Discussion on the Topic of GMs "Cheating"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 725 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Brain in a Jar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Fudging is literally by definition cheating. Using the term "Fudging" seems to make it an easier pill to swallow i suppose for some.

Does that make it a bad thing? Not necessarily.

As long as the group playing is okay with Fudging/Cheating happening then it's fine.

Different play styles are fine. I'm certainly not telling you how to play.

But Fudging = Cheating. That's just a fact of the dictionary.

No. It "literally" is not cheating.

The Pathfinder GMG is one of the (only) books that has ever even dared to use the word "cheating" when talking about the GM fudging dice rolls. Also, yes, when I saw it initially in their GMG I was *angry* beyond belief at Paizo and nearly stopped buying their products right then and there.

No version of D&D (from 1st edition to 5th edition) has ever called it cheating. Paizo simply used very improper, and insulting, wording. Someone at Paizo should have apologized for that but ultimately it is a small distinction.

White Wolf never called it cheating. Palladium never called it cheating. TSR, WotC, and Hasbro never called it cheating.

Since fudging the dice has been around LONG before Paizo ever even thought about Pathfinder their definition is simply incorrect.

Fudging dice is not cheating, calling it cheating is actually a high insult.

I never even mentioned Pathfinder. I mentioned a dictionary.

** spoiler omitted **

Those of the faint of heart might not want to look into the spoiler. Fair warning.

And as I've said Fudging is based on the preferences of the GM AND THE GROUP.

If everyone knows the GM is using a house rule (Fudging). Then no problem.

If the GM doesn't mentions it, and hides their dirty little secret from the group, then it's cheating....

No. Simply no.

Fudging is NOT a house rule. The house rule is a strict no-fudge policy. You need to inform them if you DON'T fudge. Fudging is the freaking default.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Although on the subject of reducing the AC of the boss - if I'm creating him, and I'm making up a number for his Dexterity to set an AC value that feels like a good challenge for the party, how is that different from changing his AC on the fly to improve balance? (I actually feel like it is different, and wouldn't want to do it, but I'm not sure why.)

I feel like there are people who would appreciate it much more if the boss had buffs that expired during the fight so his AC, etc. went down that way than to have the GM just reduce their AC because the party is having a hard time. Largely because they don't want to feel patronized, even though the stats you made up for a guy might have been completely random and not balanced in the least.

But we can say that the 6th level wizard BBEG cast Barkskin exactly 59.25 minutes before the start of the fight and doesn't have another casting prepared, say.


Jaçinto wrote:

By outsmarting I mean ingenuity.

In shadowrun, I figured out a way to take out the BBEG by hitting his resource lines. He was on the board of a corp and I did everything I could as a decker to ruin the corps image and pin it on him so they would have a stock drop and fire him to save face. I was told "no, doesn't work because I have a specific way I want you to beat him." He specifically wanted combat with a cybered up troll that had nanites that would rebuild him from death.

A player character's family was attacked and bleeding out. Surely dead. I had saviour medkits. Before I could apply them the GM said "Oh I didn't remember that you had those. Ok they're just dead."

In Dark heresy 2nd edition I used telepathy to probe someone's mind for information and erase to remove us from ever being there from his mind. GM said not fair and said it doesn't work, then gave me corruption points for trying to mess with someone's mind.

You know stuff like that.

So this stuff is not normal? Cause it has made me give up on being clever at all and now in games, I just sit there and follow the railroad. I don't even bother with backstories anymore.

Yeah basically your GM sucks and frequently cheats to preserve their "Sacred and holy plot" that is clearly so good nothing not even logic can derail it.

What a joke.


HWalsh wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Fudging is literally by definition cheating. Using the term "Fudging" seems to make it an easier pill to swallow i suppose for some.

Does that make it a bad thing? Not necessarily.

As long as the group playing is okay with Fudging/Cheating happening then it's fine.

Different play styles are fine. I'm certainly not telling you how to play.

But Fudging = Cheating. That's just a fact of the dictionary.

No. It "literally" is not cheating.

The Pathfinder GMG is one of the (only) books that has ever even dared to use the word "cheating" when talking about the GM fudging dice rolls. Also, yes, when I saw it initially in their GMG I was *angry* beyond belief at Paizo and nearly stopped buying their products right then and there.

