| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why you say it's a trust issue. I trusted the GM up until I found out that he cheated. If I trust the GM that doesn't give him permission to cheat. It's the opposite, trust in the GM is what makes cheating wrong as it's a violation of that trust.
The GM is not cheating by definition. The GM you're talking about is running the game in a style you have issues with.
My spouse for instance has fudged very rarely on the tables he judges. By your absolutist rigid standards, he should be condemned because he didn't allow a newbie player to be oneshotted to death before he had taken his very first action in his very session in his very first game. I myself tend to kids glove new players and go no holds-barred on the grizzled vets.
I do think "keep level 1 players and/or newbies alive" is a case where the GM is absolutely within their right to apply plot armor to characters and fudge to their hearts content.
I wonder about saying something like "y'all have plot armor until level 3, then it falls off" at the start of a game. If players try to abuse the fact that their characters are completely invincible at first (don't put any high CR adventures within their meager reach) they're going to level up soon enough.
You could make dying harder to do (something like "you start having to make death saves when your negative HP exceeds the opposite of your constitution, and you have to fail 5 death saves to die") but it's not fun for newbies to lying there unconscious trying not to die either.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I posit that alternate rule as it effectively negates the chance of random unimportant death while maintaining the agency of the player while simultaneously allowing the GM to revoke the safety net when they feel it is appropriate. All the while maintaining transparency.
I rather prefer the Death Flag rule from Raising the Stakes.
I posit that alternate rule as it effectively negates the chance of random unimportant death while maintaining the agency of the player while simultaneously allowing the GM to revoke the safety net when they feel it is appropriate. All the while maintaining transparency.I rather prefer the Death Flag rule from Raising the Stakes.
Also good.
I posit that alternate rule as it effectively negates the chance of random unimportant death while maintaining the agency of the player while simultaneously allowing the GM to revoke the safety net when they feel it is appropriate. All the while maintaining transparency.I rather prefer the Death Flag rule from Raising the Stakes.
ooh that's neat. Make character vulnerable but gain a bonus as a result. I like that a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use open rolling on most things (bluff checks, stealth checks, and other enemy checks the players shouldn't be allowed to observe for drama's sake are hidden) and have never fudged and likely never will- if a die is being rolled it's usually being rolled for a reason, and that reason is because I want to say what chance has to say upon the game. I feel like if I were to fudge the dice the game itself would lose legitimacy.
That said, I strongly dislike the argument that fudging is always cheating, that's an extreme argument because, as people have stated, cheating has a negative us vs them connotation, and dictionary definition aside, the word simply doesn't really cover the truth of what's happening. So I find those who argue it is [always] cheating have taken up an extreme position that I find hard to agree with.
... I was going to write a point about Hero Points but it seems as though the conversation has shifted in that direction already, so I'll just say that I too love Hero Points and similar rules. It's much better to empower players to be able to mechanically save themselves from bad rolls, than to do it based on fiat behind their back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the death flag isn't up, a character can be hit over and over again and remain at 1 HP before death (unconscious and unable to act, but potentially effective cover)?
I think I'm going to try this, I'll have to make a physical death flag or four.
I don't see why you say it's a trust issue. I trusted the GM up until I found out that he cheated. If I trust the GM that doesn't give him permission to cheat. It's the opposite, trust in the GM is what makes cheating wrong as it's a violation of that trust.
The GM is not cheating by definition. The GM you're talking about is running the game in a style you have issues with.
My spouse for instance has fudged very rarely on the tables he judges. By your absolutist rigid standards, he should be condemned because he didn't allow a newbie player to be oneshotted to death before he had taken his very first action in his very session in his very first game. I myself tend to kids glove new players and go no holds-barred on the grizzled vets.
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.
