For GMs who fudge the rolls alot....do you have a problem when a player fudges the roll? I mean logicaly you should not. It does make the whole dice in the game silly though...the reasons given can be applied to a player who is doing the same thing.
Not necessarily. An individual player isn't in charge of arbitrating the rules, keeping the campaign going, or any of the other dozens of parts to the story that the DM is in charge of. If I fudge a die rolls as DM, it's for the sake of the game itself, not to "win."
A campaign can continue on just fine without one player. It has a hard time continuing without the DM.
GMs can't cheat. They make the rules, plain and simple. If the rule is "this critter rolls a 25 on their d20 now and the players aren't told that", then that's the rule.
I'm not saying the things described are always the right thing to do. But they're not cheating.
And the stuff described is the extreme case for each situation you describe:
1. Sparing players. Sure, if you're perfectly obvious about it, this is bad. I actually had that, the GM didn't do a good job, and didn't even try to hide it. The game was still fun, but the players made their own fun.
However, if done right, sparing players can be a very good thing. For example, the GM might overdo things and get the players in over their heads. Sometimes, the GM doesn't want to teach them a lesson about them being able to flee, and sometimes fleeing isn't an option. Killing the players because the GM made an error is a dickish move. There are other situations where that can be okay.
2. Adversarial GMs. I give you that this can hardly be a good thing. The Killer GM who sics great dragons on newblood characters is just asking for a thrashing. Did that ever actually happen to anyone here? Sounds like one of those urban legends, only ever heard about in those "worst GM" threads, and even then they're only being told second-hand (at best) half of the time.
However, the border between adversarial GMs and GMs who will play their NPCs and monsters to the hilt isn't always clear-cut. Sometimes, the GM is just very challenging. It's important that the players are okay with that, but if they are, it can lead to a very rewarding campaign.
3. Railroading. Not always good, of course. The extreme version, the Novel, is obviously a horror scenario, and even if it isn't that extreme, it can be ridiculous. The same GM I talked about on 1. up there did this, too - not quite Novel-grade railroading, but some very obvious and heavy-handed stuff. Was frustrating.
However, in small quantities, it can save the GM - and make a better story. And the story really is important for a lot of people playing this game. I don't say they should ignore player imput. But in some cases, making stuff happen regardless of what the players do is good. Maybe they completely ignore your adventure hook of the haunted inn by travelling in a really stupid way instead of the convenient way (and thus never get past that inn). So the inn will get a new paintjob, a new name, maybe become a brothel and still be haunted, and you won't flush the three hours of work you put into that haunted inn down the john.
Or you have this NPC you want to play a big role in the campaign. He's only a bystander, but some jerk player suspects something, and attacks him. So suddenly he has 10 levels than a moment before and gives the player a thrashing.
The thing is that these aren't the obvious issues people want them to be, and the examples that were given were the worst possible incarnations of these phenomena.
Yeah...I do have a irrational hate of GMs rolling behind screens...for that reason.
Pfft. A cheap excuse to get more meta-game knowledge. You get to see that he hits with a 7, misses with a 5, so you know his attack bonus and can probably figure out if it's an out-of-the-book ogre or if he is modified.
Or you want to be forewarned when things start to happen by seeing the stealth check being rolled.
See what I did there? I assumed - or, rather, insinuated - the worst.
Just because the GM doesn't think you are entitled to see the rolls and stat blocks and everything doesn't mean he's fudging the rolls.
Also spoting these types of GMs is easy...I don't get how they think they are hiding it...
I don't get how you think you can spot everyone who fudges rolls. Maybe the obvious ones, but unless you can show me the trophy you won at the World Sense Motive Championship I won't belief that you can spot it every time the GM fudges rolls.
QOUTE=John Kretzer wrote:
Yeah...I do have a irrational hate of GMs rolling behind screens...for that reason.
Pfft. A cheap excuse to get more meta-game knowledge. You get to see that he hits with a 7, misses with a 5, so you know his attack bonus and can probably figure out if it's an out-of-the-book ogre or if he is modified.
Or you want to be forewarned when things start to happen by seeing the stealth check being rolled.
See what I did there? I assumed - or, rather, insinuated - the worst.
Just because the GM doesn't think you are entitled to see the rolls and stat blocks and everything doesn't mean he's fudging the rolls.
John Kretzer wrote:
Also spoting these types of GMs is easy...I don't get how they think they are hiding it...
I don't get how you think you can spot everyone who fudges rolls. Maybe the obvious ones, but unless you can show me the trophy you won at the World Sense Motive Championship I won't belief that you can spot it every time the GM fudges rolls.
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs can't cheat.
It took a lot longer then I thought it would for someone to say this.
I disagree to the fullest possible amount that I can disagree with something, but to each their own.
|
For GMs who fudge the rolls alot....do you have a problem when a player fudges the roll?
It depends.
A few years ago one of my Players *always got near a 20 on Initiative.