No version of D&D (from 1st edition to 5th edition) has ever called it cheating. Paizo simply used very improper, and insulting, wording. Someone at Paizo should have apologized for that but ultimately it is a small distinction.

White Wolf never called it cheating. Palladium never called it cheating. TSR, WotC, and Hasbro never called it cheating.

Since fudging the dice has been around LONG before Paizo ever even thought about Pathfinder their definition is simply incorrect.

Fudging dice is not cheating, calling it cheating is actually a high insult.

I never even mentioned Pathfinder. I mentioned a dictionary.

** spoiler omitted **

Those of the faint of heart might not want to look into the spoiler. Fair warning.

And as I've said Fudging is based on the preferences of the GM AND THE GROUP.

If everyone knows the GM is using a house rule (Fudging). Then no problem.

If the GM doesn't mentions it, and hides their dirty little secret from the group, then it's cheating....

No. Simply no.

Fudging is NOT a house rule. The house rule is a strict no-fudge policy. You need to inform them if you DON'T fudge. Fudging is the freaking default.

So REDACTED...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
NoTongue wrote:


It's when you start altering enemy DC, Saves, making up roles where it becomes an issue. If you are going to fudge encounters then you have removed control from the players. If they know you are fudging and die then they will rightfully wonder if they died because you fudged or choose not to fudge.
I don't see fudging as necessarily removing control from the players. In fact, it can increase the control players have over the encounter by reducing the amount of control exerted by the dice, which the players do not control.

I don't see how the GM deciding to alter the results of the dice increases the players' control of what happens in any way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?

Yes. Isn't that Rule 0?


brain in the jar is posting again

better point out once again that cheating is only one definition of fudging, and not the connotative definition within this context.


JAMRenaissance wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?
Yes. Isn't that Rule 0?

"The Most Important Rule

The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."


Brain in a Jar wrote:
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?

You could certainly argue that "the GM is allowed to increase or decrease a numerical value rolled by or on the stat sheet of an NPC by 2-4 points whenever they want to" is a thing that can be covered by "Rule 0" which is a foundational rule of TTRPGs.

That it's covered by rule 0 doesn't mean doing it is a good idea, there are lots of things a GM could do with their rule 0 powers that wouldn't be fun, like "A magical curse has made everyone's arms fall off, including the PC's". A GM is wholly within their right to invent such a curse, but there's a good chance that doing so wouldn't make the game any more fun, so they probably shouldn't.


PK the Dragon wrote:

brain in the jar is posting again

better point out once again that cheating is only one definition of fudging, and not the connotative definition within this context.

I far as i care they are interchangeable words.

I don't see Fudging/Cheating as a bad thing. So long as the GM and players agree on it before hand.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?

You could certainly argue that "the GM is allowed to increase or decrease a numerical value rolled by or on the stat sheet of an NPC by 2-4 points whenever they want to" is a thing that can be covered by "Rule 0" which is a foundational rule of TTRPGs.

That it's covered by rule 0 doesn't mean doing it is a good idea, there are lots of things a GM could do with their rule 0 powers that wouldn't be fun, like "A magical curse has made everyone's arms fall off, including the PC's". A GM is wholly within their right to invent such a curse, but there's a good chance that doing so wouldn't make the game any more fun, so they probably shouldn't.

Could someone link or tell me where to find this Rule 0 in Pathfinder. I could only find the "Most Important Rule' bit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PK the Dragon wrote:
To a degree, the GM is similar to a magician. Their trade is to make the unreal seem real, and make players believe in that. No magician worth his trade is going to say at the beginning "oh by the way these are all tricks i'm technically lying to you", because that ruins the entire effect.

To name a few: The Amazing Randi, Penn and Teller, Criss Angel, Harry Houdini... These are magicians who would beg the audience to understand it was all illusion, and who would go out of their way (and still do) to debunk claims of psi/magic powers. They're also some of the greatest magicians of all time.

Any amateur can claim it's all real to try and pull of a stunt. It takes a master to announce point-blank that it isn't real, and still amaze the audience.


Rule 0 is basically that the GM is permitted to ignore, change, edit, supersede, etc. any printed rule if they believe that doing so would result in a better experience for the players.