I guess for climatic fights you could force the death flag to be raised too. Although I wonder what an appropriate boon for having it raised would be though, perhaps one or more hero points (with the cheat death obviously being off the table)
I don't like fudging dice results. I generally roll out in the open and play through. I don't really think that fudging dice results is necessary to protect a narrative because when I run, the narrative comes from the players actions and reactions to the antagonist and vice versa.
I do this because I like the idea of encouraging player interaction and ingenuity when dealing with a scenario. I don't really fudge to get to the cool stuff because the cool stuff comes from the PCs and their contact with what happens as well as the myriad of reactions. I like the actions of the PCs to have results and consequences, rather than deciding something will happen no matter what the players do.
I've generally seen fudging done negatively, or at the least with the best intentions. More often than not, it's been used to force the players into a scenario despite their actions. For example, years ago, I sat in on a game while waiting for a friend at the FLGS. They were running a game where the players wanted to sneak into a fortress and kill the main tyrant. They made all their stealth rolls, things were tense, and the players were enjoying the close calls. When they got to the chambers of the target, the GM rolled a Perception check and got a 1. But he decided that the tyrant heard them anyways and immediately woke up and screamed for help. I kinda cocked an eyebrow and I think one of the players noticed my reaction and called him out on it, to which he admitted to it. His reason was that a big epic fight was better than just killing the tyrant in his sleep. However, the rest of the players weren't really happy and it kind of felt like a huge waste of time to sneak in and prepare when the result didn't matter. Remember that the GM's definition of cool and the PC's definition of cool are two separate things.
I feel with fudging, you're simply handwaving the actions, plans, and ingenuity of the players for one specific result. And at that point, you may as well just fast forward to the point you want, but that wouldn't really be fun. More often than not, I have found that emergent storytelling coupled with a lightly structured plot has been more fun than a tight plot with little to no wiggle room for player interaction.
D&D is a very interactive hobby, more so than other media. I think it is best to play to that strength and run it as such, rather than as a novel. Remember that in a novel, the author controls the actions of everyone. In D&D, you simply cannot. It's an exercise in futility. So it's better to roll with the punches and be flexible.
So that's why I don't fudge. I like the players surprising me with cool ideas and seeing the rewards and consequences of their actions. And it's good to be surprised by your players. Keeps things interesting.
While I like the idea of Hero Points, I find them kind of boring. Usually it's just a reroll or to prevent a failure. I'd rather it be used for cool stuff.
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.
I'm not sure that "I'm going to make allowances so you get to play for the whole session" is a thing we need to make explicit to new players else we're committing some sort of severe transgression.
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.I don't see why you say it's a trust issue. I trusted the GM up until I found out that he cheated. If I trust the GM that doesn't give him permission to cheat. It's the opposite, trust in the GM is what makes cheating wrong as it's a violation of that trust.
The GM is not cheating by definition. The GM you're talking about is running the game in a style you have issues with.
My spouse for instance has fudged very rarely on the tables he judges. By your absolutist rigid standards, he should be condemned because he didn't allow a newbie player to be oneshotted to death before he had taken his very first action in his very session in his very first game. I myself tend to kids glove new players and go no holds-barred on the grizzled vets.
Chess, you really need to get some perspective, and given the harsh way you look at things, I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm giving your GM the benefit of the doubt as long as the only side I hear of your story is yours.
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.I'm not sure that "I'm going to make allowances so you get to play for the whole session" is a thing we need to make explicit to new players else we're committing some sort of severe transgression.
Especially at low levels where there alot of things that have high STR and x3 weapons and power attack that just make things bad.
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.I'm not sure that "I'm going to make allowances so you get to play for the whole session" is a thing we need to make explicit to new players else we're committing some sort of severe transgression.
^ This.
Frankly cheating stems from the idea that there are winners and losers in a game. Which is why it comes across as more perjorative, combative, and insulting when applied to games where there aren't winners and losers. Cheating is a thing you do to "win" Fudging is a thing you do to keep a game on track.
