| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's so bad killing a level 1 PC. Replacing a PC at that point isn't as disruptive to the campaign as replacing one in the middle of a story, and players are usually more upset by losing a character they've been running for a month than a couple of hours. If you're trying to establish a sense of danger ("I am an impartial GM - any combat might be your last and it is up to you to make sure you don't die"), letting a level 1 character die does that - even if you start fudging in their favor later on, it will be easier to maintain the illusion of danger if they've lost someone in the past.
On the other hand, killing off the character of a player who is new to the game might drive them away for good.
This is the big one for me. Once a character has been established, developed some natural rhythms within the party, maybe a few idiosyncracies that come out in play, a npc contact or three, it becomes a lot more bothersome for the player to play character development catchup with their replacement. The party kind of has to re-find its groove and in my experience it kind of screws with the flow of the campaign.
I don't want a night of rolling s+$~ hot as a gm to wipe the party outside of appropriately climactic events and basically turn another session into character building and development.
I'd say that I generally prefer not to kill anyone off in the first couple sessions unless everyone's a veteran gamer with high system mastery, we've all been through at least one campaign together, and everyone wants a no-mercy game.
At least in my experience, most groups need a session or two for everyone to really get comfortable with their characters and working together, especially if anyone's new to the game or the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's so bad killing a level 1 PC. Replacing a PC at that point isn't as disruptive to the campaign as replacing one in the middle of a story, and players are usually more upset by losing a character they've been running for a month than a couple of hours. If you're trying to establish a sense of danger ("I am an impartial GM - any combat might be your last and it is up to you to make sure you don't die"), letting a level 1 character die does that - even if you start fudging in their favor later on, it will be easier to maintain the illusion of danger if they've lost someone in the past.
On the other hand, killing off the character of a player who is new to the game might drive them away for good.
Mechanically and narratively killing a level 1 PC is less disruptive than killing a higher-level, established character, but from a meta-game standpoint it does have its own issues. The primary one being if a player really wanted to try a specific character concept they're much more likely to create a carbon-copy of the character who just died, which strains verisimilitude.
The other reason I tend to go easier on lower-level characters is because it's more fun when the challenges get more difficult as the game progresses. Once raise dead becomes available I tend to up the lethality of the encounters I toss at the PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Death isn't too much of an issue. Raise spells exists for a reason and reincarnate is dirt cheap (and it's a 1 time cost too).
My preferred method is to just have hero points. Then the Players can cheat death on their own accord without needing to rely on my whims and me feeling benevolent.
When a character is new my players are usually very invested in the sweet character build that they've come up with, and having that character killed off immediately sucks, so I try to avoid any player deaths for the first couple sessions.
There really isn't a good rule. I tend to get more invested in my character the longer I've had it. Other people get bored after a while and start taking stupid risks because they want an exciting new PC.
Death isn't too much of an issue. Raise spells exists for a reason and reincarnate is dirt cheap (and it's a 1 time cost too).
Reincarnate is cheap if you're level 10, but not if you're level 4. And it tends to distort character concept by changing your race.
My advice to chronic fudgers is that you could try running less challenging encounters and letting the dice fall where they may. I'm not talking about super easy fights, just stuff within the recommended CR guidelines instead of way over the top with the liberal use of terrible tactics, fudged rolls, etc to prevent TPKs and PC deaths.
Using fewer enemies with x3 and x4 crit weapons at low levels might help too. I remember one of my best known PCs almost getting critted for x4 at 1st level. That's before you'd have enough Hero Points to cheat death and definitely seemed like an uncomfortable situation.
The main problem with reincarnate and raise dead is that some groups disallow them and other groups will ridicule those who use them without mercy. I guess the latter is part of the price of dying and part of the group's fun (aka "schadenfreude")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice to chronic fudgers is that you could try running less challenging encounters and letting the dice fall where they may. I'm not talking about super easy fights, just stuff within the recommended CR guidelines instead of way over the top with the liberal use of terrible tactics, fudged rolls, etc to prevent TPKs and PC deaths.
Using fewer enemies with x3 and x4 crit weapons at low levels might help too. I remember one of my best known PCs almost getting critted for x4 at 1st level. That's before you'd have enough Hero Points to cheat death and definitely seemed like an uncomfortable situation.
The main problem with reincarnate and raise dead is that some groups disallow them and other groups will ridicule those who use them without mercy. I guess the latter is part of the price of dying and part of the group's fun (aka "schadenfreude")
I disagree with the premise that "chronic" fudging is even a problem.
