Cheating GMs... and how I hate them...


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. First of all, a GM cannot cheat. It's their game, their story. Your players are simply a part of that story and are contributing in that manner.

That doesn't mean your players have to do nothing to affect the story, but certain things are done for a reason. Reacting to the players means the players have full control of the story, and that's not how it goes. You have no clue how many times in the past 10 years I've been GMing other games that I've had to steer players in the right direction. Allow me to explain why:

Bad guy Vik is a behind the scenes kind of guy. He has everything he needs to become a great, evil god save for one object. This object will come to the Pc's attentions through information obtained by a specially gifted oracle. But wait, when the PCs are meant to save that oracle, a dick rogue kills the oracle and she dies. So the DM is supposed to let everyone continue the story up until the point where the enemy becomes a god and destroys the world because a player decided to be a dick?

Or should the DM compensate and give them a free hand out to know this is going to happen?

Most of the time, this game isn't a sandbox. It isn't run by the players. A player plays to get involved in a pre-made story and to influence it, but over-all most players know they are the most important characters in this story and that if they mess up, alot is at stake. They are given a reward, that reward is leveling up and gold and the power to influence the story in crucial moments, but they can't control everything and you have to learn to deal with it.

Now to answer your dumb question "When did this become story hour?" How about when the game was invented? Read a module. Does the module say: "If your players decide not to kill the stag lord and take control of the stolen lands, that's ok this isn't you telling the story." No. It says that if players don't do something, X happens. X is usually bad. The PCs have the power to influence world events, but they have to realize the DM is putting alot of time and effort into running this game. It's his/her game, and you're just playing in it. A DM cannot cheat.

Grand Lodge

John Kretzer wrote:
@Kain Darkwind:I said I have no problem with telling a GM mechanical stuff. All I did say if you have to ask how long a Haste spell last than you don't even know what level your players are? As the spell last 1 round per level. And if extended than I expect my players to say they casting a extended haste...which means it last 2 rounds per level. Sorry but actualy knowing the rules heads off alot of pointless questions by the GM. Maybe my players are just a little more descriptive in their actions....

What if you forget that your player multi or prestige classed and lost a caster level?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
@Kain Darkwind:I said I have no problem with telling a GM mechanical stuff. All I did say if you have to ask how long a Haste spell last than you don't even know what level your players are? As the spell last 1 round per level. And if extended than I expect my players to say they casting a extended haste...which means it last 2 rounds per level. Sorry but actualy knowing the rules heads off alot of pointless questions by the GM. Maybe my players are just a little more descriptive in their actions....
What if you forget that your player multi or prestige classed and lost a caster level?

I tend not to make that mistake....can't say it has never happened though. But than again I trust my players not to cheat. Even new players I treat with trust and respect until proven it is misplaced...like I do with a GM I have never played with before.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*stabs eyes out at the sight of 'it's the DMs story'*

Vistarius wrote:

So the DM is supposed to let everyone continue the story up until the point where the enemy becomes a god and destroys the world because a player decided to be a dick?

Or should the DM compensate and give them a free hand out to know this is going to happen?

Or he can not put all his eggs in one basket.

And remember that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Grand Lodge

John Kretzer wrote:
So now you are saying there is only one right way to play this game

You know, this WHOLE thread could be summed up with the following words: there is no wrong way to play the game...

Some say DM's can cheat, others say they can't...

Who's right?

Looks like that depends upon whom you ask...

All boils down to having fun! If no fun is being had, look for it elsewhere. To do that seems to be best for all parties involved...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vistarius wrote:
Wow. First of all, a GM cannot cheat. It's their game, their story. Your players are simply a part of that story and are contributing in that manner.

Where the heck is ViVi when I need her?

I guess I will have to do. In many groups it is not the GM's or players story alone. In some groups the GM lets the players decide how the story pans out so that is not a completely accurate statement.