I agree that fudging dice rolls isn't cheating, but I don't think it's necessary to stay on track if you are flexible enough and are good at improvising.
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.I'm not sure that "I'm going to make allowances so you get to play for the whole session" is a thing we need to make explicit to new players else we're committing some sort of severe transgression.^ This.
Frankly cheating stems from the idea that there are winners and losers in a game. Which is why it comes across as more perjorative, combative, and insulting when applied to games where there aren't winners and losers. Cheating is a thing you do to "win" Fudging is a thing you do to keep a game on track.
There's also the issue that when dealing with a new player the GM adds a role of "ambassador for the game" to their other duties in a normal game. Since the game lives or dies on the basis of "being able to get people together on regular intervals" the "ambassador for Pathfinder" job sort of becomes that GM's single most important duty in a game with a new player.
So "Making sure the Newbie has a good time" kind of supersedes everything else.
...else we're committing some sort of severe transgression.And I just can't find cheating at d20 a severe transgression.
Connotationally, I feel like "cheating" in a game is more or less the absolute worst thing you can do in a given game. So I think if we label "going on easy on the new player" as "cheating" then we're also saying it's something that should absolutely not be done.
I mean, it's not a severe transgression in an absolute sense, it's not as bad as cheating on your taxes or littering in a national park, but it's among the worst things you can do in the context of a game.
Cheating is a thing you do to "win" Fudging is a thing you do to keep a game on track.
So if i was playing in a game and "Fudged" my saving throw after seeing a natural 1 come up i wouldn't be cheating? Since I would just be "keeping the game on track". Is that correct?
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.I'm not sure that "I'm going to make allowances so you get to play for the whole session" is a thing we need to make explicit to new players else we're committing some sort of severe transgression.^ This.
Frankly cheating stems from the idea that there are winners and losers in a game. Which is why it comes across as more perjorative, combative, and insulting when applied to games where there aren't winners and losers. Cheating is a thing you do to "win" Fudging is a thing you do to keep a game on track.
There's also the issue that when dealing with a new player the GM adds a role of "ambassador for the game" to their other duties in a normal game. Since the game lives or dies on the basis of "being able to get people together on regular intervals" the "ambassador for Pathfinder" job sort of becomes that GM's single most important duty in a game with a new player.
So "Making sure the Newbie has a good time" kind of supersedes everything else.
I feel that falls more in line with house rules rather than fudging. Especially if using options like Hero Points or the Death Flag, which are integral parts of a campaign. But as a GM, it's important to be upfront about that at the beginning of the game. And truthfully, Hero Points and the Death Flag feel less shady since there is more PC interaction than simply changing the result on a die.
When I think of fudging, I think of one side (the PC or the GM) changing the result of a die roll to force or prevent a result against the other party. I can betcha if the players started fudging, there would be less people ok with it.
If your spouse has told the table that the dice are going to be followed then yes he cheated. If it's a known "houserule" that new players at low levels can't die then he didn't cheat.I'm not sure that "I'm going to make allowances so you get to play for the whole session" is a thing we need to make explicit to new players else we're committing some sort of severe transgression.^ This.
Frankly cheating stems from the idea that there are winners and losers in a game. Which is why it comes across as more perjorative, combative, and insulting when applied to games where there aren't winners and losers. Cheating is a thing you do to "win" Fudging is a thing you do to keep a game on track.
There's also the issue that when dealing with a new player the GM adds a role of "ambassador for the game" to their other duties in a normal game. Since the game lives or dies on the basis of "being able to get people together on regular intervals" the "ambassador for Pathfinder" job sort of becomes that GM's single most important duty in a game with a new player.
So "Making sure the Newbie has a good time" kind of supersedes everything else.
To this I like to add the story of the guy who is the only of my friends who refuses to play MtG. All because when he was trying to learn everyone who he hung out with at the time played their absolute best decks and strategies like it was a worth something and made it completely unfun for him. If the first time combat happens in a TTRPG your die from the first swing before you even can try to do anything, even if you were armored to the teeth and had a brick ton of hp for first level, it might sour you abit.