No one ever saw most of those Init rolls, mind you -- but they were there if we are to believe the Player. (Best part is, even once he knew WE knew he was fudging, he still did his best to try and fudge -- Init is funny that way in that no one's looking (in my games) when we transition from ROLE-play to ROLL-play.)
I didn't really care and, after a discussion with a couple of the other Players, I just let him keep doing it (except for the occassional BIG fight). HOWEVER -- had one of the other PCs gone out of his way to have built an uber-initiative PC -- I would have had a different DM response to the fudging Player.
ANOTHER time, about 6 years ago, I gamed with a guy who, poor guy, didn't have "so great a life" and really only looked forward to my game. You know how people with low self esteem often percieve out-of-their-control things to further break down their self worth?? Well this guy, when he'd roll poorly, would feel it was his fault that the d20 ended up a 5 -- and last time a 7 -- and before that a 1. He would "close in" on himself and just be frustrated and angry. Not cool. Not fun.
THE GAME IS ABOUT HAVING FUN!!!
So when I saw him sneakily grab his d20 after he already rolled it I let it go. It's no bigggie -- the PCs are gonna win anyway.
----------------------------------------
Finally, when PCs in my games roll 1s on Cure spells I let 'em reroll those (they need their healing in my games!). And I'll sometimes let 'em reroll other bad dice (not d20s); say that 5 of the 10d6 fireball dice were ones and twos -- I'll let 'em reroll the ones.
That kind of stuff.
|
|
....Did that ever actually happen to anyone here?
LOL
It's an ongoing joke with me. For 30 years of gaming I've ALWAYS occassionally said, and lots and lots and lots of DMs have joked (when I'm the PC), about the lightning that is about to come down from the sky to kill the snot-belly PC acting like some kind of chaos boy!
But it's never happened!
All the times I've threatened to have a Red Dragon swoop down on them for being obtuse,
All the times I've grumbled about their forgetting my volumes-long, epic narrative and shot lightning from my butt-hole at them,
All the times I've started to describe the Tarrasque that claws out of the ground before them,....
It's never happened.
Not once in 30 years.
(And I was a really bad DM when I was in grade school!)
|
|
Unless you can show me the trophy you won at the World Sense Motive Championship...
I won it in 2004.
I got fourth place in 1993 and second in 1998.
My first year was '87 and I lost badly: faced a Type III Demon in round one and a Rakshasa in round two. Sure, I gave the Glabrezu a run for his money at first (he is Chaotic, afterall) -- but his experience and my inexperience caught up to me. And the Lawful Evil spirit just tore me apart with lies. By the time round three rolled around and I had a winnable match against a gnome chick, I was too exhausted and demoralized to give it my best. All in all a tough first World Sense Motive Championship.
2004 was great though -- I was ready and I luckily got paired against THREE morons, er, Demons. The Marilith never saw what hit her (but her behind was sure sore the next morning!)
And I took clear First Place.
Changing the rules can be considered to be cheating especially when they change at the GM's whim. Cheating is basically being unfair. What counts as unfair may vary somewhat from group to group*, but if you always favor player X then you are basically cheating for that player.
Making sure the monsters always win...., ok bad example since if the monsters always win the PC's are already dead.
Making the monsters with disregard for their stats is another way to cheat.
*Example:The Monster has 100 hp. The GM keeps the monster going well after it has taken 250 points of damage. Now some groups consider this to be ok as long as they have a good fight so for that group it might be cheating. If group B has an unspoken or spoken agreement to do things by the book then the GM has broken that agreement and is cheating.
Pfft. A cheap excuse to get more meta-game knowledge. You get to see that he hits with a 7, misses with a 5, so you know his attack bonus and can probably figure out if it's an out-of-the-book ogre or if he is modified.
Or you want to be forewarned when things start to happen by seeing the stealth check being rolled.
See what I did there? I assumed - or, rather, insinuated - the worst.
Just because the GM doesn't think you are entitled to see the rolls and stat blocks and everything doesn't mean he's fudging the rolls.
Please note I said it was a irrational feeling I get. Look up the word irrational. I have no trouble of trusting a GM using a screen....it is when they prove untrustworthy that I don't trust them, but that is true with GMs who don't use screens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For GMs who fudge the rolls alot....do you have a problem when a player fudges the roll? I mean logicaly you should not. It does make the whole dice in the game silly though...the reasons given can be applied to a player who is doing the same thing.
Not necessarily. An individual player isn't in charge of arbitrating the rules, keeping the campaign going, or any of the other dozens of parts to the story that the DM is in charge of. If I fudge a die rolls as DM, it's for the sake of the game itself, not to "win."
A campaign can continue on just fine without one player. It has a hard time continuing without the DM.
What rule? If the GM makes the rules...what is their to arbitrate?
Keep the campaign going? Both players and the GM have to do this.
And what is this 'win' you are talking about? If you are going to fudge combats for the PCs to always win...does it matter if the PCs just fudge the dice to do so quickly? It is obviously not about winning...so why does it matter?
I am not trying to say you do it wrong...I just like talking about the philospgy of GMing.
