It's not my definition. I pulled that text from earlier in the thread.
Edited my above post for clarity.
I'd also like to clarify I was surmising the general arguments that people had posited for and against
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Sounds to me like you're describing a ruling, not a house rule.
2. I've already told you ... GMs don't cheat. Period.
That's BS. I once had a character that I played through 15 levels, investing heavily so I could start hitting enemies with DC 36 save or dies (roll twice and take worst result) only to have every enemy suddenly start passing their saves. My character was eventually heckled out of the party for being useless.
Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities.
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.
Benevolent cheating is still cheating, and if you don't add the addendum to your social contract, it is definitely cheating.
| 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.
And thats basically my beef and a big part of why I'm using absolutist language. When you have two ways of referring to a thing, one has a perjorative connotation, and the other doesn't, the only reason to choose the perjorative is to start a fight. Hiding behind being technically correct doesn't mean it isn't trolling for a reaction
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.And thats basically my beef and a big part of why I'm using absolutist language. When you have two ways of referring to a thing, one has a perjorative connotation, and the other doesn't, the only reason to choose the perjorative is to start a fight. Hiding behind being technically correct doesn't mean it isn't trolling for a reaction
You can think I'm trolling all you like.
I'm not hiding behind being technically correct. I am correct in my usage of the words.
I even went out of my way to state that Fudging isn't badwrongfun. That is determined by each group as to their own play style.
2. I've already told you ... GMs don't cheat. Period.That's BS. I once had a character that I played through 15 levels, investing heavily so I could start hitting enemies with DC 36 save or dies (roll twice and take worst result) only to have every enemy suddenly start passing their saves. My character was eventually heckled out of the party for being useless.
Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities.
Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.
Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.
You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary.
Wow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is not cheating by definition.
By whose definition?
I look at it this way:
Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary.
Wow.
Yeah, i will given the second line in my quoted post.
Edit: since you're missing the common thread.
Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities.
Its almost as if there's baggage coming across when you choose the most perjorative word for a conversation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that being said, in my 30-odd years of playing and GMing experience, there is one definite thing I can say about a GM who makes all his/her rolls in the open: Those tables are far more deadly to the players.
More deadly to the characters, certainly. I roll in the open and have yet to see a player drop dead at the table.
Yeah, i will given the second line in my quoted post.Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary.
Wow.
I assume your talking about "Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities."
GMs cheating is a thing and it's bad because they are supposed to be trusted to run a game fairly. So yeah GMs that cheat are kinda s@++ty.
Hell you just posted a whole story about how your GM cheated.
"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."
Like really. Instead of just talking about it the GM goes for the passive-aggressive cheating?
Great the game was super fun. Doesn't stop him from being a cheater.
Many who dislike 1 version will tolerate it if they know upfront that it may/will happen.
I know that's certainly true of me, as a player. When one of the players took up DMing to give me a break, the first thing he did was tell me, "I like how you run a sandbox with open rolls, and this campaign will probably progress that way, but to get it off the ground I'm going to need you guys to follow the railroad and not worry too much if I fudge the dice to prevent the story from totally imploding."
I replied, "You telling me all that up front makes it all OK."
Yeah, i will given the second line in my quoted post.Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary.
Wow.
I assume your talking about "Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities."
GMs cheating is a thing and it's bad because they are supposed to be trusted to run a game fairly. So yeah GMs that cheat are kinda s!~*ty.
Hell you just posted a whole story about how your GM cheated.
"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."
Like really. Instead of just talking about it the GM goes for the passive-aggressive cheating?
Great the game was super fun. Doesn't stop him from being a cheater.
Doesn't stop you from continuing a players vs Gm view of the game. "trusted to run fairly" is a thing that matters when people win or lose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't stop you from continuing a players vs Gm view of the game. "trusted to run fairly" is a thing that matters when people win or lose.Yeah, i will given the second line in my quoted post.Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary.
Wow.
I assume your talking about "Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities."
GMs cheating is a thing and it's bad because they are supposed to be trusted to run a game fairly. So yeah GMs that cheat are kinda s!~*ty.
Hell you just posted a whole story about how your GM cheated.
"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."
Like really. Instead of just talking about it the GM goes for the passive-aggressive cheating?
Great the game was super fun. Doesn't stop him from being a cheater.