If a player changed their die result based on what they feel would make for a better story would you consider it cheating? I would label that cheating as well if it wasn't a table rule that you could do that. If you'd consider the player cheating if they did that, how is it suddenly not cheating if the player in control of the world does that?
But all cheating goes away as long as you tell the table and the table understands and accepts it. If the orc pulls a x3 on a newbie and you've said that the dice will lie as they roll then you could pause the game and go, "I know it's a rule that we don't alter the results, but would we like to make an exception so newbie doesn't die now." or "newbie, are you okay bringing in a new character for the rest of the story since the dice are saying to kill you? Or should I make an exception for newbies in their first level?"
EDIT:
Heck PFS has this as one of their houserules to have GMs pull punches and not kill new players. It's so prevalent as a way of thinking that I'd say it's fair to count that as the base rule for the game, follow dice except to keep newbies alive. So only if one has explicitly altered the base rule by saying that all dice are final, and then going against that without informing the table and planning on them never finding out would I label as cheating. As I've been saying the entire time.
I think it's fair to say that fudging dice rolls aren't cheating, but they can sometimes feel against the spirit of the game. Dice are generally a neutral, unbiased arbiter to decide an important factor. If either side starts disregarding the results for their own reasons, it can feel unfair. The GM is probably more of a target for it since they are the source of authority for the game. And hiding it to continue the illusion of choice just doesn't sit well with me as a GM. I give my players more respect than that.
Mind you, this is really for the average game. For games with new people, or silly one shots, I don't really find it bad, though I feel there are better options. Personally, for my games, I have less combat and more mystery, exploration, social interaction, and riddles peppered in with combat. So the chance that someone will die is reduced significantly.
I feel that falls more in line with house rules rather than fudging. Especially if using options like Hero Points or the Death Flag, which are integral parts of a campaign. But as a GM, it's important to be upfront about that at the beginning of the game. And truthfully, Hero Points and the Death Flag feel less shady since there is more PC interaction than simply changing the result on a die.
I feel like what I'm disputing here is the supposition that if the GM is doing things not within the printed rules, they should have to tell people about it in advance.
I think specifically, in the case of a brand new player in their first game, you should take it easy on that player (so they come back for a second game) and you don't need to tell them that you're going to take it easy on them; you just do it. Six months later, if they become some sort of CharOp prodigy, you can inform them that you fudged a die roll or two or intentionally used bad tactics in order to keep their first character alive and beg forgiveness, if you want. I mean, you often just hand new players a character sheet that's mostly filled out, and it's often not the best character, just hopefully the best mix of survivable, simple, and rewarding to play.
I don't know if extra systems like hero points are the sorts of things you want to confront new players with since there's already a lot to keep straight (I mean, right out of the gate there are eight different defensive statistics to keep track of.)
If a player changed their die result based on what they feel would make for a better story would you consider it cheating? I would label that cheating as well if it wasn't a table rule that you could do that. If you'd consider the player cheating if they did that, how is it suddenly not cheating if the player in control of the world does that?
But all cheating goes away as long as you tell the table and the table understands and accepts it. If the orc pulls a x3 on a newbie and you've said that the dice will lie as they roll then you could pause the game and go, "I know it's a rule that we don't alter the results, but would we like to make an exception so newbie doesn't die now." or "newbie, are you okay bringing in a new character for the rest of the story since the dice are saying to kill you? Or should I make an exception for newbies in their first level?"
Does the rulebook come up with a section on how its ok for players the same way it does for GMS?