I don't get how you think you can spot everyone who fudges rolls. Maybe the obvious ones, but unless you can show me the trophy you won at the World Sense Motive Championship I won't belief that you can spot it every time the GM fudges rolls.
I have gone on to say every GM I have played under...not everyone. But I am very good at reading people. I have not won any trophies for it though...I did not even know such competions are out there.
Maybe insdtead of playing D&D with the former GMs I should have played poker with them and won alot of money.
Also not everytime....but if they do enough i'll pick up on their tells rather quickly.
@Kayyoss: You should feel proud as I am replying to your one post three times...
Anyway for the rest of your post...
I agree everyone has done those things at times in their campaigns. And they can be used as effective tools for GMs. And the examples I put were extreme...the only time I know about character fighting things greatly was when the PCs themselves pushed it...as if GMs did this they would not be GMs for very long...
But there are some GMs that use these tactics too much without crossing over in the really bad GMs school. These tactics can cause players to wonder why they are needed at the table at all. I rather have a character die then feel I can not effect the world. And being killed is part of that...as is be able to drive the goals of the campaign...etc.
Also please note I am not just talking about fudging dice either...a GM dropping a higher CR creature on his party does not need to fudge the dice to 'win'.
A GM who always allow his party to 'win' is not neccessary in combat situration....these type of campaigns are the GMs who embrace the idea the PCs are HEROES!!! They don't have to earn it...people will kiss their feet at 1st level even if they have not done anything etc. And I have seen games like this. It is utterly boring...orgy of ego stroking. Well for me atleast.
I am not here trying to set any rules on how to be a GM. I am not here to say if you use a screen you should die. I am not here to say my way of GMing is the only right way.
The purpose behind this thread is to get people to think...when a PC is taking that left instead of the right the script calls for...instead of making them turn to the right...by direct means or even ways that the PC will never know...just once go to the left. Or the Pcs are loosing a fight...(though not to TPK level)...let them loose...see what happens. Don't write out the adventure...write a outline or the set up and react to what the PCs do. Actualy sometimes trust your players.
I think people will be surprised how fun the game will be. And if it is not curse my name to your players and apologize for trying what some crazy guy on the internet said, you have my permission. But you will never know if you don't try. Or not every player is like that one guy who wrecked your game back than.
Also I like to hear about different people's styles....I like W E Rays thing about sense motive rolls on the guy about to commit a CDG on a downed person. I can always learn.
For GMs who fudge the rolls alot....do you have a problem when a player fudges the roll?It depends.
A few years ago one of my Players *always got near a 20 on Initiative.
No one ever saw most of those Init rolls, mind you -- but they were there if we are to believe the Player. (Best part is, even once he knew WE knew he was fudging, he still did his best to try and fudge -- Init is funny that way in that no one's looking (in my games) when we transition from ROLE-play to ROLL-play.)
I didn't really care and, after a discussion with a couple of the other Players, I just let him keep doing it (except for the occassional BIG fight). HOWEVER -- had one of the other PCs gone out of his way to have built an uber-initiative PC -- I would have had a different DM response to the fudging Player.
ANOTHER time, about 6 years ago, I gamed with a guy who, poor guy, didn't have "so great a life" and really only looked forward to my game. You know how people with low self esteem often percieve out-of-their-control things to further break down their self worth?? Well this guy, when he'd roll poorly, would feel it was his fault that the d20 ended up a 5 -- and last time a 7 -- and before that a 1. He would "close in" on himself and just be frustrated and angry. Not cool. Not fun.
THE GAME IS ABOUT HAVING FUN!!!
So when I saw him sneakily grab his d20 after he already rolled it I let it go. It's no bigggie -- the PCs are gonna win anyway.
----------------------------------------
Finally, when PCs in my games roll 1s on Cure spells I let 'em reroll those (they need their healing in my games!). And I'll sometimes let 'em reroll other bad dice (not d20s); say that 5 of the 10d6 fireball dice were ones and twos -- I'll let 'em reroll the ones.
That kind of stuff.
The rerolling a 1 on cure spells and other effects is a house rule...not fudging dice. I play with a similiar house rule that you get the maxed result of any cure potion you drink.
But otherwise I agree it depends. I don't fudge dice alot...but if I did I would not call my players on it much unless there are doing it to outshine the other players.
I got talked into playing in a campaign in which the GM is sort of category 3 GM based on the OP. HE likes to keep die rolls to a minimum, so he will sometimes be more cinematic with the session, where no dice are rolled, we tell him what our characters are doing and he weaves it into the descriptive. He goes back and forth like that in combat where sometimes it's a die roll other timea descriptive. It has its good and its bad points. It's good in that it's some nice story flavor to the session, bad in that it has moments where you don't feel you control your character. I for one, have no issue with it, since he does incoroporate the players choices into the cinematic and it greatly speeds up the frustratingly tactical-crunchy combat of d20 gaming.