Trust matters period. Winning or Losing has nothing to do with. If a GM fudges without telling their players they will (and they agree to it) the one who is breaking the trust is the GM and is therefore a bad GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My questions are for the people who believe fudging dice rolls is a form of cheating:
Are all forms of dice fudging considered cheating? For example is ignoring the result of a random treasure roll cheating?
Is breaking other rules also considered cheating? Are house rules a form of cheating?
Does eveyone agree that fudging dice rolls is OK? Then it's not cheating.
Is everyone OK with you ignoring random treasure rolls? Then it's not cheating.Is everyone aware of the house rules, and has everyone agreed to them? Then they're not cheating.
Notice it's all about the players being aware of what you're doing, and agreeing to it. If they're not aware, you're not technically cheating, but you are being a bit of a pompous, self-important dick by not even allowing them a choice. If they disagree, and you do it anyway, you're cheating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is everyone OK with you ignoring random treasure rolls?
Is it even a likely expectation that the GM should use random treasure rolls?
Trust matters period. Winning or Losing has nothing to do with. If a GM fudges without telling their players they will (and they agree to it) the one who is breaking the trust is the GM and is therefore a bad GM.Doesn't stop you from continuing a players vs Gm view of the game. "trusted to run fairly" is a thing that matters when people win or lose.Yeah, i will given the second line in my quoted post.Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary.
Wow.
I assume your talking about "Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities."
GMs cheating is a thing and it's bad because they are supposed to be trusted to run a game fairly. So yeah GMs that cheat are kinda s!~*ty.
Hell you just posted a whole story about how your GM cheated.
"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."
Like really. Instead of just talking about it the GM goes for the passive-aggressive cheating?
Great the game was super fun. Doesn't stop him from being a cheater.
So like i said, players vs gm.
Is it even a likely expectation that the GM should use random treasure rolls?
Believe it or not, some people love them.
Is it even a likely expectation that the GM should use random treasure rolls?Believe it or not, some people love them.
They're a great way to expose the table to items no one would ever craft or buy but may well enrich the game in ways even the gm might not predict.
I like a little of both. Wandering monsters get a random treasure roll while gm planned encounters get placed loot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personnaly, I don't care if fudging is cheating or not. If ignoring the result of a dice roll improves the player's experience, I will do it.
My players appreciate keeping a PC they've invested time and feelings in, so e.g if the die dictates that the character die an untimely or ignominous or an otherwise unappealing death, I will disregard the result of the die.
On the other hand, if a player seems to want his character to die, I will repeteadly put his character in dangerous situations, and roll dies in the open, till his unevitable demise.
I consider my role as a GM to be akin to the role of an illusionist. I must persuade my players that Fate or Hazard alone dictate their PC's existence, while in fact I nudge the odds in their favour, to help them tell the character's story they like the most.
Rolling in the open gives the illusion that the game we're playing rests in the hands of Fate, but in reality that's just a very effective trick.
To give the players a sense of danger, and of defying the odds, I pretend to be an uncaring GM in regard to their characters' continuing survival, while in fact I care very much. So, I regularly lie through my teeth by reaffirming to my players that whatever way the die lies, I'll follow its dictate.
In 34 years of cheating with my players, I haven't been caught once, to their delight.
Thank God I'm not at your table.
So like i said, players vs gm.Trust matters period. Winning or Losing has nothing to do with. If a GM fudges without telling their players they will (and they agree to it) the one who is breaking the trust is the GM and is therefore a bad GM.Doesn't stop you from continuing a players vs Gm view of the game. "trusted to run fairly" is a thing that matters when people win or lose.Yeah, i will given the second line in my quoted post.Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it.You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary.
Wow.
I assume your talking about "Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities."
GMs cheating is a thing and it's bad because they are supposed to be trusted to run a game fairly. So yeah GMs that cheat are kinda s!~*ty.
Hell you just posted a whole story about how your GM cheated.
"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."
Like really. Instead of just talking about it the GM goes for the passive-aggressive cheating?
Great the game was super fun. Doesn't stop him from being a cheater.
How exactly is this players versus GM? Unless you mean the reason the GM is bad is because they are viewing the game as Players Vs. GM and are cheating to give themselves an advantage. In which case they are as I said, a bad GM. Would you care to clarify?