Its a tool given to the person who takes the responsibility to provide a framework for the overarching story. Everyone who sits at a gaming table does not have equal influence over the game world surrounding them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that falls more in line with house rules rather than fudging. Especially if using options like Hero Points or the Death Flag, which are integral parts of a campaign. But as a GM, it's important to be upfront about that at the beginning of the game. And truthfully, Hero Points and the Death Flag feel less shady since there is more PC interaction than simply changing the result on a die.I feel like what I'm disputing here is the supposition that if the GM is doing things not within the printed rules, they should have to tell people about it in advance.
I think specifically, in the case of a brand new player in their first game, you should take it easy on that player (so they come back for a second game) and you don't need to tell them that you're going to take it easy on them; you just do it. Six months later, if they become some sort of CharOp prodigy, you can inform them that you fudged a die roll or two to keep their first character alive and beg forgiveness, if you want.
I don't know if extra systems like hero points are the sorts of things you want to confront new players with since there's already a lot to keep straight (I mean, right out of the gate there are eight different defensive statistics to keep track of.)
It's important to let players know what house rules you have to begin with so they know what to expect from your game. Especially for any major divergences from the rulebook. If i decide to include the Death Flag or Hero Points or a simple safety net for newer players, I'm going to let everyone in my party know about it before hand. I think it really helps build trust between the players and GM and makes the game run much more smoothly. But I am a fan of being fairly transparent as a GM. If there is a rule change I make, I always let the players know. We're in this hobby together.
For games with newbies, I've always run that for the first level or two, if they reach 0 hp, another player can come up to them and help them up. Gives them a second wind and keeps them playing while also allowing the safety net to be more interactive with the players and keeping unconciousness a threat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That section of the Rulebook also refers to the act as cheating if I recall correctly. The GMG section most certainly does.
Altering dice results is cheating; regardless of intent, motivation or outcome. This isn't a point that can be argued otherwise or disprove because it is a fact.
However that fact is being argued with the point that "cheating by the GM is acceptable under certain circumstances". This does not change the fact that it is still cheating, just that it's not necessarily seen as (or even is) a negative thing. But the fact remains that cheating is still an accurate definition of what is occurring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That section of the Rulebook also refers to the act as cheating if I recall correctly. The GMG section most certainly does.
Altering dice results is cheating; regardless of intent, motivation or outcome. This isn't a point that can be argued otherwise or disprove because it is a fact.
However that fact is being argued with the point that "cheating by the GM is acceptable under certain circumstances". This does not change the fact that it is still cheating, just that it's not necessarily seen as (or even is) a negative thing. But the fact remains that cheating is still an accurate definition of what is occurring.
And choosing a perjorative term and arguing intensely about it in threads where the less perjorative is used is basically trolling at this point.
That section of the Rulebook also refers to the act as cheating if I recall correctly. The GMG section most certainly does.
Altering dice results is cheating; regardless of intent, motivation or outcome. This isn't a point that can be argued otherwise or disprove because it is a fact.
However that fact is being argued with the point that "cheating by the GM is acceptable under certain circumstances". This does not change the fact that it is still cheating, just that it's not necessarily seen as (or even is) a negative thing. But the fact remains that cheating is still an accurate definition of what is occurring.
Last I checked, the GMG was not written with lightning on the top of Mount Sinai, and brought down on tablets of stone.
When I run a game it is MY table, not my books' table and the ultimate judges of my performance are the people I GM for.
And choosing a perjorative term and arguing intensely about it in threads where the less perjorative is used is basically trolling at this point.That section of the Rulebook also refers to the act as cheating if I recall correctly. The GMG section most certainly does.
Altering dice results is cheating; regardless of intent, motivation or outcome. This isn't a point that can be argued otherwise or disprove because it is a fact.
However that fact is being argued with the point that "cheating by the GM is acceptable under certain circumstances". This does not change the fact that it is still cheating, just that it's not necessarily seen as (or even is) a negative thing. But the fact remains that cheating is still an accurate definition of what is occurring.
No one is making you post here.
If you can't handle the truth just back out and hide the thread.