How far you can go with this is subject basically to the culture of the table you're playing at, and the wider culture of the game. People who want more of a wargame feel want much less of it, but in something like "Paranoia" the rulebook explicitly encourages the GM to fudge die rolls (and is even encouraged to allow players to fudge their own die rolls, fudge other people's die rolls, or just ignore rules if it's funny.) The National Football League even has its own sort of "rule 0" in the "Palpably Unfair Act" rule (which allows the referee to punish a team for anything they deem "a palpably unfair act" which carries the penalty: " The Referee, after consulting his crew, enforces any such distance penalty as they consider equitable and irrespective of any other specified code penalty."

The boundaries for this aren't really something you can write down, it's more of an understood cultural thing like "how loud can you talk in public places" (it's really going to depend on the place; talk louder at a NASCAR race than you would at a funeral).

I would say that the whole issue where some people are aghast that other GMs do a little ad hoc manipulation here and there, and other people are aghast that those people are aghast is basically just a cultural clash between two groups who are used to different norms.


PK the Dragon wrote:

brain in the jar is posting again

better point out once again that cheating is only one definition of fudging, and not the connotative definition within this context.

Even in the definition that brain quotes, it's a "see also".


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like there are people who would appreciate it much more if the boss had buffs that expired during the fight so his AC, etc. went down that way than to have the GM just reduce their AC because the party is having a hard time. Largely because they don't want to feel patronized, even though the stats you made up for a guy might have been completely random and not balanced in the least.

But we can say that the 6th level wizard BBEG cast Barkskin exactly 59.25 minutes before the start of the fight and doesn't have another casting prepared, say.

I'm not talking about "That's funny, a 26 used to be a miss but now it's a hit". I'm thinking of a situation where, say, the party's strongest martial is suffering from some horrible condition and I decide just as the BBEG shows up that they're never going to win unless I make some changes and I decide his Dex is now 10 instead of 18 because that seems like more of a fair fight and they have no way to ever find out what I did.

And as we all know, what people don't know won't hurt them. Fudging is fine as long as people don't find out, in the same way that nobody would mind if there was a secret camera filming them in their house if they never find out about it. (Imagine I put in a smiley symbol here to indicate some kind of ironic intent.)


Brain in a Jar wrote:
So REDACTED...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?

Pretty much. The GMG even tells you it's best to do it secretly.


Matthew Downie wrote:
I'm not talking about "That's funny, a 26 used to be a miss but now it's a hit". I'm thinking of a situation where, say, the party's strongest martial is suffering from some horrible condition and I decide just as the BBEG shows up that they're never going to win unless I make some changes and I decide his Dex is now 10 instead of 18 because that seems like more of a fair fight and they have no way to ever find out what I did.

I wonder which would be generally deemed more acceptable in a case where the GM figures that the party can't win, and that's not something anybody wants.

1) Before the fight starts, reduce the stats for the Boss.
2) During the fight, reduce the stats of the Boss
3) Have the boss use terrible tactics.
4) Have a third party show up to aid the PCs and/or hassle the boss.
5) End the fight prematurely where the Boss just taunts the party and leaves in order to set up another showdown later.

Or maybe something else entirely that's not a party-wipe situation.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

I never even mentioned Pathfinder. I mentioned a dictionary.

Those of the faint of heart might not want to look into the spoiler. Fair warning.

And as I've said Fudging is based on the preferences of the GM AND THE GROUP.

If everyone knows the GM is using a house rule (Fudging). Then no problem.

If the GM doesn't mentions it, and hides their dirty little secret from the group, then it's cheating.

Fudging isn't a bad thing. It's a perfectly acceptable house rule to use as a GM. It's only an issue when a GM decides they know better and assume players are okay with it; hiding their cheating from the group.

What i said only applies to GMs who don't know a players preference. I've played with people (very briefly) who GM like this. It's dishonest and cheating.

If your group is ok with it THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

So If after reading all of that your still butt-hurt then maybe...just maybe your cheating.

First, since we're talking specifically about RPGs and Pathfinder and the jargon used there, a dictionary definition isn't that helpful.