GMs don't cheat. This subject gets beat to death on these forums. If someone at my table doesn't like how I run my game, they can find another table.
Sure, as long as you're open and up front about it. If you're not... well, that's kind of dick move, isn't it?
|
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.And thats basically my beef and a big part of why I'm using absolutist language. When you have two ways of referring to a thing, one has a perjorative connotation, and the other doesn't, the only reason to choose the perjorative is to start a fight. Hiding behind being technically correct doesn't mean it isn't trolling for a reaction
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to assert once again, that whether or not a GM cheats is irrelevant.
If a GM "cheats" in a way that makes the game more fun for the players, then hooray they have done well.
If a GM "cheats" in a way that makes the game less fun for the players, then boo they have done poorly.
Whether or not players want life or death stakes vs. a light romp, constant character death vs. no character death whatsoever, to face dire challenge in every fight vs. generally rolling over everything they face, or something specific in between extremes is going to vary from group to group.
As with all things in GMing, you need to know how to read the room, and failing that just talk to your players. I do not think there are hard and fast rules here that apply to every table regarding fudging, ad hoc house rules, Schrödinger's plot devices, etc. Those things can and do work for some groups. Coming on the internet and making bold pronouncements about how they are never/always okay obliterates nuance in a way that isn't going to help anybody run better games.
It's probably better to do system fixes to head off the problems that get people to fudge die rolls in order to fix, but sometimes you have a last resort for a reason.
I'm hearing a lot of "I absolutely do not want this to happen and if I find out I'm going to be mad."
Which sort of underlines the point that if you're going to do it, you ought to make sure nobody finds out.
Does that also apply to murder, in your mind? It seems like a somewhat morally-dubious conclusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deleting the quote chain because jesus that was getting long.
Simply put people are putting the most extreme language on everything.
Cheating has a perjorative connotation, despite all the arguments about definitions i haven't seen a single person defending its use claim otherwise.
Likewise use of terms like trust, betrayal of trust, etc that are often thrown around regarding gm dice shenanigans have a more extreme context. The gm is generally not caring for your infant, watching your house, in a room with your easily stolen worldly fortune. Boiling the question of "is this a fun game" in with do i trust the gm linguistically amplifies the severity of what's actually happening. It carries an implicit dig at people who don't play the game the way you (the generic you) like as untrustworthy people.
Edit: and good lord because i know people love to do this yes i get that some player/gm groups are dating, or spouses, or family members and may well be trusted to do exactly the things i listed. I simply hope one doesn't put the same standards of association one would with a life partner on a gm nor that they would treat dice roll fudging as a betrayal of trust on par with screwing up one of those examples. Forum rhetoric that indicates im wrong here aside.
Well, maybe there's one and only one road between city A and city B and you design and ambush to occur on that road, assuming the players would take it, but the players decide to take a boat, or hire a wizard to teleport them there, or summon monsters to create a tunnel through the earth, or something else. Are you going to have the ambushing party never show up for the remainder of the story?
I'm going to have the ambushing party act according to their aims, intelligence, and abilities. If that means they catch up to the party later, good. If it means they don't, maybe I drop a hint in a later game about how a group of bounty hunters along their previous route got lost in the desert and eaten by jackals, thus validating their choice of taking a different route.
Likewise use of terms like trust, betrayal of trust, etc that are often thrown around regarding gm dice shenanigans have a more extreme context. The gm is generally not caring for your infant, watching your house, in a room with your easily stolen worldly fortune.
In some cases they are, however, lying to you. If that's OK with you, no harm, no foul. If you're not OK with that, you have a right not to trust them thereafter.
If Bob agrees to water the plant when I'm gone, and then doesn't and it dies, I am NOT going to ask Bob to babysit for me.
Likewise use of terms like trust, betrayal of trust, etc that are often thrown around regarding gm dice shenanigans have a more extreme context. The gm is generally not caring for your infant, watching your house, in a room with your easily stolen worldly fortune.In some cases they are, however, lying to you. If that's OK with you, no harm, no foul. If they're not OK with that, they have a right not to trust you thereafter.
If Bob agrees to water the plant when I'm gone, and then doesn't and it dies, I am NOT going to ask Bob to babysit for me.
Like i said, forum rhetoric that indicates people really are that intense about a no winners storytelling game aside.