What I have a problem with, as an observing player, and when I've been on the recieving end of it, is the player that tells a GM, "That's not how it works. You set a DC and I roll. That's how it works."
That statement was just made in the campaign in which I have recently joined as a player, with the GM 3rd-ish category OP. I told him if I see it again, I won't be returning. I have a less than favorable opinion of that playing style.
I got talked into playing in a campaign in which the GM is sort of category 3 GM based on the OP. HE likes to keep die rolls to a minimum, so he will sometimes be more cinematic with the session, where no dice are rolled, we tell him what our characters are doing and he weaves it into the descriptive. He goes back and forth like that in combat where sometimes it's a die roll other timea descriptive. It has its good and its bad points. It's good in that it's some nice story flavor to the session, bad in that it has moments where you don't feel you control your character. I for one, have no issue with it, since he does incoroporate the players choices into the cinematic and it greatly speeds up the frustratingly tactical-crunchy combat of d20 gaming.
What I have a problem with, as an observing player, and when I've been on the recieving end of it, is the player that tells a GM, "That's not how it works. You set a DC and I roll. That's how it works."
That statement was just made in the campaign in which I have recently joined as a player, with the GM 3rd-ish category OP. I told him if I see it again, I won't be returning. I have a less than favorable opinion of that playing style.
I am confused. Is the issue with the GM or the player?
I got talked into playing in a campaign in which the GM is sort of category 3 GM based on the OP. HE likes to keep die rolls to a minimum, so he will sometimes be more cinematic with the session, where no dice are rolled, we tell him what our characters are doing and he weaves it into the descriptive. He goes back and forth like that in combat where sometimes it's a die roll other timea descriptive. It has its good and its bad points. It's good in that it's some nice story flavor to the session, bad in that it has moments where you don't feel you control your character. I for one, have no issue with it, since he does incoroporate the players choices into the cinematic and it greatly speeds up the frustratingly tactical-crunchy combat of d20 gaming. What I have a problem with, as an observing player, and when I've been on the recieving end of it, is the player that tells a GM, "That's not how it works. You set a DC and I roll. That's how it works."
That statement was just made in the campaign in which I have recently joined as a player, with the GM 3rd-ish category OP. I told him if I see it again, I won't be returning. I have a less than favorable opinion of that playing style.
Egads...you know I don't mind that style...except for the part where the players can't be creative in their cinamatic description. For instance in the games I play with a GM when we finish off a monster he lets us describe how we did it. But I would have got up and walked away...if he was good at description I would ask to let me know when he was going to release the novel. I get just as much fun as reading a Pick your own adevnture book...and those were cheaper and less time consuming.
As to having a player asking the GM to announce the DC....look at it from that player PoV. Maybe he know this GMs decides on sucess or failure depending on what his 'story' or could be favoritism. Or that player could have played under a GM who would so that.
I have played under a GM who would have you roll...and what he would do would be ask you what is total is...than set the DC based on +15 to that number or if he did not want you to suceed he woyuld add +21 to that number. He was very obvious about this...everybody knew it...we joked about it. But imagine if that was your GM that you knew...would you not as for the DC from a new GM when you are joining his game?
People really need to just relax and not worry about this petty ante stuff.
|
For GMs who fudge the rolls alot....do you have a problem when a player fudges the roll? I mean logicaly you should not. It does make the whole dice in the game silly though...the reasons given can be applied to a player who is doing the same thing.
GMs fudge the rolls. Players cheat. There is a difference between being a GM and being a player.
Players only need to worry about their characters. The GM has to worry about the entire world, the story and everybody having fun. Excuse me if i want to prolong the fight so that it remains as a cool fight in the memory of the players. Or if i want to railroad them a little because they cannot notice the obvious hints in front of them. Or if i want to keep them alive so that the story is more consistent and cooler. etc etc...there are many reasons to fudge the rolls. It shouldn't be done all the time, but for the sake of the fun...yes, it should be done.
I have played under a GM who would have you roll...and what he would do would be ask you what is total is...than set the DC based on +15 to that number or if he did not want you to suceed he woyuld add +21 to that number. He was very obvious about this...everybody knew it...we joked about it. But imagine if that was your GM that you knew...would you not as for the DC from a new GM when you are joining his game?
I've been in more or less the same sitution. Before allowing a character to do anything the Dungeon Master would look at their sheet and pick a number that was, in his opinion, suitably difficult. It didn't matter if you have a hundred or a zero.
That is, to me, pure Dungeon Master cheating.
GMs can't cheat.I disagree to the fullest possible amount that I can disagree with something, but to each their own.
You can disagree with gravity, too. And it will have the same outcome: It's still gravity.
GMs are per definition, unable to cheat. Because everything they decide is the rules. The GM can do everything when it comes to the rules of the game, except cheat.
They can be jerks and do bad stuff. But it's not cheating.
Unless you can show me the trophy you won at the World Sense Motive Championship...I won it in 2004.
That was you? I saw the picture. You leave the house with that hairdo?
You're a brave man. Stupid for following hell and its frigid, never changing stasis, but brave.