More generally, as a player I don't want to know that the GM is fudging. Your approach breaks the illusion and ruins the effect for me. I don't mind fudging, though I'd rather it be a rare backup for when things go seriously badly. But once I know it and can see it then I'm no longer happy.
Which is essentially the PF advice. How do we accommodate that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I'm not talking about "That's funny, a 26 used to be a miss but now it's a hit". I'm thinking of a situation where, say, the party's strongest martial is suffering from some horrible condition and I decide just as the BBEG shows up that they're never going to win unless I make some changes and I decide his Dex is now 10 instead of 18 because that seems like more of a fair fight and they have no way to ever find out what I did.

I wonder which would be generally deemed more acceptable in a case where the GM figures that the party can't win, and that's not something anybody wants.

1) Before the fight starts, reduce the stats for the Boss.
2) During the fight, reduce the stats of the Boss
3) Have the boss use terrible tactics.
4) Have a third party show up to aid the PCs and/or hassle the boss.
5) End the fight prematurely where the Boss just taunts the party and leaves in order to set up another showdown later.

Or maybe something else entirely that's not a party-wipe situation.

Judging by previous discussions, if the party has screwed up so badly that they can't win and won't run away, then they should be killed. Any suggestion that it might not be entirely the player's fault will either be ignored or at best dismissed as bad GMing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:
JAMRenaissance wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?
Yes. Isn't that Rule 0?

"The Most Important Rule

The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."

Note which sentence has the word "should", and which sentence has the word "is".


thejeff wrote:

More generally, as a player I don't want to know that the GM is fudging. Your approach breaks the illusion and ruins the effect for me. I don't mind fudging, though I'd rather it be a rare backup for when things go seriously badly. But once I know it and can see it then I'm no longer happy.

Which is essentially the PF advice. How do we accommodate that?

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. If I'm playing, I don't mind if you fudge dice, but please don't tell me in advance that you're going to do it, and please don't tell me that you did it. I figure the GM is just going to use the same sort of judgment they use when they decided to make the band of centaurs in the forest friendly instead of hostile. Or when they decided to make the thing we need cost a price the party could pay and not a price the party could not pay. Or when they decided to just have the party get sent a letter that gave them a clue instead of making them search for clues. Or when the GM decided that the magic item shop had specifically the weapon a player wanted, etc.

Sometimes a GM is going to something to make it easier on the party and generally you do that when you think that's going to be a better time for the human beings playing the game. If I trust that you can decide when the centaurs are friendly or when the magic shop has a +2 Impact Falcata then I pretty much trust you to make a call on a die.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
I have been told it is cheating when you try to outsmart the adventure because it forces the GM to adapt on the fly and that is player vs GM.

I think that is a comparatively new experience, rising from games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc.. The GM is a human game engine in this philosophy.

It's REALLY different from anything I'm used to, but I can't knock it if someone else wants to play that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

I never even mentioned Pathfinder. I mentioned a dictionary.

Those of the faint of heart might not want to look into the spoiler. Fair warning.

And as I've said Fudging is based on the preferences of the GM AND THE GROUP.

If everyone knows the GM is using a house rule (Fudging). Then no problem.

If the GM doesn't mentions it, and hides their dirty little secret from the group, then it's cheating.

Fudging isn't a bad thing. It's a perfectly acceptable house rule to use as a GM. It's only an issue when a GM decides they know better and assume players are okay with it; hiding their cheating from the group.

What i said only applies to GMs who don't know a players preference. I've played with people (very briefly) who GM like this. It's dishonest and cheating.

If your group is ok with it THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

So If after reading all of that your still butt-hurt then maybe...just maybe your cheating.

First, since we're talking specifically about RPGs and Pathfinder and the jargon used there, a dictionary definition isn't that helpful.

More generally, as a player I don't want to know that the GM is fudging. Your approach breaks the illusion and ruins the effect for me. I don't mind fudging, though I'd rather it be a rare backup for when things go seriously badly. But once I know it and can see it then I'm no longer happy.
Which is essentially the PF advice. How do we accommodate that?

I'd say Ignore the bad advice posited by the game and don't cheat on dice rolls. I see it as a band aid solution to a more systemic problem.

Instead use rule 0 (aka the most important rule) and have a discussion with players about the type of game you want to play as a group and then modify the rules of Pathfinder such that the outcomes that the GM is avoiding via cheating/fudging cannot happen and or will happen less frequently.

