So why is it impossible for a player to fudge rolls for the good of the game?
If a DM is expected to fudge rolls for the good of the game, is it really cheating when they do it?
I talk in absolutes, but only because I draw the beginning of the gray area in a different place.
Cheating is always bad.
Fudging rolls is not always cheating.Cheating is when you break the social contract of what defines "fair" play for your particular group.
I it completely possible for a player to do that however it violates the social contract of just about every gaming group I have played with.
Cheating is violating the social contract. Whether it is fudging die rolls you are not supposed to or giving the DM free food in return for in game favors.
If those things are not against your group's social contract, then it isn't cheating.
The social contract of the game, AFAIK, is that everyone is there to have fun, and nobody's fun is more important than anyone elses. Thus, if everyone is having fun, it doesn't matter WHAT rules are and are not being followed.
I personally don't have fun at a game when the rules are being broken.
I never said it wasn't. It does however violate the social contract of just about every gaming group I have played with.So why is it impossible for a player to fudge rolls for the good of the game?
If a DM is expected to fudge rolls for the good of the game, is it really cheating when they do it?
I talk in absolutes, but only because I draw the beginning of the gray area in a different place.
Cheating is always bad.
Fudging rolls is not always cheating.Cheating is when you break the social contract of what defines "fair" play for your particular group.
I would agree it violates most social contracts, but my point is that many here have said things along the lines of 'players who fudge rolls are always selfish cheaters and are untrustworthy bad people'. I believe this to be a load of crap, particulary when the same people come out with 'but the dm can fudge rolls to maintain the fun at the table.
This implies that Players are incapable of good judgement as well as selflessness or consideration for others, and that DMs are likewise incapable of hubris, bad judgement and selfishness. That to me given that both parties, players and dms are human, is complete nonsense.
But why can only the dm answer this?
The vast majority of games, I'd wager, are played by the standard paradigm of game play... where the "GM" is the "M" of the game. Not simply out of ego or maniacal control issues, but to retain orderly flow, arbitration, and detached presentation of a story. It's generally the detachment that makes a good GM, IMO, but players aren't charged with this responsibility in standard gaming.
Those games which don't follow the standard paradigm certainly can allow for others to guide the story... but that's not the OP's situation and, I believe, not in the RAW Pathfinder system either.
But there are also clear and present situations that can be deduced by the situation at hand, and knowledge of your friends (the other players and the dm) and one can realize these are bad situations and take an action that increases the fun of other people at the table that is outside the rules of the game.
As much as you might be concerned that the lone GM's pretentious view of what is good for the group, now we've got 6 potentially pretentious views of what's good for everyone, as an example.
For me, *THE* best situation I've ever encountered as a player in a game was when my character was slaughtered by another player's character because he thought my character was possessed. The other player RP'ed his character to the T... the ref kept the people seperated in order to attain "pure" motives from the characters and the players playing them. I welcomed a horrible death with open arms. I'd never trade that moment away for anything.
When practiced by the game's ref, this is called GMing. When practiced by players it's called metagaming.... and if my friend decided to not waste my character because his character was misled in the game, I would have been denied this wonderful and memorable roleplaying moment.
In the past few years, nearly all of my D&D gaming has happened over VOIP using online mapping clients. Because we don't also use online dice, there's absolutely no way to check for honesty. We assume that everyone's playing fairly; we have to.
I would be horrified to learn that someone at our table has been cheating. It would be a serious breach of trust.
SO who are the two most unethical philosophers in modern times?
Point. I should have said ETHICS philosophers.
And IMO the answer is Adolph Hitler and Thomas Malthus. Nazism and Social Darwinism were certainly unethical philosophies.
Godwin's Law!
I was just about to comment about how it's amazing how the thread got so long without anyone even mentioning Hitler or the Nazis. But there it is. And, BTW, I'm not making fun of you or your perfectly valid post, Mirror, Mirror, so I hope you don't take it that way.
I never said it wasn't. It does however violate the social contract of just about every gaming group I have played with.So why is it impossible for a player to fudge rolls for the good of the game?
If a DM is expected to fudge rolls for the good of the game, is it really cheating when they do it?
I talk in absolutes, but only because I draw the beginning of the gray area in a different place.
Cheating is always bad.
Fudging rolls is not always cheating.Cheating is when you break the social contract of what defines "fair" play for your particular group.
I would agree it violates most social contracts, but my point is that many here have said things along the lines of 'players who fudge rolls are always selfish cheaters and are untrustworthy bad people'. I believe this to be a load of crap, particulary when the same people come out with 'but the dm can fudge rolls to maintain the fun at the table.