Just because you can't handle that Cheating and Fudging are interchangeable words doesn't mean you get to call people trolls.
And choosing a perjorative term and arguing intensely about it in threads where the less perjorative is used is basically trolling at this point.That section of the Rulebook also refers to the act as cheating if I recall correctly. The GMG section most certainly does.
Altering dice results is cheating; regardless of intent, motivation or outcome. This isn't a point that can be argued otherwise or disprove because it is a fact.
However that fact is being argued with the point that "cheating by the GM is acceptable under certain circumstances". This does not change the fact that it is still cheating, just that it's not necessarily seen as (or even is) a negative thing. But the fact remains that cheating is still an accurate definition of what is occurring.
No one is making you post here.
If you can't handle the truth just back out and hide the thread.
Just because you can't handle that Cheating and Fudging are interchangeable words doesn't mean you get to call people trolls.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And choosing a perjorative term and arguing intensely about it in threads where the less perjorative is used is basically trolling at this point.That section of the Rulebook also refers to the act as cheating if I recall correctly. The GMG section most certainly does.
Altering dice results is cheating; regardless of intent, motivation or outcome. This isn't a point that can be argued otherwise or disprove because it is a fact.
However that fact is being argued with the point that "cheating by the GM is acceptable under certain circumstances". This does not change the fact that it is still cheating, just that it's not necessarily seen as (or even is) a negative thing. But the fact remains that cheating is still an accurate definition of what is occurring.
No one is making you post here.
If you can't handle the truth just back out and hide the thread.
Just because you can't handle that Cheating and Fudging are interchangeable words doesn't mean you get to call people trolls.
Just because you can't handle that people dont see it as the same thing at all doesn't mean you get to bomb in and use deliberately perjorative language to troll threads either. Yet what you can count on is a half dozen people who are guaranteed to drop into any thread where fudging is brought up, or open vs closed gm rolling and liberally spread the term cheating around as though there's a winner or loser in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.
How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
Your perspective is wrong.
The gm puts the most work into preparing and running the game. It comes with the privilege of more control over that game. Full stop.
@ Ryan Freire
"Cheating" is the title of the post and it is the topic of discussion. I fail to see how that constitutes trolling.
That section of the Rulebook also refers to the act as cheating if I recall correctly. The GMG section most certainly does.
Altering dice results is cheating; regardless of intent, motivation or outcome. This isn't a point that can be argued otherwise or disprove because it is a fact.
However that fact is being argued with the point that "cheating by the GM is acceptable under certain circumstances". This does not change the fact that it is still cheating, just that it's not necessarily seen as (or even is) a negative thing. But the fact remains that cheating is still an accurate definition of what is occurring.
Last I checked, the GMG was not written with lightning on the top of Mount Sinai, and brought down on tablets of stone.
When I run a game it is MY table, not my books' table and the ultimate judges of my performance are the people I GM for.
I'm only arguing that those who say "it is not cheating" are demonstrably wrong.
I don't argue that it's a bad thing if employed thoughtfully and tactfully. As that is a point that cannot be argued as it is totally subjective. My position is that it can and is used to good effect though it has potential for bad.
Which is why I am also of the opinion that instead of applying band-aids by cheating rolls one should address the reasons behind the need to cheat rolls (which primarily seems to be premature player character expiration). Although such modification isn't always worth the effort.
Just because you can't handle that people dont see it as the same thing at all doesn't mean you get to bomb in and use deliberately perjorative language to troll threads either. Yet what you can count on is a half dozen people who are guaranteed to drop into any thread where fudging is brought up, or open vs closed gm rolling and liberally spread the term cheating around as though there's a winner or loser in the game.
I don't care if people see it that way. The definition of "Fudging" includes...shock gasp...cheating!
If a GM doesn't follow the rules...yes that's cheating.
(I'll make sure to use the sugar coated term to not hurt your snowflake sensibilities.)