Don't want players to die meaningless / unheroic deaths? Straight up make that impossible.

Want bosses to last longer and feel more epic? Instantiate special rules for "boss fights", like HP/damage gating, debuff mitigation or whatever.

Want someone to succeed on a well thought out plan roll? Give them a massive circumstance bonus to the check so failure cannot happen. Or simply don't make them roll. (Although this isn't really a houserule)


JAMRenaissance wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
I have been told it is cheating when you try to outsmart the adventure because it forces the GM to adapt on the fly and that is player vs GM.

I think that is a comparatively new experience, rising from games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc.. The GM is a human game engine in this philosophy.

It's REALLY different from anything I'm used to, but I can't knock it if someone else wants to play that way.

Have you watched speedruns? Those guys make outsmarting game engines an art form.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
PK the Dragon wrote:
To a degree, the GM is similar to a magician. Their trade is to make the unreal seem real, and make players believe in that. No magician worth his trade is going to say at the beginning "oh by the way these are all tricks i'm technically lying to you", because that ruins the entire effect.

To name a few: The Amazing Randi, Penn and Teller, Criss Angel, Harry Houdini... These are magicians who would beg the audience to understand it was all illusion, and who would go out of their way (and still do) to debunk claims of psi/magic powers. They're also some of the greatest magicians of all time.

Any amateur can claim it's all real to try and pull of a stunt. It takes a master to announce point-blank that it isn't real, and still amaze the audience.

ok... so i'm clearly out of my league here... given that i only recognize one of those names >.>

look i was just trying to use a bombastic metaphor give me a break :<

my point still stands, no magician i've ever seen in fictional shows like arrested development ever announces that it's a trick ahead of time! :<

*furiously scrambles to recover*

(That said, since you mentioned Amateur vs Master, I should note that I'm actually much more concerned about the "Amateur" GM. I feel like this board is rather harsh on GMs- I feel like a vast majority of GMs I've experienced would be considered "bad GMs" by the way this board sometimes speaks. Just because a master GM wouldn't need to engage in illusionism doesn't mean it isn't a useful technique for amateur GMs, and amateur GMs engaging in that technique doesn't make them bad at GMing, at worst it just means they're less experienced and trying to make it work.

I mean, I'm not even specifically talking to you here. I've just noticed in general there's a lot of talk of "bad GMs" and since you mentioned Amateur and Masters, I just wanted to bring up that Amateur GMing shouldn't be considered Bad GMing. IMO, at least.)


Brain in a Jar wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?

You could certainly argue that "the GM is allowed to increase or decrease a numerical value rolled by or on the stat sheet of an NPC by 2-4 points whenever they want to" is a thing that can be covered by "Rule 0" which is a foundational rule of TTRPGs.

That it's covered by rule 0 doesn't mean doing it is a good idea, there are lots of things a GM could do with their rule 0 powers that wouldn't be fun, like "A magical curse has made everyone's arms fall off, including the PC's". A GM is wholly within their right to invent such a curse, but there's a good chance that doing so wouldn't make the game any more fun, so they probably shouldn't.

Could someone link or tell me where to find this Rule 0 in Pathfinder. I could only find the "Most Important Rule' bit.

back on the Pedantry Train:
So wait we all "know" cheating and fudging are the exact same, but your gonna argue semantics over "The most important rule" not being the same as "Rule Zero"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JAMRenaissance wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
I have been told it is cheating when you try to outsmart the adventure because it forces the GM to adapt on the fly and that is player vs GM.

I think that is a comparatively new experience, rising from games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc.. The GM is a human game engine in this philosophy.

It's REALLY different from anything I'm used to, but I can't knock it if someone else wants to play that way.

No it's not, go look at some of the old writings on how games went back in early TTRPGs. It was in alot of ways players Vs. GMs and was about being smarter than what was thrown at you. Please can people stop blaming MMO's for everything everyone doesn't like in RPGs?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
To name a few: The Amazing Randi, Penn and Teller, Criss Angel, Harry Houdini... These are magicians who would beg the audience to understand it was all illusion, and who would go out of their way (and still do) to debunk claims of psi/magic powers. They're also some of the greatest magicians of all time.

