presenting the various tricks the DM has in their arsenal to keep their game going as cheating, because even though I dislike using them, I do see merits in these tactics, as long as they are used sparingly and without malice. Oofta said he's totally fine with boosting encounters if things are going too easily for the players, because he claims this is what his players want. If he's making adjustments to the game to keep his players happy, then I don't see it as cheating.
DM's are humans, not gods. We make mistakes, and all we can do is try to correct those mistakes. If someone attempts to correct a mistake by fudging a die roll or adding a monster, or saying the bad guy is wearing full plate instead of half-plate, or has a rapier instead of a short sword in order to correct a mistake (ie, making the game too easy in a way that makes it less fun for the players), who is being cheated?
Conversely, let's say an encounter beats up the party more than anticipated. Is it now cheating to say an enemy in the next battle isn't present because they had to go to the bathroom? Or that a spellcaster actually did use up some of his spells earlier in the day? Who is being cheated, exactly?
In a perfect world, every DM would get encounter design right, all die rolls would be average, and there'd never be a reason to make adjustments. As the world isn't perfect, we sometimes need to use tools behind the scenes to keep the game running smoothly. Can this be abused or used improperly? Of course! But if it's not being abused or used improperly, I can't call it cheating.
D&D is a game, but it's not like Monopoly. If the banker gives themselves "interest-free loans", that's cheating. The DM, however, is not competing against or the opponent of the players (at least, not supposed to be, irregardless of some of Gary Gygax's more hyperbolic statements about those "dirty, dirty player characters"). You are a game developer, trying to make sure the game keeps running in real time.
In computer games, if there's a bug, exploit, or badly balanced encounter, the developer issues a patch, changing the parameters of the game Is this cheating?
During the Lich King boss fight in World of Warcraft, developers who wanted the encounter to be suitably epic were lurking invisibly when the first raid groups knocked down the door to his inner sanctum, making adjustments to the battle in real time, to ensure that their promise of a legendary battle was kept. Was this cheating?
The DM is tasked with creating an enjoyable game for their players. If doing so requires them to use somewhat shady methods to keep that game enjoyable for the players, I may not like it, but out and out calling it analogous to a player using a loaded die? Yeah, I don't agree.
Consider the lowly goblin archer. He's given a bow. His stat block does not say he has arrows. Is it cheating to give him arrows? Is it cheating to say he has 10, 20, or 60 arrows? Is it cheating to say the goblin has enough arrows to last the encounter? Is it cheating to say "oh, the goblin ran out of arrows, he's dropping his bow now"?