When the line between appropriate fudging and inappropriate fudging is crossed, the GM is cheating.
Otherwise, it's their game to run*. Fudge a save DC by 1? Sure. Attack by 5? Sure. Make an enemy live another round so that a PC can feel like their tactic was useful? Awesome. Whatever makes the game more interesting.
Roll and declare you save no matter what you roll 'even if it's a one?' Challenge the party with inappropriately lethal encounters? Fail saves and then on-purpose ignore their effects? Purposefully go out of your way to kill PCs?
A cheating GM and a bad DM are different names for one creature.
*When a GM says 'my game' I usually don't mind, but I recently realized the connotation. "It's his game, he can do what he wants" is b%+*!@#~. It's not his game-- it's our game. Without players, the DM has noone to run for, and with no DM the players have no one to run. The game doesn't inherently belong to anyone. By GMing, you don't have the right to do whatever you want-- you have the granted power to make changes to the game for the betterment of the group. And, well, if the GM isn't, the players should impeach him.
|
|
When the line between appropriate fudging and inappropriate fudging is crossed, the GM is cheating.
Nope, again wrong. Technically a GM cannot cheat. It is his world and his NPCs and he runs the game. What the GM says, goes.
Now, on the other hand, if a GM throws balanced encounters at the PCs (some weaker, some average and some stronger), fudges when the fudging would bring more fun and spares players when they have a bad dice roll day, that GM is a good GM.
On the other side of the coin, we have a GM who constantly undermines player's characters, makes his monsters win or sulks when players defeat them, fudges because he wants to win etc...that GM is a bad GM and should probably get off the GM chair. But is he cheating? Heck no.
Any player who told me I needed to roll in front of him can take a hike. Has nothing to do with cheating the dice and everything to do with keeping inappropriate information out of player hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can disagree with gravity, too. And it will have the same outcome: It's still gravity.GMs are per definition, unable to cheat. Because everything they decide is the rules. The GM can do everything when it comes to the rules of the game, except cheat.
They can be jerks and do bad stuff. But it's not cheating.
Give it time, we may find a way to cheat gravity. I still want a hover car.
As for Dungeon Masters cheating; it's simply a matter of game style/perception. I'm a very by the book and as open as possible Dungeon Master. I follow the rules in the book whenever humanly possible, I never hand down rule judgements from on high, rule changes are made by group decision rather than fiat, all of my rolls are in the open are all to see, and I do my best to follow all the same rules as the players.
So when another Dungeon Master changes the clearly written and functional rules, refuses to take their players' ideas into consideration when they do, acts like their Zeus on his mountain, hides all the rolls behind a screen, and gives the non-player characters special powers or excuses them for some of the rules, I get annoyed.
As for fudging rolls, well if a player spent a great deal of their character resources to be good at something; let them be good at it. If the wizard spent the feats and got the magic items to have a high Save Difficulty Check and the villian fumbles their save, then congrations on feats well-spent and spells well chosen. It's also a two way street as far as enemies go.
To say that it doesn't work because it would be anti-climactic or that you want to drag the fight out longer is to me the same as saying that someone can't get a checkmate in chess with a pawn because its wouldn't be as cool.
I suppose for me it boils down to this: I paid for a book of rules and I would like to play by those rules. I expect things to function a certain ways and when they don't, I feel cheated.
However, that's just my opinion. To each their own.
Well the way to sniff out a potential "cheating DM" (your words) is pretty simple. At the start of each session simply say to the DM: "Can you please roll all your dice in the open or have the players roll for you?"
Any DM that is not willing to do this is probably planning to "cheat" at some point, so you can just leave the table then and spare yourself the pain of being part of his game.
Yeah...I do have a irrational hate of GMs rolling behind screens...for that reason.
Also spoting these types of GMs is easy...I don't get how they think they are hiding it...
I make most of my rolls behind a screen and a good 1/3 of my rolls are me rolling the dice for no reason (e.g. there has been no actions claimed for awhile or someone makes a comment like "I am looking for <blah>" and no <blah> are around). As some GMs have mentioned in this thread, I occasionally fudge rolls. 90% of the time this is because for some reason (nearly always my fault) an encounter is going to result in a TPK. I'll do a TPK if the party walks into it or the rolls give it to them, but if the party is rolling well, the BBEG is rolling poorly and still it's going to be a TPK, that's not worth it to anyone.
When the line between appropriate fudging and inappropriate fudging is crossed, the GM is cheating.Nope, again wrong. Technically a GM cannot cheat. It is his world and his NPCs and he runs the game. What the GM says, goes.
Now, on the other hand, if a GM throws balanced encounters at the PCs (some weaker, some average and some stronger), fudges when the fudging would bring more fun and spares players when they have a bad dice roll day, that GM is a good GM.
On the other side of the coin, we have a GM who constantly undermines player's characters, makes his monsters win or sulks when players defeat them, fudges because he wants to win etc...that GM is a bad GM and should probably get off the GM chair. But is he cheating? Heck no.