Quote:


Bad guy Vik is a behind the scenes kind of guy. He has everything he needs to become a great, evil god save for one object. This object will come to the Pc's attentions through information obtained by a specially gifted oracle. But wait, when the PCs are meant to save that oracle, a dick rogue kills the oracle and she dies. So the DM is supposed to let everyone continue the story up until the point where the enemy becomes a god and destroys the world because a player decided to be a dick?

It depends on the group. Some let the dice fall where they may so to speak. Many GM's will come up with a 2nd way to get the info out. There is no should or should not. That implies only one way to do things. Every group is different.

A GM can cheat. The fact that anyone believes so kills the argument that they can't. I will argue that in certain groups they can't cheat depending on how the game is expected to run but to apply a universal standard that no GM anywhere can cheat is incorrect.

Did you follow the rule?
No.
You cheated.

Can a GM cheat in the player's favor? Yes.

This thread is talking about bad cheating though.

If the GM give his GF favors in game in exchange for out of game favors that is cheating.

Grand Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:


Some say DM's can cheat, others say they can't...

Who's right?

I am, of course! After all, as I said, if DMs can cheat according to one persons definition, then the statement 'DMs cannot cheat' is provably false in all ways.


Modules aren't mandatory, and my players have fun in both. You don't run the modules black and white if you don't want to, but if something important for the story is supposed to happen, it will happen.

It's the DM's world, and if they have a story to tell the characters will play their part. I've played in a game where we literally had no part in it. We couldn't do anything, we couldn't even die and stay dead if we wanted to. It was the most terrible thing in the world, and none of us liked the story. That is quite frankly a game I won't play in.

But a game where the DM entirely reacts to the PCs is fine too, if you have a dm who doesn't mind it. If the DM wants something to happen in the story, it's his right as the one running the game. If he wants to lay down a map of Golarion and say "point to where you want to go" fine. If he wants to point to Numeria and say "You're here." then he can. Players get disrespectful of the DM and don't realize how much time can go into the game.

A dm can fudge rolls for a player's favor or to make a challenge harder. That's the role of the DUNGEON MASTER. In earlier editions and other systems, they were called the Storyteller for a reason. Yes the entire story is co-operative, but the DM is the arbiter of that story. He dictates the results of the Pcs, he dictates how the game goes. If something I want to happen to an NPC is supposed to happen to give the characters motivation, then it will happen.

I've also played a game (3.5, pre-kingmaker) that was exactly like kingmaker at around 12th level. Save there was nothing but a giant sandbox. There was no motivation but what we brought, and we spent five sessions basically doing nothing because we couldn't find anything to do, and we tried. Putting it entirely into the player's hands is a bad idea.

It sounds to me like you have some control issues you need to address and learn that balance is the key here. The bottom line is: Not everyone will DM like you, even your friend who you're "teaching" to DM. He may prefer a different style. You are not right, and you are not wrong. If you want to play the "whaaah sympathy game" then go ahead and do it, but this game is about fun and enjoyment which means compromise. Get over it if the DM made you fail at something you wanted to succeed at.

I'd just be happy he wasn't like some of the DMs I've played with. If he wanted it to happen, he wouldn't have fudged the roll, he'd have sent someone much higher level to do it, and if I kept trying to stop it, he'd just have the guy attack me. Which is what happens to people who try to do things above their level. They die.


GM's showing favoritism usually isn't how people call a Gm a cheater.

It's usually when the player says "That's BS I hit him, I win!!" And the GM (for plot or whatever reason) has the badguy narrowly escape is when people call them cheaters.

I however am a fan of Mutant's and Mastermind's bribery system. The Villain needs to get away, everyone gets a hero point. I'm ok with rewarding players bonus xp or re-rolls or special powers if I have a plot I want to see played out. It's really hard to keep a good villain who plagues the pcs constantly alive. But it's really rewarding to see the final confrontation.


Vistarius wrote:


It's the DM's world, and if they have a story to tell the characters will play their part.

Once again only if the GM chooses to run it that way. It is not an absolute.