I disagree with the premise that "chronic" fudging is even a problem.My advice to chronic fudgers is that you could try running less challenging encounters and letting the dice fall where they may. I'm not talking about super easy fights, just stuff within the recommended CR guidelines instead of way over the top with the liberal use of terrible tactics, fudged rolls, etc to prevent TPKs and PC deaths.
Using fewer enemies with x3 and x4 crit weapons at low levels might help too. I remember one of my best known PCs almost getting critted for x4 at 1st level. That's before you'd have enough Hero Points to cheat death and definitely seemed like an uncomfortable situation.
The main problem with reincarnate and raise dead is that some groups disallow them and other groups will ridicule those who use them without mercy. I guess the latter is part of the price of dying and part of the group's fun (aka "schadenfreude")
To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, if you are playing more of a wargame, fudging is anathema.
If you are more towards the Roleplay/Storytelling end of the spectrum, then fudging is not only acceptable, it is almost required.
If you are running a mixed spectrum table, my condolences if you can't keep everyone happy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.
I disagree with the premise that "chronic" fudging is even a problem.
And to some groups, referring to a GM's fudging as cheating is blatantly insulting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "strong feelings one way or the other" basically serve to erode trust between the people on either side of the GM screen.
If the GM fudges a die roll in your favor, trust that they are not doing it in order to cheat you of a good experience, but because they believe that doing so will result in you having a better experience. The worst they can be in that situation is "wrong about what makes the experience better for you", and that's a valid discussion to have about each person's expectations that's best had without accusations of malfeasance. Nothing the GM is doing is "cheating" and allegations of such sour the air and undermine trust; it may be that you want them to stop doing something, but you can do that without invoking the ch- word.
I mean, none of these things should be "stand up and leave" sort of violations. Both players and GMs should endeavor to be flexible regarding their approach to the game.
I mean, if I had players that absolutely insisted I always roll in the open, I would probably just institute a house rule where the players can use "hero points" to force a reroll whenever they wanted, but as a cost every time any one of the players use a reroll for their own benefit, the GM gets one reroll to use on behalf of the antagonists at some point in the campaign. The "Save or Die" Wizard is going to be in some trouble if the BBEG has like 17 rerolls in his pocket...
To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.I don't see how you can refer to anything the GM does as "cheating", it's literally the GM who dictates the rules of the game you're playing. Worst you can say about the GM is that they're not very good at it. And I would certainly consider adhering to the RAW blindly without any consideration for the table, setting or players as being bad GMing.
Sorry, I come to play pathfinder, not CR155finder or Tonifinder(my gm) or anyone-else-finder, so any rule that's not in the books and not agreed before the game, I constitute as cheating. Unclear rules, grey areas of intent and similar stuff are discussed with players, not decided behind the screen. I also GM, and almost everyone in my group GM'd at least once (all of ones who are interested in rules, at least).
You consider blind adherence to the rules as paramount over an enjoyable experience?
YES!
Or...
NO!
Really, I'm just looking for a pretext to do my thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I come to play pathfinder, not CR155finder or Tonifinder(my gm) or anyone-else-finder, so any rule that's not in the books and not agreed before the game, I constitute as cheating. Unclear rules, grey areas of intent and similar stuff are discussed with players, not decided behind the screen. I also GM, and almost everyone in my group GM'd at least once (all of ones who are interested in rules, at least).
That's one valid playstyle and set of preferences. Others are equally valid. Such concerns should be discussed before a campaign begins, since while there are many valid playstyles, not all are compatible with each other. It sounds like your style and mine would not be compatible, and that's okay. But it's better for both of us to find that out before the game begins.
@Daw - Why do you feel that fudging is “almost required" for roleplay and storytelling?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having come up in an era where rules simply didn't exist for a huge variety of things that players might want to do (e.g. mass combat, naval combat, chase scenes, courtly intrigue), this whole "If you don't play entirely by the book you're doing it wrong, I came here to play Pathfinder" mindset is bizarre and wholly alien to me.
I mean, I've never picked up an RPG book that would have covered the mechanics for every situation the players might want to get themselves into without me having to make something up. So instead of having to say "no, you absolutely cannot fight at sea; there are no rules for it, you must find a dock and then you may fight" you just make something up that you hope will be fun for the players.
I mean, RAW really is an illusion, since two people can easily look at the exact same written phrases in a rulebook and come to two different completely incompatible interpretations of it (c.f. the "Can the Magus Whirlwind Attack" or "what's the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit" threads.) Since rulebooks are written in natural language, there's always going to be quite a bit that requires interpretation by the GM.