I consider it a good game, if the players survive (at least mostly) through a campaign, but "barely". They should all feel lucky they survived. I do have the "problem" (experience, maybe) of GMing since the White Box and in the 1st edition, players died. D&D has evolved and players still die, but in a good campaign most of the original players will survive through, possibly with a little fudging, but I generally will just add extra story to get player Axy$fd2@ resurrected if the party deems it necessary.
I used to kill really obnoxious peoples' p.c.'s, just to evoke a sense of danger.
World hates you. That sorta thing.
This one kid, playing Villains and Vigilantes; he was Australian, so he had to have a dingo. Which wasn't a problem, it was just "bla bla dingo this dingo that bla bla" all the time.
And he argued about how to pronounce "Wolverine."
He kept saying "it's Wolverinn!!" "Your American dictionary is wrong!"
THEN, I kicked his ass at chess, enough times to prove it wasn't a fluke, which should've been impossible because he had a 165 i.q. or some b#*#*###, and he was convinced I had a microphone for some chessmaster to feed me moves.
Well, anyway, that's how you get Magneto dropping a f+@~ing deuce and a half on your pet dingo, man.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Well the way to sniff out a potential "cheating DM" (your words) is pretty simple. At the start of each session simply say to the DM: "Can you please roll all your dice in the open or have the players roll for you?"
Any DM that is not willing to do this is probably planning to "cheat" at some point, so you can just leave the table then and spare yourself the pain of being part of his game.
As a response I'm more than happy to have any petulant player who can't trust me to run a game to leave right at that. I have reasons to roll dice behind a screen. Many of which involve die rolls the players have no buisness knowing about.
Nothing I hate more than dictatorial players. And yes I am of the philosophy that occasionally the dice should be overridden. If you can't trust me to be fair in how I do that or don't do it, then find another judge.
This. By definition, a GM cannot cheat, due to Rule Zero. If your GM cheats in a way you don't like, you have 2 options: 1. cope, 2. find another game.
I cheat all the time, all for the express purpose of making the game more fun. Make the game fun is the GM's #1 mandate and it deals with just about everything. The problem is that many GMs think it means only "make the game fun for me," and they cheat to produce an outcome they want.
Players need to feel that they're in control and that their actions matter. A GM can cheat as long as the players still have at least the illusion that this is true. No amount of cool plot you made will please your players if they don't feel they can have an effect.
Players also need to live in a state of risk. There's no risk involved if they can't fail. There's also no risk involved if there's no possibility for success. Some GMs cheat to remove risk, either by consistently saving the PCs despite their actions or by declaring some things impossible. Better GMs cheat to preserve the sense of risk. Of course, some encounters will be trivial and others overwhelming, and that's OK... balancing encounters is a fine art. Sometimes you won't get it right in building the encounter and you find yourself having to adjust in play. That's OK too.
So... GMs should have the flexibility to fudge/cheat, but do it sparingly and for the right reasons, and be careful lest it backfire.
Well the way to sniff out a potential "cheating DM" (your words) is pretty simple. At the start of each session simply say to the DM: "Can you please roll all your dice in the open or have the players roll for you?"
Any DM that is not willing to do this is probably planning to "cheat" at some point, so you can just leave the table then and spare yourself the pain of being part of his game.
I'd actually agree to that if asked, but then I'm in it for mutual enjoyment not to win at all costs.
In some ways that has resulted in me being too soft but thats the point about learning, mistakes are there to be learned from not ignored.I have run a game with the best run paladin I have ever seen I have also played in a game where the worst aspects of a paladin was displayed but he did try to do better once he realised he was stuck running that character but he still falters since the dm in that game isn't the sort to come down on someone for the kind of lawful stupid roleplay he expects from any paladin being run.
Its been almost 2 years since I moved away so I have no idea if they've gone back to that greyhawk campaign but I'm still in contact with one of the other players so it'll be interesting to learn if they ever go back there!
And the player of that paladin has been guilty of some of the things mentioned here admittedly not as over the top but it took me a few years to recognise the signs since I began wondering why I was almost continually trying to counter some of his ploys but for the most part he was okay well in retrospect I really don't see any point rehashing some of the things I thought was mistakes after all we're only human after all!
How 'bout this for a horror story: I sat in on a game for 3 sessions a few years ago. The DM seemed to "play nice" to two of the Players and, er, "not so nice" to another. I noticed it at first when two PCs got a huge amount of the DM's time in-game while another Player was kinda brushed off. I didn't really see how bad it was until my last session when one of the "favored" PCs decided to *run back in* the room where all the zombies were coming while the rest of the party was screaming away and about to cast a Wall of Fire between us and the undead -- so we could run completely from the Dungeon and come back another day. The PC that went back was after some magic item we had to leave behind.
The DM paused in a classic Uh, wasn't expecting that! moment as it became clear the PC had no where to run and was surrounded by hungry undead.
But the PC survived, finding a secret exit that I figured had to be made especially by the DM in a johnny-on-the-spot decision.