Quote:
But a game where the DM entirely reacts to the PCs is fine too, if you have a dm who doesn't mind it. If the DM wants something to happen in the story, it's his right as the one running the game. If he wants to lay down a map of Golarion and say "point to where you want to go" fine. If he wants to point to Numeria and say "You're here." then he can. Players get disrespectful of the DM and don't realize how much time can go into the game.

Then it seems we agree that it can be the GM's world and story, which is different from saying "it is".

Quote:
A dm can fudge rolls for a player's favor or to make a challenge harder. That's the role of the DUNGEON MASTER. In earlier editions and other systems, they were called the Storyteller for a reason. Yes the entire story is co-operative, but the DM is the arbiter of that story. He dictates the results of the Pcs, he dictates how the game goes. If something I want to happen to an NPC is supposed to happen to give the characters motivation, then it will happen.

I don't consider fudging dice as cheating unless the group has an agreement that no matter who GM's it can't be done.

Quote:

It sounds to me like you have some control issues you need to address and learn that balance is the key here. The bottom line is: Not everyone will DM like you, even your friend who you're "teaching" to DM. He may prefer a...

Could you quote posters who we know who you are referring to, and also the actual quote? This is not a command, just a request so the conversation is easier to follow.


Vistarius wrote:

GM's showing favoritism usually isn't how people call a Gm a cheater.

It's usually when the player says "That's BS I hit him, I win!!" And the GM (for plot or whatever reason) has the badguy narrowly escape is when people call them cheaters.

That may or may not be cheating. It really is a group and story issue. It is not true across the board. What is cheating for one group is not cheating for another group. They players should not know how many HP the bad guy has so it is hard to say "I should have killed him", barring corner cases.

Grand Lodge

Vistarius wrote:
It's really hard to keep a good villain who plagues the pcs constantly alive. But it's really rewarding to see the final confrontation.

Actually, it's easy to keep him alive. It's hard to do so believably.

Maybe the enemy has powerful backers who keep raising him from the dead. Do this too much, and players will wonder why he keeps getting raised despite failing every time, and the costs they incur in their efforts to keep him dead.

My personal favorite at the moment is a lich antipaladin. Play him like a death knight that just keeps coming back. Players might not even catch on to why he keeps coming back Terminator-style. :)


Obscure GM ''cheating'' is necessary, if you want a more fun game, not a chess match

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, not really. Some players have more fun letting the dice fall without any DM intervention.


Knoq Nixoy wrote:
Obscure GM ''cheating'' is necessary, if you want a more fun game, not a chess match

Not really. It all depends on the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of Kain's players here. Let me jump in and comment on a couple things here.

First, let me go ahead and strike any ideas you might have that Kain is a coddling DM. He throws challenges at us that are absolutely brutal. I've never felt as though my PC couldn't die (she did!), or as though we couldn't fail. Hell, we were even joking last week about the situation we were stuck in where we nearly got TPKed, where we were stuck in a narrow tunnel, with a pair of giant awakened apes with heavy class levels and 3 clerics that were level 11+ at one end beating at us, with a fighter at 30 some hit points when he dropped a blade barrier on the entire party.

We've got a pair of threads for PCs, one for those currently in play, a one for former (mostly dead) PCs. The later is littered with sheets.

Does that mean he never pulls punches, or that I think he's never (or he would never) fudge a roll? No. Mostly because I don't think his goal is to kill us off just because he can. I can think of one... maybe two circumstances where he might have fudged a roll to keep us from a TPK.

The only one that jumps out is when at 9th level we attacked (with two PCs) the giant demon temple of doom to save a captured NPC, fought our way to the very end of it, killed the temple's leader, and then got blindsided by a giant golem that got to act twice each round. With one PC bleeding out at -8, one of the NPCs that joined us a burning corpse in the pit of doom, the other NPC trapped in a resilient sphere with single digit hit points, and our fighter as the sole remaining active combatant also at single digit hit points I think he may have pulled a roll to avoid killing him for a round, to give him one last shot at the golem to avoid the TPK (thankfully, the dice worked with him on that occasion, as the fighter proceeded to roll, at least one, but I want to say two natural 20s when his turn came up). Keep in mind this was after a brutal dungeon where the dice were just giving us absolutely no love at all. We couldn't get a hit or a crit to save our lives all night, and I don't think a single spell the wizard cast beat enemy SR for the entire dungeon.