This implies that Players are incapable of good judgement as well as selflessness or consideration for others, and that DMs are likewise incapable of hubris, bad judgement and selfishness. That to me given that both parties, players and dms are human, is complete nonsense.
and my point is that fudging rolls isn't always cheating.
We are throwing around words with the assumption that they all mean the same thing to everybody.
Cheating - IMO a player doing anything that violates the social contract of his gaming group. Based on this definition, I would say that cheating is always a bad thing because it is a violation of trust.
Fudging rolls may or may not be considered cheating. In most groups, a player fudging rolls is considered cheating no matter what the reason is. In most groups, a DM fudging rolls for a selfless reason is not considered cheating. In most groups, a DM fudging rolls for selfish reasons(kill off an annoying character) is considered cheating.
By that same token a DM who puts a level 1 party in an inescapable and violent encounter with a CR 10 monster is also cheating. They may be within the letter of the rules, but they have broken the social contract.
|
StuffIt doesn't matter, none of that does. It's a simple matter of benefit versus cost.Hey, I argued the same thing a few posts back. Only I took it from the damage done to the gaming group done by cheating vs the damage done to the group by calling out the cheater. I actually made no judgement at all on the moral implications of cheating.
Cost/benefit is one way to look at the act of cheating itself. Cost/benefit is also a way to look at what to do about the suspected cheater, which incidentially, IS the point of the thread :P
I guess the question is where does the problem originate, with cheating or calling someone on it?
You are right though, that is exactly why most people look away when they see someone cheat. Unless I suspect someone does it habitually I would probably ignore a single cheat... but then I don't trust that guy quite as much anymore and I'm more likely to question him in the future. So some damage is done even if I don't call him on it.
Seeing as most people frown on cheating I think it's safe to say that getting caught cheating damages your reputation with your peers even if they don't call you on it.
I can't cheat. I roll in front of my players. They roll in front of me.
If something goes really wrong, we might agree to ignore the rules which almost never happens, because it's pretty easy to find that extra point. Plus my players will let a character die when their time is up, no tantrums, nothing.
I guess it's important to realize that it's only cheating if it's being lied about, explicitly or implicitly. The way I game, that's just not even possible.
But why can only the dm answer this?The vast majority of games, I'd wager, are played by the standard paradigm of game play... where the "GM" is the "M" of the game. Not simply out of ego or maniacal control issues, but to retain orderly flow, arbitration, and detached presentation of a story. It's generally the detachment that makes a good GM, IMO, but players aren't charged with this responsibility in standard gaming.
Seconded, and it brings up a point I've been thinking about since I got back into D&D with 3.5e a year or so ago. Having grown up with D&D, AD&D 1st and then 2nd ed., it's interesting and a little saddening to see how the role of the DM has been (IMO) subjugated to little "more" than that of a player. Perhaps it's due to the prevalence of prewritten APs and adventures, or perhaps some other factor.
Personally, as a DM if I'm going to spend my time out of session thinking of, writing and preparing adventures for my players--for the sole purpose of entertaining my friends and having fun--I would hope that my players would, AS A BARE MINIMUM, have enough respect for my effort that they wouldn't lie about dice rolls. When did the game become so adversarial that a player would presume to second-guess their DM's ability to officiate? I mean, call me on the rules if I screw up or forget something, but lying about dice rolls?!
I should state that these are just my own beliefs and not meant to criticize anyone else's point of view.
Zo
But why can only the dm answer this? Why is his judgement greater then his fellow players in all situations? Is it the case that at your table the dm is always the wisest, most calm collected and has the best judgement? We are all human beings, some more or less capable then others, some equally so. Why is it that there is a grand divide that prevents the player from recognizing an act that might benefit the group as a whole and undertaking it?
Bolded to show you answered your own question. It's not a case of who's more collected, calm, mature, whatever. It's gaming basics. Maybe "Dungeon Master" is an inappropriate title. "Referee" might work better.
Now, according to your perspective, what if, (let's use baseball this time), a team is down 2 runs in the last inning. Bases are loaded. The Batter strikes out... But decides to go ahead and run, and have his teammates run because it'll benefit them more. Is THAT fair? Would an Umpire or Ref allow that? Because that's what I'm seeing whenever I hear about the player's "fudging rolls for the better of the game..." Better for whom exactly? It's not for the player's to decide. Their decisions lie with their actions in-game.
The DM is not simply another Player. Otherwise he/she'd be called a "Player", and not a "DM". The DM is responsible for arbitrating the surrounding environment, the animals, the plants, the townsfolk, the monsters, the bad guys, the good guys, the treasure, the weather, the air the characters breathe, and what are the player's responsible for? Themselves. It's up to the DM to provide a fun setting for the player's to play in, but it is absolutely not up to the player's to change die rolls just because they think it'll be better that way.