If my GM doesn't tell me and my group they are going to "Fudge" dice rolls/rules and then does that. Yes they are cheating.
If my GM tells me and my group they will be "Fudging" dice rolls etc. It's not an issue. It is no longer cheating the rules, since we all agreed to it.
Fudging is a house rule. It is not assumed in the base rules. So if a GM doesn't mention the house rules and then uses them in secret...then yep they are cheating.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
Your perspective is wrong.
The gm puts the most work into preparing and running the game. It comes with the privilege of more control over that game. Full stop.
His perspective is different, not wrong. The arbiter of what is wrong or right is the collective of players that abide by whatever social contract is agreed upon beforehand and during play.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
Your perspective is wrong.
The gm puts the most work into preparing and running the game. It comes with the privilege of more control over that game. Full stop.
As a GM for almost two decades, this kind of thinking leads to bad GMing.
Yes the GM puts in a lot of work into the game. No denying that. But ultimately, you're GMing for the players to show them a good time, not to control them. And in D&D, there's always going to be give and take from both the players and GM. If you're just going to force the players to do whatever you want or complain whenever a player makes a remark about the game, it's probably best not to GM.
It's like me being a chef. I generally have to accomodate the guest within reason. Allergies, stupid food requests, dietary restrictions. Sure, I can complain all I want when a customer orders something dumb, but ultimately, we give it to them if we are able to. A chef that makes no compromise won't be in business for very long. Believe that.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
Your perspective is wrong.
The gm puts the most work into preparing and running the game. It comes with the privilege of more control over that game. Full stop.
Nope sorry my perspective isn't wrong. That's exactly how rules work.
If the GM tells me we are playing Pathfinder Core Rules with no house rules and then later changes rules on the fly or fudges dice rolls they are cheating.
Based on how defensive your getting I'm going to assume you cheat as a GM without telling your players. Why else would you act like this.
His perspective is different, not wrong. The arbiter of what is wrong or right is the collective of players that abide by whatever social contract is agreed upon beforehand and during play.But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
Your perspective is wrong.
The gm puts the most work into preparing and running the game. It comes with the privilege of more control over that game. Full stop.
He's neither right nor wrong but the problem is that he's stating his opinions as objective fact. I wouldn't say Ryan's stance is much better but it's certainly more sympathetic given that it mostly seems to be in response to Brain in a Jar's constant stating of his opinion as if it was an objective fact.
We've really boiled this problem down to it's core- two opinions colliding violently with each other due to being stated as fact.
His perspective is different, not wrong. The arbiter of what is wrong or right is the collective of players that abide by whatever social contract is agreed upon beforehand and during play.But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
Your perspective is wrong.
The gm puts the most work into preparing and running the game. It comes with the privilege of more control over that game. Full stop.
He's neither right nor wrong but the problem is that he's stating his opinions as objective fact. I wouldn't say Ryan's stance is much better but it's certainly more sympathetic given that it mostly seems to be in response to Brain in a Jar's constant stating of his opinion as if it was an objective fact.
We've really boiled this problem down to it's core- two opinions colliding violently with each other due to being stated as fact.
The only fact I've stated is that Fudging and Cheating are the same thing. Which they are...
I guess it's hard to understand or something.
Fudging is defined as Cheating. Fact.
Fudging is good or bad in a RPG game?
Based on perspective of gaming group. It's not a bad or good way to do it. It's a play style base on preference.
I don't think less of GMs who Fudge.
I think less of GMs who Fudge and don't tell there players before hand.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
I'm going to answer you sentence by sentence.
1. There is no requirement that I state every single house rule that I might or might not use, especially when it has no relevance to character generation. Quite frankly I don't know every houserule that I might use before a campaign, because as campaigns evolve, I might add, subtract, or modify houserules in the course of play, so not only is not required, it's not generally even practical.
2. I've already told you ... GMs don't cheat. Period.
3 and 4. See 1 above.