I don't think him doing so (if he did) was a bad thing, and it certainly hasn't let me to think he'll always do so in the future. I think when your PCs have done nothing wrong, when the dice just aren't loving them, and when they are long time PCs there is something to be said for giving them one last shot, not going in for the kill that one time, holding back just a bit. Keep in mind, this is one event I can recall in a campaign that has gone on for more than three years.

It didn't cheat us out of anything. Instead it gave us, or at least me an epic moment to remember, where against all odds, with the life of everyone at stake our fighter heroically saved the day at the very last minute. A moment where being heroes worked out, where we didn't do the smart thing and leave the one smelly annoying gnome no one liked to die, and where instead we played our characters as what they were, heroes, and didn't pay for it with the end of the campaign.

I also recall that he didn't pull any punches when the PCs were playing around with a deck of many things and drew 2 Void cards on 3 card draws, killing off the two longest lived PCs on a fluke of the dice.

John Kretzer wrote:
@Kain Darkwind:I said I have no problem with telling a GM mechanical stuff. All I did say if you have to ask how long a Haste spell last than you don't even know what level your players are? As the spell last 1 round per level. And if extended than I expect my players to say they casting a extended haste...which means it last 2 rounds per level. Sorry but actualy knowing the rules heads off alot of pointless questions by the GM. Maybe my players are just a little more descriptive in their actions....

You couldn't be further off base here. Kain has one of the best working knowledges of game mechanics I've ever seen. He's done as much design work, if not more design work, as anyone I know of.

I suspect his list of sample questions was mostly for the sake of rhetoric, but that aside, it is worth pointing out that his mechanical knowledge doesn't mean however that he is tracking how long all of our buffs have been active, especially across multiple combats that spill into each other and he is running 8-12 monsters.

Also keep in mind the format we play over.

John Kretzer wrote:
So you spend 80 hours on the game? What exactly to spend 80 hours doing?

Rebuilding every encounter in the STAP for our parties increased level and wealth.

Keeping exhaustive notes on each PC and the various plot lines that are going on with them individually, like that our bard picked up lycanthropy like six months ago (which just now came up in the game) or that a given character's liaison with a given NPC has produced a pregnancy.

Finding artwork for pretty much every NPC and monster we encounter.

Finding music to play for combats and other important events.

Running half a dozen play by post threads at a time for the game during the week for events we didn't want to play out in session time.

Running the occasional mini-session during the week for a player that has some personal objectives, like our fighter going out and hunting an emerald anaconda so he could get armor made out of it.

Responding to player feedback on the thread that now has close to 2500 posts between players and GM.

Putting together stats for various NPCs so that our interactions with them are not based purely off of DM fiat.

Fleshing out large areas of the game world the PCs haven't explored yet, and expanding on things they have explored.

Importing maps for the game into maptool, and building a token library so that when a given player says "I summon this" he can produce a token.

Rebuilding STAP organizations using the Pathfinder faction guides.

Customizing treasure for the party.

Kain only knows what else.

John Kretzer wrote:
And your players are spending 6 to 8 hours on the game. Also are including actual game time? Or away from the table?

We game for 5 hours a week on average, and most of us put at least an hour into feedback during the week with him. In addition, we usually chat for 2-4 hours after the session about various things relating to the game, and he is available throughout the week to talk beyond that. Finally, we do PBP during the week. All and all I'd say I near the high end of the spectrum for away from table involvement, but it wouldn't be all that even the people on the low end of away from table involvement are spending 3-5 hours on the game in a given week, not counting gaming time.

John Kretzer wrote:
Great do they actualy have a effect on the story? If not what are they spending their time on?

Little bit of both. I think we have absolutely influenced the flow of the story, and what has gone on in the game world. I've never felt like our actions didn't have consequences, be they good or ill. It doesn't matter if it was a conversation with an NPC or an attack on the demon temple. I've never felt like we couldn't fail, or like we couldn't succeed in a given task, though I've often felt the odds stacked against the party were too overwhelming.