Later that same session, another PC was trying to run out of a burning building and did, I thought, everything he could to try and escape. But he didn't and he died.
I remember thinking then that it had to be so obvious to the other Players that the DM was playing favorites, never allowing one PC to die while being especially hard on another. But the other Players didn't seem to notice and they all had fun. (I wasn't having so much fun so I joined another game, the appropriate thing to do, I feel.)
Yep seen that happen and later got the impression I was one of those players who was defintely not in the favoured category.
Had a couple of friends who joined in an was prommptly added to the unfavoured category one of whom was a new player who was introduced to d&d via a friend of mine, but the session effected him badly enough I contacted our mutual friend to check on him as he got me worried he was taking it too badly.He didn't come back to that group, but I do hope he's okay since the mutual friend moved abroad so the last I heard he was focusing on his school studies, but it still sticks in the mind i'm afraid.
I have been playing since 1987, and DM'ing since 1991, and in those 20 years have only told one player he was no longer welcome at my table, and that was just a month ago.
You would be #2, if you started a session with that question, inferring that I was going to "cheat".
-- david
Papa.DRB
Well the way to sniff out a potential "cheating DM" (your words) is pretty simple. At the start of each session simply say to the DM: "Can you please roll all your dice in the open or have the players roll for you?"
Any DM that is not willing to do this is probably planning to "cheat" at some point, so you can just leave the table then and spare yourself the pain of being part of his game.
|
|
DMs CAN cheat!
Duh.
Though it depends on the group. A group that sticks to RAW (ick, yuk yuk) needs the DM to play by the rules. In those cases Rule 0 has nothing to do with bending current RAW or errata but instead making "rules" in situations where there is no RAW based on what RAW there is in other situations.
Please See Organized Play as an example.
In my games, obviously, a DM (me) can fudge, not technically cheat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs can cheat...even with rule zero.
Would you guys call a GM who allows one player to use a rule but bar from another Cheating? I would.
Or a GM that states a rule is one way...than changes it next session...than again after that session...and again? That is GM cheating.
Or how about the mandate to provide fun? What does that mean exactly? Here I thought that was everyone's responisibility...but with the philosphy that it is only the GMs job...you are cheating your players by enforcing your version on what is fun for them. Are you not?
I know in games with those three types of GMs(ones who do it too often) from above I have felt cheated.
GMs can cheat...even with rule zero.
Would you guys call a GM who allows one player to use a rule but bar from another Cheating? I would.
No - I'd just call him/her a bad DM.
As to the main topic - my players pretty much told me that the next campaign I run I will play be a category #3 DM or I will at least damn well try to be.
Thing is there is an opposite to #3 that can drive players pretty much just as crazy. That is the DM and his beloved homebrew. The players can do anything they want and the DM will totally roll with it - in fact the DM will love every minute of it because your meandering off the beaten track just means your spending that much more game time participating in the DMs travelogue of of a campaign world.
Its the sort of scenario where the DM is pleased as punch that you just arbitrary stabbed Princess Oh-So-Pretty because now he gets to show off her Ironband Guard...what makes that particularly exciting is that their captain was her secret lover...oh...oh...and then there is Prince Whats-His-Face, how will he react to this event. Etc. etc.
This is way over the top compared to what I was running in my homebrew but my players did make it explicit that the next campaign was to have a heck of a lot less 'you can do whatever you want but here are 26 of the more obvious choices to choose from (in an handy 8 page handout).
In fact my suspicion is that, these days, most players actually want their DM to be doing a certain amount of railroading - you've only got 5 hours to game and then its back home to the wife and kids...and we just spent the first 45 minutes of that working out the logistics of ordering Chinese Food. Good game time is burning so lets get on with the show and one hopes its a show worth being here for. Paizo's successful AP line is testament to how powerful and successful this idea has become. You really can't run one of those successfully unless the players sign on to the fact that they are embarking on a ride on the railroad.
I'd actually agree to that if asked, but then I'm in it for mutual enjoyment not to win at all costs.Well the way to sniff out a potential "cheating DM" (your words) is pretty simple. At the start of each session simply say to the DM: "Can you please roll all your dice in the open or have the players roll for you?"
Any DM that is not willing to do this is probably planning to "cheat" at some point, so you can just leave the table then and spare yourself the pain of being part of his game.
Calling B.S. on this one. Mutual enjoyment and not being in it to win have nothing to do with the DM not rolling in front of the players, or kicking a player who inferred the DM was a cheat and needed to do so so far out of the game they got a nose bleed.
Don't act like it is some high moral pedestal that causes you to roll in front of the players, or be willing to.
|
|
GMs can cheat...even with rule zero.
Would you guys call a GM who allows one player to use a rule but bar from another Cheating? I would.
Or a GM that states a rule is one way...than changes it next session...than again after that session...and again? That is GM cheating.
Or how about the mandate to provide fun? What does that mean exactly? Here I thought that was everyone's responisibility...but with the philosphy that it is only the GMs job...you are cheating your players by enforcing your version on what is fun for them. Are you not?