Rule number 1 for GMing: help the players have fun.
If it helps the players have fun, go for it. If it doesn't, don't.
It really doesn't strike me as any more complicated than this because if a game isn't fun, why bother playing it? (Hard can be fun too!)
It actually is a bit more complicated than that.
The question is whether your idea of what would make more fun for them is accurate. Maybe they'd prefer you did something a different way, and would have more fun if you did that?Luckily, that's easy to resolve: just ask them.
Like i said, forum rhetoric that indicates people really are that intense about a no winners storytelling game aside.
If I understand your logic: if I punch you in the face over a D&D game, it's OK bucause a game isn't serious, but if I punch you in the face to steal your wallet, that's not OK because your money is serious business?
Because what you're saying is: It's OK for me to lie to you, as long as I"m lying about a game and not about something serious.
In some cases they are, however, lying to you. If that's OK with you, no harm, no foul. If you're not OK with that, you have a right not to trust them thereafter.
If Bob agrees to water the plant when I'm gone, and then doesn't and it dies, I am NOT going to ask Bob to babysit for me.
I think though that we have to be cognizant of the fact that GMs are people too, and sometimes they're going to screw up, and we should probably forgive them for that.
If I design an encounter that I think will be fun, and I quickly realize that I've made it too hard and the most likely outcome is the death of the entire party, and it's not something I want or the players want, and we're not at a point in the game where that's necessarily appropriate, then I'm going to do something to try to fix my own mistake. Ideally, I have a house rule in place to fix that (and I do: I let the party run away any time they all agree to so, and they all get away with all the corpses and unconscious bodies of their allies), but maybe I don't have that house rule yet when the fight starts.
It's less "Bob forgets to water your plant while you're gone" and more "Bob remembered to feed the cat and the fish, took out the garbage, and watered most of the plants, but missed one in the corner." Are we going to jeopardize our relationship with Bob over a cactus?
Rule number 1 for GMing: help the players have fun.
If it helps the players have fun, go for it. If it doesn't, don't.
It really doesn't strike me as any more complicated than this because if a game isn't fun, why bother playing it? (Hard can be fun too!)It actually is a bit more complicated than that.
The question is whether your idea of what would make more fun for them is accurate. Maybe they'd prefer you did something a different way, and would have more fun if you did that?Luckily, that's easy to resolve: just ask them.
An aside: I love "just ask them" as general advice, but some people clamp up when you ask them anything related to their gaming preferences. They just don't care that much and answer half of your questions about what they want from a game with shrug emotes.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
^ This guy. As a GM, I'd just like to say I hate this guy.
I think next time I encounter this problem I'm going to try to shroud my questions in the form of a fun survey! Because everyone loves surveys! And actually answer them. Hopefully.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's less "Bob forgets to water your plant while you're gone" and more "Bob remembered to feed the cat and the fish, took out the garbage, and watered most of the plants, but missed one in the corner." Are we going to jeopardize our relationship with Bob over a cactus?
Only if Bob says he had every right to let that plant die, or whatever the analogy represents the refusal to admit the mistake is.
Does anyone here actually believe their GM or do they sit there with their arms crossed and eye brow raised?
Seems like a lot of the discussion here is really centered around the mood and attitude of the players at the table.
There's also the thing where people aren't necessarily good at saying what they want. A lot of time "what people say they like" differs from what they actually like in practice (this is famously the case with coffee.)
If your players say they want a really threatening and deadly campaign in which you pull no punches, but every time a character dies it sucks all the life out of the room for the remainder of the session, it's possible they don't actually want that, they just want to feel threatened.
So I think "being able to read the room" is sometimes more useful than just asking people straight away.
We're going to need more extrapolation on 'reason'.
Your attack of 24 does not hit the goblin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't be bothered to be honest about a game then why should I trust you on other things? And you can be friends with people you don't trust, you can have a fun game with people that you'd never want to be friends with.
Fudging is cheating, both carry the same bad baggage. It kinda like stealing and theft, or stealing and shop-lifting. That you have a different label or are only one aspect of the other doesn't change what they are.
"I'm a fudger, not a cheater"
"I'm a shop-lifter, not a thief"
These aren't true since since the one is the subset of the other.