And to some groups, referring to a GM's fudging as cheating is blatantly insulting.To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.
I disagree with the premise that "chronic" fudging is even a problem.
Fudging is literally defined as cheating.
So yeah...
People use the term "Fudging" to candy coat what they are doing.
If the group is fine with that happening then whatever. But lets at least be honest with whats being done.
|
To me fudging= \cheating. 100% no exceptions. Oh the monster all of a sudden has more health=cheating. Oh, you weren't really crit and are not dead=cheating. If I wanted a novel where the GM's story happened no matter what the rolls were, I'd hand him a blank journal and just tell him to write. But, that is me. It is evident, at least in this thread, I am the minority. Play how you want to play, if your Monopoly game has money in free parking, then all the power to you. I personally just want to follow the rules and play a game, not a story.
Having come up in an era where rules simply didn't exist for a huge variety of things that players might want to do (e.g. mass combat, naval combat, chase scenes, courtly intrigue), this whole "If you don't play entirely by the book you're doing it wrong, I came here to play Pathfinder" mindset is bizarre and wholly alien to me.
I mean, I've never picked up an RPG book that would have covered the mechanics for every situation the players might want to get themselves into without me having to make something up. So instead of having to say "no, you absolutely cannot fight at sea; there are no rules for it, you must find a dock and then you may fight" you just make something up that you hope will be fun for the players.
I mean, RAW really is an illusion, since two people can easily look at the exact same written phrases in a rulebook and come to two different completely incompatible interpretations of it (c.f. the "Can the Magus Whirlwind Attack" or "what's the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit" threads.) Since rulebooks are written in natural language, there's always going to be quite a bit that requires interpretation by the GM.
Like I said, either agreed upon before, or discussed WITH players. Your naval rules are a strawman. We are discussing fudging here. Anyway, if you are a player would you like to know the rules for that naval combat you are participating in, or would you just role the dice (that can be fudged) and let the GM sort it all out?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm generally fine with letting the GM sort it out, assuming that I already trust that person to try to tell a good story that is also a game that's fun for everybody. If they ask for input like "does anybody know how this will work" I'll offer what I can, but generally "making it up as they go along while changing stuff that isn't working" is fine.
I mean, I don't care if monsters stats deviate wildly from the bestiary entries either.
If I don't trust the GM to be able or willing to do a good job that results in a good time for all, what am I even doing there? I play these games to experience a story and to have a good social experience with friends old and new. If I wanted to strictly play by somebody else's rules I'd play Warhammer or Arkham Horror or something.
To me fudging= \cheating. 100% no exceptions. Oh the monster all of a sudden has more health=cheating. Oh, you weren't really crit and are not dead=cheating. If I wanted a novel where the GM's story happened no matter what the rolls were, I'd hand him a blank journal and just tell him to write. But, that is me. It is evident, at least in this thread, I am the minority. Play how you want to play, if your Monopoly game has money in free parking, then all the power to you. I personally just want to follow the rules and play a game, not a story.
I mean I want to have an adventure, and play a story, but I don't understand how does the story become better with changing my or enemies' results on the die?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally just want to follow the rules and play a game, not a story.
And I think that might be the single best summation of this debate ever. A beautifully stated position, offered without disrespect or condemnation.
Personally, I'm exactly the opposite. I'm here to participate in a story, using the game as a framework. You've given me a much cleaner way of describing that perspective, and I'm grateful.
Even though we approach these games from opposite ends of the 'what we want' spectrum, I'm very glad to hear what you have to say! Thank you!
|
A GM wanting to fudge can do it without rolling the dice hidden.
He can change tactics, for example: instead of casting the magic missiles that would finish off the wounded ranger, he tries to put the wizard asleep instead...I feel like nudging the damage down so that the low level character who just took a crit to the face is in "STABILIZE NOW" territory rather than "INSTANT DEATH" territory is a lot subtler than making the monsters fight foolishly.
Like if a low level character is dead instantly if they take 14 or more damage, and the monster is rolling, say, 2d6+4 and two fives come up, if you tell people "okay, that's 12 damage" you're going to get away with that almost every time.
I don't know about that. The two things I normally try to figure out about baddies are attack modifier and damage bonus. Generally those values give you a good feel for how skillful of a combatant someone is. By the time I've figured it out there's generally a round or two of combat done so thats a decent amount of time for the character to have guaged their combat style and technique to determine if they want to try something that might provoke an AOO to gain a flank, or if it's too risky and just get in there for a hit wherever you can.