At the same time, because he does create such an exhaustive world there are plenty of things we don't influence directly, because our PCs can only be in one place at a time. This is more of a feature than any kind of bug though.

Sovereign Court

Well, i don't like to leave everything to chance. Maybe 95% of the game, but that 5%? I'm gonna do what i think i should do to keep the story going...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It occurs to me that I should point out that all the nice things I said about him aside, I (and other players) frequently do clash with Kain.

Sometimes it is over how something played out mechanically, a rule interpretation we don't agree with. Other times it is over a direction the game has taken, or over something we didn't find plausible within the game world (usually because we don't have all the information on hand).

The thing is, there is a time and place for complaints and comments, and it isn't in the middle of the session. If the DM asks for your hit point total, you give it to him. Period. No questions asked. If you have a problem with him pulling punches for you then you also tell him, but you do so after the game is over for the night or in your weekly game feedback, not in the middle of the session where you are going to bog it down, and you sure as hell doing do it by being a weasel about a number he asked for.

As a player at the table, if I saw you refusing to give the DM a firm number for your hit points my first assumption would probably be that you weren't tracking them properly, and didn't have it on hand.


wraithstrike wrote:


A GM can cheat. The fact that anyone believes so kills the argument that they can't.

That doesn't even make sense. There's still people who believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Doesn't make it true.

Believing does not make things true.

wraithstrike wrote:


Did you follow the rule?
No.
You cheated.

The GM always follows the rules. Because what the GM says is, per definition, the rules. They can do crappy stuff, they can do dickish stuff, they can do all that, but they can't cheat.

wraithstrike wrote:


If the GM give his GF favors in game in exchange for out of game favors that is cheating.

Nah. It's a dick move, but it's not cheating. Because the rule just became that characters played by girlfriends or others providing favours (sexual or otherwise) are better than others.


Vistarius wrote:
Modules aren't mandatory, and my players have fun in both. You don't run the modules black and white if you don't want to, but if something important for the story is supposed to happen, it will happen.

Probably sure.

Vistarius wrote:
It's the DM's world, and if they have a story to tell the characters will play their part. I've played in a game where we literally had no part in it. We couldn't do anything, we couldn't even die and stay dead if we wanted to. It was the most terrible thing in the world, and none of us liked the story. That is quite frankly a game I won't play in.

I agree that is horrible...

Vistarius wrote:
But a game where the DM entirely reacts to the PCs is fine too, if you have a dm who doesn't mind it. If the DM wants something to happen in the story, it's his right as the one running the game. If he wants to lay down a map of Golarion and say "point to where you want to go" fine. If he wants to point to Numeria and say "You're here." then he can. Players get disrespectful of the DM and don't realize how much time can go into the game.

Sure but I think alot of GMs just throw out this idea away too fast. And it is a very good idea that most GMS should try to do.

But I have no problem with the GM starting in area and say players must a have a reason to be in x location.

I do know how much time GMs spend into the game though...and I let my players spend time into the game also. What they will do will effect the story...I'll adapt the story (if I have in mind) to what they do.

Vistarius wrote:
A dm can fudge rolls for a player's favor or to make a challenge harder. That's the role of the DUNGEON MASTER. In earlier editions and other systems, they were called the Storyteller for a reason. Yes the entire story is co-operative, but the DM is the arbiter of that story. He dictates the results of the Pcs, he dictates how the game goes. If something I want to happen to an NPC is supposed to happen to give the characters motivation, then it will happen.

In no earlier edition of D&D has the DM been called Storyteller. Also I don't really like that title for the job as it does put the wrong impression on what the job is and lead to a more railroady type of game. They it odd aot of games that use Storyteller have way for the PCs to dicate the results and how the games goes.

Vistarius wrote:
I've also played a game (3.5, pre-kingmaker) that was exactly like kingmaker at around 12th level. Save there was nothing but a giant sandbox. There was no motivation but what we brought, and we spent five sessions basically doing nothing because we couldn't find anything to do, and we tried. Putting it entirely into the player's hands is a bad idea.