NOW if the rules are set that "fudging is okay by the GM" it means that the GM has the power to override the die result and when they "fudge" they are exercising that power. Which means they aren't fudging the result but fabricating their own result.
so since we can have a fun time with you telling us that you fudge at times, and only the chance of hurt feeling if you don't tell. Why are you so defensive of the need for keeping it secret? Or that we're calling you out for cheating. We've told you why we think it's cheating, and because we think that lying or tricking your players isn't a good idea we use the correct term. CHEATING.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The DM should be putting that work in because he or she enjoys the game, not because he/she thinks it confers inflated status over others. He or she has no more privilege than the players grant. And adding "full stop" doesn't make an unconvincing argument any more convincing; it just signals that you think you're lecturing rather than discussing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone here actually believe their GM or do they sit there with their arms crossed and eye brow raised?
Seems like a lot of the discussion here is really centered around the mood and attitude of the players at the table.
When I GM, I roll in the open and don't fudge.
The other GM in our group also rolls in the open and doesn't fudge.Trust is very easy for my group, because we do not play with cheaters.
It's less "Bob forgets to water your plant while you're gone" and more "Bob remembered to feed the cat and the fish, took out the garbage, and watered most of the plants, but missed one in the corner." Are we going to jeopardize our relationship with Bob over a cactus?
As TOZ alluded, did he kill the cactus because he decided the spines were unsafe, and it was "for my own good," and then he tries to cover up the fact ("Uh, a burglar must have stolen it!"). Or does he immediately say, "Look, I forgot to water the plant, but I'll replace it."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't be bothered to be honest about a game then why should I trust you on other things? And you can be friends with people you don't trust, you can have a fun game with people that you'd never want to be friends with.
Fudging is cheating, both carry the same bad baggage. It kinda like stealing and theft, or stealing and shop-lifting. That you have a different label or are only one aspect of the other doesn't change what they are.
"I'm a fudger, not a cheater"
"I'm a shop-lifter, not a thief"These aren't true since since the one is the subset of the other.
NOW if the rules are set that "fudging is okay by the GM" it means that the GM has the power to override the die result and when they "fudge" they are exercising that power. Which means they aren't fudging the result but fabricating their own result.
so since we can have a fun time with you telling us that you fudge at times, and only the chance of hurt feeling if you don't tell. Why are you so defensive of the need for keeping it secret? Or that we're calling you out for cheating. We've told you why we think it's cheating, and because we think that lying or tricking your players isn't a good idea we use the correct term. CHEATING.
TWO WORDS: SPELL SUNDER. AND THAT AM WHY BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS WINNER, AM ALWAYS BEATING CASTY, AND AM ABLE TO DO ANYTHING THEY AM ABLE TO DO, BUT BETTER, BECAUSE BARBARIAN AM ABLE TO PUNCH SHINY WALLS, AND ALSO AM ABLE TO RENDER FIGHTY CHARACTERS AND CASTY CHARACTERS BOTH COMPLETELY UNRELEVANT.
...WAIT.
BARBARIAN THINK BARBARIAN HAVE WRONG ETERNAL ARGUMENT THREAD. LET BARBARIAN TRY THAT AGAIN.
So I think "being able to read the room" is sometimes more useful than just asking people straight away.
I'll concede the value, but still think you should ask, rather than assume you always know better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I lost the metaphor here.
Does "I'm sorry I killed your cactus, I'll replace it" translate to "I'm sorry I changed a die roll in your favor so your character wouldn't die, I'll make sure to kill your character in the next session"?
We're going to need more extrapolation on 'reason'.How about, saying "I fudge"?
That's great, what are you fudging exactly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're going to need more extrapolation on 'reason'.
Your attack of 24 does not hit the goblin.
Bad GMs tend to think they are better at "maintaining the illusion" than they actually are. It's pretty easy to calculate ACs. If that goblin is only wearing studding leather and detect magic turns up no magic items on the corpse, then the players can easily know that the 24 should have hit. Math is neat like that.
Does "I'm sorry I killed your cactus, I'll replace it" translate to "I'm sorry I changed a die roll in your favor so your character wouldn't die, I'll make sure to kill your character in the next session"?
It might*, if the DM had promised not to fudge dice rolls. If he told me up front he was going to do it, then he did nothing wrong to begin with ("Sure I'll watch the place for you, and I'll even cart off that dangerous cactus that's taking over the corner!")