I know in games with those three types of GMs(ones who do it too often) from above I have felt cheated.
No they can't.
A GM is always right. Even when he is wrong, he is right. If you don't like the way he runs the game, leave, or stop whining an play.
I'm rather surprised at the strong emotions people have invested in whether or not the DM is rolling behind a screen. Last campaign I used a screen, current one I'm not.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods but not something worth getting worked up about. I'd say using one method over the other is really about the mood and style. Dice rolling in the open clearly leaves things more open to player meta-gaming while also emphasizing that their fates are in their own hands...and that of fickle luck.
It'd tend more toward this style in games where exploration and combat represents a high percentage of game time. In tactical play the ability to meta-game is not that big a draw back and can, in fact add to the excitement - especially when the DM is showing off just how bad as todays baddies are (look I hit you on an 8). Games with a lot of combat gain from the feeling of authenticity provided by the dice rolling being in the open.
On the other hand if your game is more about interactions with NPCs and has a lot of mystery or intrigue in it then its likely best to pull the dice behind the screen. Here there is a real need for the DM to be making checks that the players can't see and in fact to disguise when a check is 'authentic' or not to keep them from becoming suspicious of their surrounding or the NPC they are interacting with based on the DMs die rolls.
I suppose I'd argue that whether the DM is rolling in the open or not is just one more tool the the DMs toolbox and its worth considering how it effects the mood at the table since it enhances certain campaign styles and detracts from others.
Basically If your game is about cracking jokes and having a good time with your friends at the table while on a quest then rolling in the open is probably your best bet. If your game is about immersion and taking the drama seriously then your probably best off keeping the rolls behind the screen.
Give it time, we may find a way to cheat gravity. I still want a hover car.
Hey, I'm still pissed over the whole hover car fiasco. I remember when I was younger, and watched all those goofy cartoons where everyone had flying cars, and it was the year 2000 or so. The hover cars are overdo over 10 years now. If I ran this place, stuff like that wouldn't happen.
But hover cars wouldn't cheat gravity. Hover cars don't break the gravity rules, even when they hover.
THEN, I kicked his ass at chess, enough times to prove it wasn't a fluke, which should've been impossible because he had a 165 i.q. or some b@%*$%@&, and he was convinced I had a microphone for some chessmaster to feed me moves.
Heath, you cheating little cheatweasel you. Doing the old chessmaster trick again?
I thought everyone was off that. Delicate little flowers get achy ears from headsets.
Don't they have a Deep Blue App for those pretentious phones now that you could use to swindle poor Aussies out of their well-earned chess victory?
Unless you can show me the trophy you won at the World Sense Motive Championship...I won it in 2004.That was you? I saw the picture. You leave the house with that hairdo?Ah HA!
THAT'S how good a Bluffer I am!
My hairdo is a LIE.
And you didn't catch it with your abyssal, er, abysmal Sense Motive.
Bwahahahaha! I didn't even see the picture. I just made you deny your hairstyle. I played to your insecurity - all order-loving alter boys are insecure - and made you say that.
Damn, but I'm good at this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs can cheat...even with rule zero.
Would you guys call a GM who allows one player to use a rule but bar from another Cheating? I would.
Or a GM that states a rule is one way...than changes it next session...than again after that session...and again? That is GM cheating.
Or how about the mandate to provide fun? What does that mean exactly? Here I thought that was everyone's responisibility...but with the philosphy that it is only the GMs job...you are cheating your players by enforcing your version on what is fun for them. Are you not?
I know in games with those three types of GMs(ones who do it too often) from above I have felt cheated.
No they can't.
A GM is always right. Even when he is wrong, he is right. If you don't like the way he runs the game, leave, or stop whining an play.
A GM can definitely be wrong. If you think a rule works one way, but it doesn't then you are wrong with your opinion of how the rule works. If you realize that you were incorrect/wrong and you houserule it then you were still previuosly wrong, but from the point of the houserule creation onwards you will be right.
If you realize that you were wrong, but stick to your decision out of stubborness then you have unofficially made a house rule, and you are wrong for not admitting to you error since you are basically lying at that point by saying you believe something you know to be false. No matter how you cut it you are/were wrong.How about if I don't like the way a GM does something I talk to him like an adult instead of being called a whiner. I know the "whiner" comment was not poster specific, but it is insulting to assume that anyone who does not agree with a GM is whining.
Whining(my version):complaining about minor things or trying to get your way unfairly. If the complaint it legit that is not whining.
In short not all complaints about a GM equal whining.
Most of the time I roll the bones in front of the players. There are some rolls that they don't need to see. (CL checks against nondetection, disguise checks etc etc etc. Oh and my personal favorite, the occassional Too Much is Too Much roll. TFoS rocks.)
Dictating things to me when I'm the screen monkey is a fine way to get my Inner Rules Lawyer to make an unholy union with my Inner Guderian. The offspring spawns most rapidly ...