That sounds like a very bad GM. It has nothing to do with style. A railroad game be just as bad probably actualy alot worse in my opinion as atleast here the player can just RP among themselves...in most bad railroady games the GM get impatient when the party is RPing.

Vistarius wrote:
It sounds to me like you have some control issues you need to address and learn that balance is the key here. The bottom line is: Not everyone will DM like you, even your friend who you're "teaching" to DM. He may prefer a different style. You are not right, and you are not wrong. If you want to play the "whaaah sympathy game" then go ahead and do it, but this game is about fun and enjoyment which means compromise. Get over it if the DM made you fail at something you wanted to succeed at.

Actualy you absolutely correct...it is about somebody's control issues. Though it is the GMs. Statements like it is 'Tge GM's world deal with it' or 'the GM can't cheat he makes the rules' etc. Seem to me a control issue with the GM. I don't want sympathy...or even GMs to run exactly like I do...never stated it. All I am saying is to those GMs who have to make a player's idea fail for the sake of the story is to let it happen and actualy just adapt the story to the players...not the other way around.

Also does not compromise mean the GM gives in a little...I am pretty sure that is what compromise means.

As for my friend I am teaching to run a game. My style will influence how I teach...as your would if you decided to teach somebody. But I am be more fair than that and letting him decide on his own style. Teaching him things like how to introduce recurring villians and letting them get away. How to structure adventures...all that etc.

But I am also going to teach him how to be flexable with the story so he does not have to rely on fudging...or heavy handed approachs. IE making the game fun.

Vistarius wrote:
I'd just be happy he wasn't like some of the DMs I've played with. If he wanted it to happen, he wouldn't have fudged the roll, he'd have sent someone much higher level to do it, and if I kept trying to stop it, he'd just have the guy attack me. Which is what happens to people who try to do things above their level. They die.

Note this is 7th Sea game there are no levels.


@Peter Stewart: I think my differences with Kain is mostly from him reading a little too much into some of my posts(IE my irrational dislike of DM screens and my refusal to tell a fudging GM stats, etc).

If I played with him I probably would not mind giving him any stats he wants...if what he says and you say is true...and I generally assume people are telling the truth.


KaeYoss wrote:


When the GM asks for information, you either provide said information or bow out of the game.

I did bow out of the game.

KaeYoss wrote:


No other way. At least not when I'm running the game.

You weren't. I generally like your posts and I'd guess if you were running the game and asked me how many hit points I had I'd tell you.

KaeYoss wrote:


Players talking back when asked for information is an indication for one of two things: Either they don't like the way I run games and are being passive aggressive about it

I don't think that was passive aggressive. I think it was a pretty clear statement that I didn't like the way he did things.

KaeYoss wrote:


or they don't trust me (and I don't see why I should bother with that).

I touched on the trust issue in an earlier post. Yes, I had stopped trusting him.

KaeYoss wrote:


Especially since you just assume that he will fudge. Doesn't have to be. Maybe the GM is just curious. I sometimes ask people about their HP when I roll damage. And that doesn't necessarily mean I'll fudge the rolls to spare them.

I made an educated assessment based on the situation, and my personal knowledge of the GM in question. He had fudged encounters in the past, and I thought he was going to do it again.

KaeYoss wrote:


Plus, there might be abilities related to your HP. In fact, I'm quite sure there is 3.x Material that affects you depending on your HP.

You are really stretching here. He wasn't asking me because of some obscure 3.x Material. He was asking me because he was going to lie about what the dice roll was if it was going to kill my character. You can either take my word for it, since I was the only person in the conversation who was actually there. Or you can keep making justifications for some guy you've never met, about an incident you never witnessed.

KaeYoss wrote:


Video games don't necessarily work that way you know.

I was referring to the fact that most video games come with a save feature. An although I am aware that some video games you have to play all the way through without saving. That is the exception rather than the rule.