I still say it's a group experience, the DM and player's have to work together and create the story, but each side has it's own responsibilities. It's like the DM provides the car, the player's are there to drive it. With no one to drive, the car just sits there unused and idle. With no car, the players aren't going anywhere soon, without walking themselves.
But why can only the dm answer this? Why is his judgement greater then his fellow players in all situations? Is it the case that at your table the dm is always the wisest, most calm collected and has the best judgement? We are all human beings, some more or less capable then others, some equally so. Why is it that there is a grand divide that prevents the player from recognizing an act that might benefit the group as a whole and undertaking it?
Bolded to show you answered your own question. It's not a case of who's more collected, calm, mature, whatever. It's gaming basics. Maybe "Dungeon Master" is an inappropriate title. "Referee" might work better.
Now, according to your perspective, what if, (let's use baseball this time), a team is down 2 runs in the last inning. Bases are loaded. The Batter strikes out... But decides to go ahead and run, and have his teammates run because it'll benefit them more. Is THAT fair? Would an Umpire or Ref allow that? Because that's what I'm seeing whenever I hear about the player's "fudging rolls for the better of the game..." Better for whom exactly? It's not for the player's to decide. Their decisions lie with their actions in-game.
The DM is not simply another Player. Otherwise he/she'd be called a "Player", and not a "DM". The DM is responsible for arbitrating the surrounding environment, the animals, the plants, the townsfolk, the monsters, the bad guys, the good guys, the treasure, the weather, the air the characters breathe, and what are the player's responsible for? Themselves. It's up to the DM to provide a fun setting for the player's to play in, but it is absolutely not up to the player's to change die rolls just because they think it'll be better that way.
I agree with that in the overwhelming majority of cases. It is normally the DM's responsibility to be arbiter, referee, and story teller. But i think there are cases where the DM's hands can be tied, because all eyes are on him. In which case it is possible for the player to make the judgement call.
In 3 of the cases I stated where I fudged against myself or for the party (as well as myself) the dm was not really able to do anything about it.
If I had not hid the fact that i confirmed the second critical[we had a house rule that 2 nat 20's and a confirmation is an instant kill], the big bad guy that we had spent months leading up to would have just been dead, the dm couldnt have stopped it without a handwave that is heavily frowned on and has caused lots of conflict in my group. Instead it turned into a really fun fight that we all enjoyed. The dm was not ABLE to do anything about it in that situation.
The second when my character was significantly outperforming everyone else (we are a group of optimizers, but sometimes builds go wrong, particularly with new material), the dm tried to move the focus away from me, but short of just not doing anything i couldnt back off. And without question my party members would have become annoyed if I did nothing, or something foolish, so, i pretended to miss more often, and people had more fun then they had in the previous couple encounters that session.
The third was a situation where clearly the dm either miscalculated or was following the module without thinking about it. He put us in a situation where the Enemy HAD to kill us, it was our destiny and goal to see her dead, she knew this specifically because she told us so before the fight began (she was a mystic/fortune teller kind of deal). We were overstretched (this fight was the 6th of the day and the second in a succession of above level fights), and at the tail end of a CR 9 fight with a level 7 party a friggan cloud giant surprises us protecting the ogremage seer. We had no opportunity to run (because of terrain, and persuing allies of the ogre mage), and 2 of 4 party members were unconcious including the mage and the tank. We all saw it in the look on the DM's face after he finished the boxed text of the cloud giant crashing into the battle, we were dead, he was sorry but couldnt do a damned thing about it at this point. It was done, and so were we. If i didnt get a string of 'lucky' rolls, the campaign was literally over. This was the second time this particular adventure was going to end in a tpk, and we would certainly not tried it a 3rd time.
Now mind you, these are 3 examples in more then a decade of gaming. I dont do this on anything resembling a regular basis, and I wouldnt want to. But I believe there are extreme cases where it is appropriate because the dm's hands are tied.
|
So, your group really dislikes fudging and handwaving, and prefers to follow the rules and the dice...so it was your duty to fudge to save the group from their own social contract?
It seems to me that in those examples you gave, the only difference between you fudging and the GM fudging is that it presumably would have been noticeable if the GM did it. In those cases, your GM's hands were tied by your group's consensus on "no fudging the dice."
Why is it okay for you to do and not for the GM?
If the players knew you had cheated to save them fom the cloud giant, would they have been more or less upset than if the GM had fudged the dice to save them?