I'm generally fine with letting the GM sort it out, assuming that I already trust that person to try to tell a good story that is also a game that's fun for everybody. If they ask for input like "does anybody know how this will work" I'll offer what I can, but generally "making it up as they go along while changing stuff that isn't working" is fine.
I mean, I don't care if monsters stats deviate wildly from the bestiary entries either.
If I don't trust the GM to be able or willing to do a good job that results in a good time for all, what am I even doing there?
Why are you rolling the dice at all then? Why are you playing an RPG that heavily relies on building characters for different strengths and weaknesses?
On bestiary stats. I must say I don't consider variant monsters, powerfully built NPCs, over-powering enemies to be cheating. That's encounter design. But as the initiative is rolled beasts are played as they are, are not given extra hp and the rolls are not fudged.
|
I've been reading an old Dragon magazine and was kinda shocked to see Gary Gygax's opinion on house rules etc.
Curves [talking about players rolling numbers of d6s that deviate from the official rules when generating abilities] which improve the character's chances for high ability scores are more acceptable - cheating always takes place in beginners' campaigns anyway. They do penalize participants, however, as they do not prepare them for the "facts of life" in a real campaign, let alone a tournament situation.
This idea that deviance from the official rules in any way is "cheating" and ultimately detrimental (because those players are assumed to later play with a different group with different rules, or even a competitive tournament) is an alien perspective to me. Even PFS has variance in interpretations between different local groups, convention games, and online groups. In these days, everyone learns different rules and has to agree on a new set when they enter a new group. Many groups are totally fine with the GM fudging and making up rules on the fly, because hey - variant monsters, homebrewed traps, and fudged d20 rolls/deific intervention make for interesting stories.
I argue that fudging is only cheating when the group doesn't agree that the GM should have that power. We're all playing different iterations of Pathfinder anyways.
I've been reading an old Dragon magazine and was kinda shocked to see Gary Gygax's opinion on house rules etc.Curves [talking about players rolling numbers of d6s that deviate from the official rules when generating abilities] which improve the character's chances for high ability scores are more acceptable - cheating always takes place in beginners' campaigns anyway. They do penalize participants, however, as they do not prepare them for the "facts of life" in a real campaign, let alone a tournament situation.This idea that deviance from the official rules in any way is "cheating" and ultimately detrimental (because those players are assumed to later play with a different group with different rules, or even a competitive tournament) is an alien perspective to me.
To me as well. I have a lot of respect for Gygax as one of the reasons our hobby exists today in all it's many forms. But just because he's one of our 'founding fathers' doesn't mean that all his ideas and opinions should be taken as 'best practices'. :-)
I argue that fudging is only cheating when the group doesn't agree that the GM should have that power.
Agreed. Though I can easily see how trouble can start if the players and GMs make different assumptions about how things will be, rather than discussing them openly.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Referring to it as "cheating" is needlessly hostile and is a strong implication of disrespect for, or mistrust in, the person who is running your game.
If a player wants a certain experience, and that experience involves you abiding by what the dice say, then ignoring the dice is cheating them of that experience. If you said you would not fudge, and you fudge, then you are also lying as well as cheating.
Now, the players might not know what they want, they might be mistaken. Maybe a session would go better with the dice not being sacrosanct. But fudging is still cheating to those that view it that way.
|
|
To me fudging= \cheating. 100% no exceptions. Oh the monster all of a sudden has more health=cheating. Oh, you weren't really crit and are not dead=cheating. If I wanted a novel where the GM's story happened no matter what the rolls were, I'd hand him a blank journal and just tell him to write. But, that is me. It is evident, at least in this thread, I am the minority. Play how you want to play, if your Monopoly game has money in free parking, then all the power to you. I personally just want to follow the rules and play a game, not a story.You say play a game vs follow the rules as though the two were mutually exclusive. The beauty of tabletop RPGs over other forms of game is that the game world is run by a human rather than a machine or set of rigid rules, thus meaning it can react to literally everything you do. This allows for far more fluid and organic gameplay, increased player agency and generally a much more enjoyable experience, as well as a more interesting story that the players can genuinely influence.
If you choose to ignore the freedom provided by the simple fact that this is an RPG then why bother playing an RPG at all?
Though I feel I'm digressing from the discussion, since I do agree that fudging to keep players alive also goes against the point of the freedom provided by RPGs. Players having freedom to do whatever they want also means giving them freedom to screw up and get horribly murdered.