A key difference though, Penn and Teller are up front that they have no actual magical powers, but aren't generally going to stop in the middle of a performance to assure people that this isn't real. I mean, an important part of performing stage magic is lying after all. So every time they perform a trick, they are acting as though it is real even though it is not.

When they're done performing, and they're say writing a book or shooting a documentary series, they're happy to talk about the tricks of the trade, but they're not generally going to sit you down and explain the trick after it's done, because frankly that's not as entertaining as the rest of the show people paid to see.

Talonhawke wrote:
No it's not, go look at some of the old writings on how games went back in early TTRPGs. It was in alot of ways players Vs. GMs and was about being smarter than what was thrown at you. Please can people stop blaming MMO's for everything everyone doesn't like in RPGs?

Famously, one solution to incredibly dangerous corridor in the "Tomb of Horrors" (a GM vs. PC module if there was one) was to just drive a herd of cattle down it so you know where all the pits are.

I think though, that Gygax let that happen, as should any GM confronted with an out of the box solution that is, in their estimation, a solution.


PK the Dragon wrote:
I just wanted to bring up that Amateur GMing shouldn't be considered Bad GMing.

As long as that amateur DM is learning from mistakes, and aspiring to mastery. The goal should be not to need to fudge: to eventually get good enough at encounter design, anticipation, and foreshadowing that you don't have to pull stuff like changing opponents' AC in the middle of a fight. Because the less time and attention you spend making up for that stuff, the more you can spend on making the scenarios and NPCs really come alive.


Talonhawke wrote:
JAMRenaissance wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
I have been told it is cheating when you try to outsmart the adventure because it forces the GM to adapt on the fly and that is player vs GM.

I think that is a comparatively new experience, rising from games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc.. The GM is a human game engine in this philosophy.

It's REALLY different from anything I'm used to, but I can't knock it if someone else wants to play that way.

No it's not, go look at some of the old writings on how games went back in early TTRPGs. It was in alot of ways players Vs. GMs and was about being smarter than what was thrown at you. Please can people stop blaming MMO's for everything everyone doesn't like in RPGs?

Yes. Please.

I'd say it's far less now than it was in the early days of RPGs, when it was still evolving out of wargaming. You know, the days when players weren't supposed to read the rules because we hadn't even come up with the idea that you could just not act on knowing that X monster was vulnerable to Y attack, if your character wouldn't know it.

You were expected to learn from how your GM killed you and use that knowledge to keep the next character alive. He was supposed to come up with newer and cleverer ways to kill you.

And railroads go back as far as complaints in early Dragon magazine at least, even if the sandbox is now supposed to be the quintessential old school style.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
PK the Dragon wrote:
I just wanted to bring up that Amateur GMing shouldn't be considered Bad GMing.
As long as that amateur DM is learning from mistakes, and aspiring to mastery. The goal should be not to need to fudge: to eventually get good enough at encounter design, anticipation, and foreshadowing that you don't have to pull stuff like changing opponents' AC in the middle of a fight. Because the less time and attention you spend making up for that stuff, the more you can spend on making the scenarios and NPCs really come alive.

How much effort to spend on this part of the skill set also depends on how focused your group is on the tactical challenge aspect of the game.


thejeff wrote:
How much effort to spend on this part of the skill set also depends on how focused your group is on the tactical challenge aspect of the game.

Yyyuuup. With the group of players I've got now, my time is much better spent thinking about politics, economics, metaphysics, and psychology than tactics, which is honestly something I prefer doing.

The encounter design principle I mostly go with is "what makes sense to be there" combined with "the PCs are supposed to win". Knowing that my group would rather talk to the Manticore than fight it (as would I when I'm playing, after all how are we to know what Manticores are like if we don't talk to them?), though, I have to think of alternative solutions since they'll certainly be looking for them.


thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


And railroads go back as far as complaints in early Dragon magazine at least, even if the sandbox is now supposed to be the quintessential old school style.

Yeah, old school style was a series of increasingly difficult dungeons til you died in tomb of horrors or queen of the demonweb pits. Literal railroading as often game sessions began in media res at the next village outside a dungeon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I fudged the hell out of my group in order to get them through the Tomb of Horrors back in the day. That thing was full of instant death traps that I either had to scare people off of via descriptions (do not stick your head into the void), or decided to give saving throws to things which did not have any in the module itself (the poison on the spikes just killed you.)