So, your group really dislikes fudging and handwaving, and prefers to follow the rules and the dice...so it was your duty to fudge to save the group from their own social contract?
It seems to me that in those examples you gave, the only difference between you fudging and the GM fudging is that it presumably would have been noticeable if the GM did it. In those cases, your GM's hands were tied by your group's consensus on "no fudging the dice."
Why is it okay for you to do and not for the GM?
If the players knew you had cheated to save them fom the cloud giant, would they have been more or less upset than if the GM had fudged the dice to save them?
I said we dislike handwaving, not fudging. And yes, noticability is the problem. It is the blatentness of the handwave that gets us up in arms. Dice ignored altered behind the screen and we go on blissfully unaware and enjoy the game. Its when we get the videogame style cutscene hand waves where someone does something impossible, or legit actions are just plain stopped without reason that the fun gets driven out for us.
And again, it wasnt that we have a problem with the dm fudging dice, it was that there was no way in that case for the dm to fudge the dice to fix the problem, or in the third case, it would have had to be REALLY obvious, we had already discovered the cloud giant hit the 2 remaining party members on a roll of a 2.
I would like to again point out that the point of my post was not to antagonize Mirror, Mirror... but to point out that it may not be the common knowledge to the layman gamer (and we are many) that he thought it might be. If my post came off as brusque or confrontational, that really wasn't my intent and I apologize.
No apology is necessary, as your post was not confrontational at all. I did make an assumption, and in the process, made an ass out of U and Umption ^__^
I was just responding to the implied slight from Anguish.
Implied slight slight. Which is to say not a very strong one. <Grin> Or was it inferred? Hrrrm.
But seriously, no, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I personally don't buy the assertion that you seriously expected that your post's content was common knowledge, but that's just me being skeptical. If you had posted something about whoever won American Idol last year, or who Brittany Spears is sleeping with this week I'd accept the expectation it was common knowledge. But philosophers - no matter how iconic or famous within that field - is pretty much relegated to the well-read. As in... the uncommon.
Again, just my take and entirely off-topic. My REAL goal was self-deprecation with the "I'd explain but then I'd be doing the same". It was funny. See recursion.
|
|
I said we dislike handwaving, not fudging. And yes, noticability is the problem. It is the blatentness of the handwave that gets us up in arms. Dice ignored altered behind the screen and we go on blissfully unaware and enjoy the game. Its when we get the videogame style cutscene hand waves where someone does something impossible, or legit actions are just plain stopped without reason that the fun gets driven out for us.And again, it wasnt that we have a problem with the dm fudging dice, it was that there was no way in that case for the dm to fudge the dice to fix the problem, or in the third case, it would have had to be REALLY obvious, we had already discovered the cloud giant hit the 2 remaining party members on a roll of a 2.
Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying a bit. I still disagree with you, but at least now I fully comprehend the specific example you cited.
I never would have thought that this would touch off such a response.
After thinking about this specifically for several days, (and cheating at D&D in general for years!) I realize how lucky I am. The group I game with are all experienced players, each having played on and off since the 1980's. No one in the group works/lives/sleeps with any other member, and while not always the best at handling getting our characters (or favorite villain) killed, we move on pretty quick. We can do all rolling in the open, and there are no hard feelings when luck goes badly. In fact, often the luck is so freaky, I would never believe it if it wasn't out in the open!
Another aspect of all being experienced gamers is that we really want to refine our gaming fu, and understand the nuances of the game. Myself and the other GM even have the goal (or dream) of writing our own material, and all playing is playtesting for us. If something is over/under powered, we want to know, even if it might cause an encounter or two to go in an unplanned way.
My personal experiences with cheating (whether through dice, limitless resources, or just not following the rules) has been profoundly bad. Victories become hollow, non-cheaters feel like side-kicks no matter what the GM does to compensate, and game balance becomes a joke.
With that said, I would say that there are times when subtle "cheating" can benefit the game experience. After all, the point of the game is fun, and if your dog died that day in real life, it would probably be better if I don't kill your rangers wolf in the game. Also, if I were playing with new players, girlfriends, wives, kids, etc. I would probably fudge the rules (and maybe dice) more then I would with the group I have.
|
Mmm... how about this?
Player fudging rolls is cheating, for whatever reason.
Because the DM is the one with the responsibility of adjudication the game and making modifications to the rules in order to facilitate the enjoyment of the game.
The problem with a player fudging the rolls is that, no matter the intention behind it, it is an area that is clearly unacceptable within the rules, while the dm fudging rolls is completely within the rules, and I believe even covered in the Core Rulebook. Yup. Page 402.
The dm is allowed within the rules to fudge the rolls, the players are not. Thus, the player is cheating when he does so, the dm is not.