No, I'm not saying playing the game vs. rules. I'm saying that once you decide you are no longer going to follow the rules you are playing a different game. If you are going to abandon rules entirely, than you aren't playing a game your playing a story. Why when i play risk do i not just get to say that everyone gets free cannons, why when i play monopoly do i use free parking as designed? Because those are the rules, it isnt some given concept that any game run by actual people has free rain to change any rule you want. I play Dnd/Pathfinder for a group co-op gaming experience. I want to face obstacles and challenges that i have to both struggle and sometimes get lucky to succeed. Their is a story that develops, sure, but it comes from our actions. If the end result is you always slay the dragon and save the princess regardless of what i did or what I rolled, than I don't want to play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me as well. I have a lot of respect for Gygax as one of the reasons our hobby exists today in all it's many forms. But just because he's one of our 'founding fathers' doesn't mean that all his ideas and opinions should be taken as 'best practices'. :-)
Holy moly does this ever need to be said LOUDER.
I pretty much let you know what the expectations are at any table I run. I pretty much curate my groups, I want to play with a certain type of person a certain type of player. If my game isnt to your liking? Okay you should find one that is more to your liking.
But the idea that me customizing the game to my liking is cheating?
GTFOH.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me as well. I have a lot of respect for Gygax as one of the reasons our hobby exists today in all it's many forms. But just because he's one of our 'founding fathers' doesn't mean that all his ideas and opinions should be taken as 'best practices'. :-)Holy moly does this ever need to be said LOUDER.
I pretty much let you know what the expectations are at any table I run. I pretty much curate my groups, I want to play with a certain type of person a certain type of player. If my game isnt to your liking? Okay you should find one that is more to your liking.
But the idea that me customizing the game to my liking is cheating?
GTFOH.
I think your gut reaction is a little strong. Look at it if we used PFS. You having a home campaign where every starts with 20's and every stat is great, for your game. But when little jimmy brings his mythic assimar archmage to my tier 3-7 pfs game, he is cheating. Focus on gygax stating the "real campaign or tournament" part. It is only cheating in the sense of, once you deviate from "the rules" you no longer can play by "those rules."
I've been reading an old Dragon magazine and was kinda shocked to see Gary Gygax's opinion on house rules etc.To me as well. I have a lot of respect for Gygax as one of the reasons our hobby exists today in all it's many forms. But just because he's one of our 'founding fathers' doesn't mean that all his ideas and opinions should be taken as 'best practices'. :-)Curves [talking about players rolling numbers of d6s that deviate from the official rules when generating abilities] which improve the character's chances for high ability scores are more acceptable - cheating always takes place in beginners' campaigns anyway. They do penalize participants, however, as they do not prepare them for the "facts of life" in a real campaign, let alone a tournament situation.This idea that deviance from the official rules in any way is "cheating" and ultimately detrimental (because those players are assumed to later play with a different group with different rules, or even a competitive tournament) is an alien perspective to me.
Generally agreed, though I could see the point that someone who's used to lots of fudging and houserules is going to be very confused if they ever end up in a PFS-like setting. I know I've had players who were genuinely baffled to learn that things they'd assumed were in the base rules of the game were actually house-rules a GM from a previous campaign came up with.
As far as general RAW adherence goes, my I think it's important for rules to be clear, accessible, and consistent. I love some good house-ruling (and do a fair bit myself when I co-GM) but house-rules should always be enforced consistently and should ideally be written down so everyone knows what they are and the document can be referred back to.
Consistency is important for keeping the game running smoothly, and letting players function within the game. If basic rules get changed every session it's going to lead to lots of frustration and confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your gut reaction is a little strong. Look at it if we used PFS. You having a home campaign where every starts with 20's and every stat is great, for your game. But when little jimmy brings his mythic assimar archmage to my tier 3-7 pfs game, he is cheating. Focus on gygax stating the "real campaign or tournament" part. It is only cheating in the sense of, once you deviate from "the rules" you no longer can play by "those rules."
To me as well. I have a lot of respect for Gygax as one of the reasons our hobby exists today in all it's many forms. But just because he's one of our 'founding fathers' doesn't mean that all his ideas and opinions should be taken as 'best practices'. :-)Holy moly does this ever need to be said LOUDER.
I pretty much let you know what the expectations are at any table I run. I pretty much curate my groups, I want to play with a certain type of person a certain type of player. If my game isnt to your liking? Okay you should find one that is more to your liking.
But the idea that me customizing the game to my liking is cheating?
GTFOH.