I generally don't tell players that I will fudge die rolls because I don't want them becoming dependent on that. And when I do, which I usually do only for new players, I generally make it clear that that was their one lucky break. although the only fudge they might get is that they are bleeding out on the ground, instead of being outright dead on the spot.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
Your perspective is wrong.
The gm puts the most work into preparing and running the game. It comes with the privilege of more control over that game. Full stop.
Nope sorry my perspective isn't wrong. That's exactly how rules work.
If the GM tells me we are playing Pathfinder Core Rules with no house rules and then later changes rules on the fly or fudges dice rolls they are cheating.
Based on how defensive your getting I'm going to assume you cheat as a GM without telling your players. Why else would you act like this.
Nope its just that the gms ive played with who fudged behind a screen have run multiple campaigns that everyone enjoyed from level 1 to 18+ spanning years with the same group. During that time they confessed to me that they were pretty sure another player was lying about his dice rolls so his policy was to simply halve the damage he dealt. The campaign lasted over a decade and every single player, including the one whose damage got halved behind his back cheered it on. He never mentioned a word about fudging, did it what i assume most here would consider liberally and was thought of as the best GM in the county in various groups.
I've played with a number of Gms who roll openly and never fudge. Their campaigns usually ran from 1 to mid levels, ending in a TPK because of a hotstreak on dice they couldnt hide from everyone, and the group kind of dissolving afterward as everyone moved to other groups or games during the time period required to organize and create another campaign.
Yes - Changing rolls violates the social contract and cheats the players of a legitimate experience
One man's fudging is another man's cheating. The above is the only option that is truly fair to everyone.
Yes - Changing rolls violates the social contract and cheats the players of a legitimate experience
It's the only option that is truly fair to everyone.
Your definition of legitimate experience is wrong. If everyone has fun it was a legitimate experience whether or not the gm fudged dice.
It's not my definition. I pulled that text from earlier in the thread.
Edited my above post for clarity.
As someone else said earlier, that's only one definition, and the dictionary definition fails to take into account the connotative meaning within a tabletop game community. Ultimately, It's a fact that sometimes fudging = cheating. But it's not a fact that fudging ALWAYS equals cheating.
I mean, I'm just saying this because you actually have a strong argument outside of your tendency to speak in absolutes about this. It's actually hurting your persuasive power, IMO.
I'm going back to the peanut gallery now >_>
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords.How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment.
If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy.
If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple.
If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues.
If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating.
It's really not that hard.
I'm going to answer you sentence by sentence.
1. There is no requirement that I state every single house rule that I might or might not use, especially when it has no relevance to character generation. Quite frankly I don't know every houserule that I might use before a campaign, because as campaigns evolve, I might add, subtract, or modify houserules in the course of play, so not only is not required, it's not generally even practical.
2. I've already told you ... GMs don't cheat. Period.
3 and 4. See 1 above.
I generally don't tell players that I will fudge die rolls because I don't want them becoming dependent on that. And when I do, which I usually do only for new players, I generally make it clear that that was their one lucky break. although the only fudge they might get is that they are bleeding out on the ground, instead of being outright dead on the spot.
The only time that GMs should fudge is in the service of the players. And sometimes that fudging is in the process of making things harder for those players who are frustrated, or bored, because things are going too easy for them. In a PFS campaign, obviously Judges (who by definition, aren't GMs) pretty much should be running as written, but in a home campaign, it is totally up to a GM's discretion as to whether they should fudge and how much, or not at all. I don't think that one ironclad rule for every GM in every situation is appropriate, nor is it needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, and I know I'm going way off topic here, we are gonna just keep using an inflammatory term for no reason other than to beat people over the head with it? I mean that is what it seems like here that until everyone agrees with your definition we are gonna keep on. We can do this with a lot of other threads as well I mean optimization is really just a nice word for being a munchkin, or a powergamer.