I mean, I paid money for that thing. The production values weren't that high, so I wasn't getting any value from the book if the PCs all died in the first room or weren't able to find the real entrance anyway (why was that even a thing?). I wanted to make sure they saw the end.

Shortly after that I decided to stop using canned adventures since fixing them was probably more work (and definitely more frustration) for me than just coming up with something on my own.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think though, that Gygax let that happen, as should any GM confronted with an out of the box solution that is, in their estimation, a solution.

I remember that interview.

Someone had used summon animal and summoned 1d4+1 mundane animals and sent them through a trap laden corridor to trip all of the traps. Gygax had never expected someone to try that, but he saw no reason why it wouldn't work, and it amused him so he said he let it fly.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I fudged the hell out of my group in order to get them through the Tomb of Horrors back in the day. That thing was full of instant death traps that I either had to scare people off of via descriptions (do not stick your head into the void), or decided to give saving throws to things which did not have any in the module itself (the poison on the spikes just killed you.)

I mean, I paid money for that thing. The production values weren't that high, so I wasn't getting any value from the book if the PCs all died in the first room or weren't able to find the real entrance anyway (why was that even a thing?). I wanted to make sure they saw the end.

Shortly after that I decided to stop using canned adventures since fixing them was probably more work (and definitely more frustration) for me than just coming up with something on my own.

"I step into the room and look around!"

"Roll Save vs Death!"

"Ak! 13!"

"You play the light across the room just in time to see the spike coming directly toward your eye. Your last thought as the rusted metal pierces your brain is that you would never escape the tomb!

...

Roll up a new character."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shouldn't have stepped into the room without prodding ahead. That used to be basic dungeoneering 101.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shouldn't have stepped into the room without prodding ahead. That used to be basic dungeoneering 101.

Actually, that particular one you couldn't detect by prodding. It was pressure sensitive and would only trigger if a character (with equipment) was over 240 lbs. That is why you don't step into a room in Tomb of Horrors without a rogue leading the way and checking for traps every 5 feet.

Shadow Lodge

Or summon a 300lb gorilla.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I fudged the hell out of my group in order to get them through the Tomb of Horrors back in the day. That thing was full of instant death traps that I either had to scare people off of via descriptions (do not stick your head into the void), or decided to give saving throws to things which did not have any in the module itself (the poison on the spikes just killed you.)

I mean, I paid money for that thing. The production values weren't that high, so I wasn't getting any value from the book if the PCs all died in the first room or weren't able to find the real entrance anyway (why was that even a thing?). I wanted to make sure they saw the end.

Shortly after that I decided to stop using canned adventures since fixing them was probably more work (and definitely more frustration) for me than just coming up with something on my own.

ok im going to ask the obvious question here

why would you run a party that you DIDN'T want to die horrible deaths through THE tomb of horrors?


I wonder how many of the traps in Tomb of Horrors could be beaten with nothing but a supply of anvils dropped from extradimensional spaces.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shouldn't have stepped into the room without prodding ahead. That used to be basic dungeoneering 101.

I feel like "do not open the door by standing in front of it, open the door with a claw affixed to the end of a 20 pole standing off to the side so that the flying spikes won't instantly kill you" is sufficiently counter-intuitive that the hobby is more accessible now that we don't do that anymore.

Like someone who does not live and breathe D&D, upon coming to a door, will probably think to open it (death from spikes) or maybe peer through/listen to the keyhole (death from rot grubs). We're probably better off without instant death from things that seem ordinary and sensible.

PK the Dragon wrote:
why would you run a party that you DIDN'T want to die horrible deaths through THE tomb of horrors?

I was like 12 and this was before the internet and I didn't know anything about the reputation of this adventure before I bought it. There wasn't a sticker on the front like "do not subject your friends to this."

The Sideromancer wrote:
I wonder how many of the traps in Tomb of Horrors could be beaten with nothing but a supply of anvils dropped from extradimensional spaces.