I've avoided the RPGA and things like PFS like the plauge since I was 14. The bottom line for me at least is this, if I wanted to run a game that counted on me adhering to the rules as if my life counted on it I'd still be playing chess a few times a week.
One of the main reasons I run RPG's is the freedom to customize. To find out what works and doesnt work for me and adjust accordingly.
As such I avoid PFS games and the like because to me it's like playing in a straightjacket. But the idea that me customizing the game to my liking is cheating? I think that we have VASTLY different definitions of cheating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are talking about changing the results of the dice roll. That is cheating. Actively hiding the houserules you are using is also cheating.
|
|
Breaking the rules before you understand the rules is a poor practice. When you say you're okay with fudging, it is best to understand that you are okay with the GM cheating. That ensures that everyone is on the same page.
To actually address what relevant information I saw in your post, I agree that you were rules lawyering. The GM was not correcting the erroneous stacking of buffs, so you rules laywered to the result you wanted. The term fits as well as cheating does for fudging.
I do not think that the GM is capable of cheating. There are certain types of malfeasance that a GM could potentially engage in (e.g. favoring one player over another) but "cheating" is not one of them. The rules come into the game via the printed materials through the GM's interpretation of them.
The GM can be doing things that have a deleterious effect on people's experience with the game, but the GM cannot cheat, as there are no rules in effect save for the ones the GM chooses to enforce modulo their method of enforcing them.
We can say "fudging is bad because it potentially harms my experience" and that's a valid perspective and potentially correct, but it is never, and could never be *cheating*.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think that the GM is possible of cheating.
I can cheat in so many ways, it isn't even funny.
Targeting the one member of the party without fire resistance with scorching ray despite my NPC having no way of telling they have FR.
Having my non-intelligent animal attack and grab the healer or spellcaster first instead of the armored warrior or grapple-focused monk.
Choose who the assassin has been studying for the last three rounds when he decides to attack rather than when he starts studying. (Did that, felt a little sorry for the sorcerer when he failed the save.)
Call it fudging, call it metagaming, it's still cheating.
I do not think that the GM is possible of cheating. There are certain types of malfeasance that a GM is capable of (e.g. favoring one player over another) but "cheating" is not one of them. The rules come into the game via the printed materials through the GM's interpretation of them.
The GM can be doing things that have a deleterious effect on people's experience with the game, but the GM cannot cheat, as there are no rules in effect save for the GM's interpretation of the ones they choose to enforce.
We can say "fudging is bad because it potentially harms my experience" and that's a valid perspective and potentially correct, but it is never, and could never be *cheating*.
If the GM rolls an attack and the dice says 3 and the "fudge" it to be a 17 that is in fact cheating. The same way if i as a player roll a 1 and "Fudge" it and claim it was a 20 is cheating.
GMs are fully capable of cheating.
Fudging = Cheating
It's part of the definition of Fudging.
Now if the group playing is okay with Fudging/Cheating then that's fine. It is by no means an incorrect play style.
The GM can do bad things, but the GM cannot violate the rules because the GM is the one who decides what the rules are. "I decide what numbers come up on the dice that NPCs roll" is within the GM's purview to change the game rules. It is an extreme version of this, which will almost certainly hurt the game, but it is nonetheless their prerogative.
The question is not "should the GM abrogate the rules in an extreme fashion" so much as "what actions by the GM help or hurt other people's enjoyment of the game"?
The question "is the GM cheating" is fundamentally and categorically the wrong question. There is a value judgment inherent in "cheating" that is less present in "Is the GM helping or hurting people's experiences with the game by doing X?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, the self-righteous are working themselves up to hate and discontent, making me remember why I broke from this. A question to think about, don't bother answering for me, I won't be reading it. This is deliberately taking on your hostile tone. Do you think it helps you understand my point? Do you think it does when you do it?
Why is it you think that all the fudging is against your precious uber character, who must be able to take on the entire world unaided? The GM has an entire world at his beck and call, he can inarguably give the bad guys all the tactical advantage he wants. Every monster out their can be prepared for and defeat all your clever stratagems, without ever changing a single die roll.
Devil killer did ask me a polite question, and it deserves a real response. It is actually a very good question.
Why a roleplaying/storytelling approach might require fudging of roles.
Sometimes the dice screw up the story, usually killing a character in a useless, unheroic way. We used to call this a straw death, especially when the players did everything right. Any decent GM, by our way of thinking, would fudge away straw death. If fairness was an issue, the bad luck could be fudged back in to allow the character to die in a more meaningful way.