Kolokotroni, I don't think the DM's hands are ever *tied* to the point of being unable to respond. I can think of several in-game ways that your instant-kill could have been avoided.
Some examples:
Giant has armor of fortitude.
Giant has contingency spell, and vanishes just as you connect.
Giant collapses as you hit, and reveals that he is actually a construct/minion. Real giant strolls out from the darkness, laughing menacingly.
Giant collapses, head severed. Moments later, as everyone is cheering you on, a beam of darkness strikes the giant, and he stands up, picks up his head, reattaches it to his spine, and roars. You feel the presence of powerful evil watching over you. Blamo, even sets up the hook for the next BBEG.
Giant collapses, and minions race out and attack you while another minion revives him from the dead and buffs him.
Plenty of ways to handle that scenario.
Tied hands is only a limitation of DM creativity. If you have such strong doubts about your DM's ability to adapt that you have to hold yourself back in-game, there might be something there you need to address.
Same with your second example. Roleplayed excuses to retrain, or even switch classes entirely, exchanging levels. And, honestly, every character has weaknesses. It's not terribly difficult to find the big ones, and make those fights a little more common to balance the experience out for folks.
In your third example, it would be pretty easy to reinterpret the cloud giant's motivation. Drop an amulet of nondetection or some such on him to protect him from the seer's fortune telling. Have him suddenly turn on the seer for some past betrayal of some sort. I'd be more specific, but I don't know the specifics of that situation.
Alternatively, enter npc so-and-so from the first town, who flies in and takes on the storm giant, leaving the conscious members up to finish off the oracle.
Again, limitations are only on the part of creativity.
Kolokotroni, I don't think the DM's hands are ever *tied* to the point of being unable to respond. I can think of several in-game ways that your instant-kill could have been avoided.
Some examples:
Giant has armor of fortitude.
Giant has contingency spell, and vanishes just as you connect.
Giant collapses as you hit, and reveals that he is actually a construct/minion. Real giant strolls out from the darkness, laughing menacingly.
Giant collapses, head severed. Moments later, as everyone is cheering you on, a beam of darkness strikes the giant, and he stands up, picks up his head, reattaches it to his spine, and roars. You feel the presence of powerful evil watching over you. Blamo, even sets up the hook for the next BBEG.
Giant collapses, and minions race out and attack you while another minion revives him from the dead and buffs him.
Plenty of ways to handle that scenario.
You missed the part where I said non-sense DM fiats are not acceptable in my group. Contingency is a possibility but it would not have fixed that fight then and there. And there WERE minions, but the biggest part of the fight was the big bad. If he went down, the fight which was built up, and the dm had worked hard on would have lost alot of it's fun. Without the big bad there it wouldnt have been as challenging or as fun. Oh and in this case it wasnt a giant, it was a human, but that is entirely besides the point.
Tied hands is only a limitation of DM creativity. If you have such strong doubts about your DM's ability to adapt that you have to hold yourself back in-game, there might be something there you need to address.
Again, perceptions of dm handwaving are completely unacceptable in my group, and therefore it is VERY possible for the dm's hands to be tied.
Same with your second example. Roleplayed excuses to retrain, or even switch classes entirely, exchanging levels. And, honestly, every character has weaknesses. It's not terribly difficult to find the big ones, and make those fights a little more common to balance the experience out for folks.
This was all done, after the session, each of the combat players rebuilt their characters, we allow this for the first 3 or 4 sessions of every campaign. But it would have done nothing to make sure the players have fun in that session. We wouldnt stop in the middle of a session to rework characters. It was a short term stop gap for sure, but it increased the fun of several players at my table for a few hours. For that reason to me at least it was worth it.
In your third example, it would be pretty easy to reinterpret the cloud giant's motivation. Drop an amulet of nondetection or some such on him to protect him from the seer's fortune telling. Have him suddenly turn on the seer for some past betrayal of some sort. I'd be more specific, but I don't know the specifics of that situation.
Alternatively, enter npc so-and-so from the first town, who flies in and takes on the storm giant, leaving the conscious members up to finish off the oracle.
Again, limitations are only on the part of creativity.
And if the dm DOESNT do that? Lots of dms stick straight to a published adventure, this one does, and it was a published adventure. The cloud giant apparently saw the ogre mage as it's mother, perhaps she raised it, it wasnt going to make sense for him to turn on her. And she HAD to kill us, or we would be working to kill her. She herself forsaw us doing exactly that.
Also with the npc saving the day, see the above comments on deus ex machina, and blatent handwaving. That would have ended the campaign more surely then a tpk.