There's a whole lot of of "You lose all your clothes and/or change sex" traps in there that spoke to a particular fixation that thankfully the game has largely grown out of. Anvils would be spectacularly ineffective against those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

yeah that is rather irresponsible of them not to have that sticker XD


Bluenose wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
NoTongue wrote:


It's when you start altering enemy DC, Saves, making up roles where it becomes an issue. If you are going to fudge encounters then you have removed control from the players. If they know you are fudging and die then they will rightfully wonder if they died because you fudged or choose not to fudge.
I don't see fudging as necessarily removing control from the players. In fact, it can increase the control players have over the encounter by reducing the amount of control exerted by the dice, which the players do not control.
I don't see how the GM deciding to alter the results of the dice increases the players' control of what happens in any way.

Dice don't care about the plans carefully laid by the players or runs of bad luck. The GM can do so.


HWalsh wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shouldn't have stepped into the room without prodding ahead. That used to be basic dungeoneering 101.
Actually, that particular one you couldn't detect by prodding. It was pressure sensitive and would only trigger if a character (with equipment) was over 240 lbs. That is why you don't step into a room in Tomb of Horrors without a rogue leading the way and checking for traps every 5 feet.

Back in 1E the thief's only likely to find that kind of trap the same way as everyone else. Find Remove/traps only applied to "relatively small mechanical devices such as poisoned needles, spring blades and the like". Pressure plates would need to be found the old fashioned way - describing every step of how you checked every square foot before you moved.

Admittedly most probably missed or ignored that rule. :)


Firewarrior44 wrote:
Anguish wrote:


By definition that elevates the impact of fudging. It's not "a roll here or there", it's "some important rolls". That's serious.
Now a question. Can the "fudged" "roll" still be considered important as it has now effectively not happened?

Exactly. The crit never happened, the effect that might've one-shotted someone never happened.

Sometimes it's the bad guy wasting their time, sometimes it's a PC.

*To be honest, I too have fudged occasionally as a DM. One of the groups I DM for is very casual, and play every two weeks - at best. It's easy to forget how abilities work, or what a character can do, so I recognize that the players won't be at their best after a break. So if a session starts off steamrolling them, I might dial things back, as if applying a template. But that's just taking into account out-of-game issues impacting the effective CR of their party.


Talonhawke wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?

You could certainly argue that "the GM is allowed to increase or decrease a numerical value rolled by or on the stat sheet of an NPC by 2-4 points whenever they want to" is a thing that can be covered by "Rule 0" which is a foundational rule of TTRPGs.

That it's covered by rule 0 doesn't mean doing it is a good idea, there are lots of things a GM could do with their rule 0 powers that wouldn't be fun, like "A magical curse has made everyone's arms fall off, including the PC's". A GM is wholly within their right to invent such a curse, but there's a good chance that doing so wouldn't make the game any more fun, so they probably shouldn't.

Could someone link or tell me where to find this Rule 0 in Pathfinder. I could only find the "Most Important Rule' bit.
** spoiler omitted **

Nope.

It was an honest question. I wanted to make sure i was talking about the same thing since that's all i could find.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "do not open the door by standing in front of it, open the door with a claw affixed to the end of a 20 pole standing off to the side so that the flying spikes won't instantly kill you" is sufficiently counter-intuitive that the hobby is more accessible now that we don't do that anymore.

You missed the whole point of the module. Gygax went on for like pages on how this thing was meant specifically for players who thought they'd mastered the whole "trap-filled dungeon" thing, and wanted a tougher challenge. It wasn't meant for newcomers to the hobby. If you softball it, you defeat the entire purpose of the module.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
There wasn't a sticker on the front like "do not subject your friends to this."

No, but that's exactly what the preface did.


At the same time, once I bought it, it was one of: "not use it", "lose friends", or "fix it until it's fun." I chose the latter and I don't regret it in the slightest.

The Tomb of Horrors is an artifact of a bad old time in this hobby and I'm glad it's behind us.

Honestly though, when you were 12 and you were flipping through books at the store to see what's cool, how much time did you spend reading *prefaces*?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Honestly though, when you were 12 and you were flipping through books at the store to see what's cool, how much time did you spend reading *prefaces*?

Enough that I knew what the module was for as soon as I got it home.

351 to 400 of 725 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Discussion on the Topic of GMs "Cheating" All Messageboards