If you can't die in an RPG, it feels like a video game to me. Just hit the reset button and start over. Some people like to play that way, not me.


Demigorgon 8 My Baby wrote:
I was referring to the fact that most video games come with a save feature. An although I am aware that some video games you have to play all the way through without saving. That is the exception rather than the rule.

First of all, there is no such thing as a saving function in multiplayer games. There, you either win or lose (or have a draw). There is no do-over. It's more like a football game than an RPG. In fact, there are sports computer games.

And then there are those games that have checkpoints. An outdated, crappy method of saving progress.

But what I was getting at is that even if the game lets you save (any time you want or with check points) it doesn't mean you can't lose.

Sure, you can repeat that level/passage/fight/whatever a killion times - if you're not good enough, you're not going to win.

That's what I meant when I said that the comparison isn't fitting.

If this were like a computer game, instead of being killed by the gunfire, it would stop hurting you once you get down to 1% health.

There is a P&P RPG that does copy computer games: Eclipse Phase. It's a SciFi game where you can buy your own body, have it any way you like, and even get several and switch around. And you can make copies of your mind (with memories and all that). Then, when you're not coming back from a mission or whatever, they just put the mind backup into a spare body and let you loose again (if you can pay, of course).

You can download the PDF! It's free! It's legal!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Or he can not put all his eggs in one basket.

This guy is stealing my thoughts!!! Make him stop!!!

P.S. TOZ can verify how I try to avoid #1, 2, and 3: I roll everything in the open. And I let the adventure go where the PCs take it (witness the destruction of the town of Logger's Bridge). Also, after an adventure I'm willing to undergo an audit; when I prep, I make sure the baker's apprentice has the correct bonus for his Craft skill. I always follow the rules as DM. Because when I'm designing an adventure, that should be more than enough leeway: I really shouldn't need to cheat on top of that. If I do, I feel that that's a failure on my part as DM.


I am reminded of the 3.0 D&D adaptation of Diablo 2. That product actually had what amounted to a "save state" record sheet that was to be filled out between Acts incase the PCs suffered a TPK. The DM could then "revert" thier characters to the start of the act.

Tought I'd throw that in :P.

=====

IMO violating the social contract of the group, is what leads to "bad cheating". Especially the mine thing the GM is supposed to safeguard, making sure everyone as at least some measure of fun.

I'd sum up my views in a paraphrase from the Dragon Strike board game video. "The main objective is to have fun, and if the game isn't fair nobody will."

Grand Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Or he can not put all his eggs in one basket.
This guy is stealing my thoughts!!! Make him stop!!!

I would love to hear your opinion on his other articles. :)

Kirth Gersen wrote:
P.S. TOZ can verify how I try to avoid #1, 2, and 3: I roll everything in the open. And I let the adventure go where the PCs take it (witness the destruction of the town of Logger's Bridge). Also, after an adventure I'm willing to undergo an audit; when I prep, I make sure the baker's apprentice has the correct bonus for his Craft skill. I always follow the rules as DM. Because when I'm designing an adventure, that should be more than enough leeway: I really shouldn't need to cheat on top of that. If I do, I feel that that's a failure on my part as DM.

The man speaks truth. I think the OP and others who despise cheating DMs would LOVE to be at Kirth's table. I know I do, despite not minding fudging personally.

All rolls are in the open. If the PCs miss a clue and don't go towards the module, or as was the case in Carnival of Tears, decide they can't stop what is happening and leave, those events still happen. Our PCs watched Logger's Bridge get wiped out. And that had consequences. Our PCs got jumped by relatives of those loggers trying to get revenge for not saving them.

Kirth's game is awesome. Just saying.


KaeYoss wrote:


That doesn't even make sense. There's still people who believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Doesn't make it true.

Believing does not make things true.

In this case it does. The only people who can determine if cheating occurs are those potentially involved. If they call it as cheating(rules actually being broken) then cheating has occurred.

Quote:

The GM always follows the rules. Because what the GM says is, per definition, the rules. They can do crappy stuff, they can do dickish stuff, they can do all that, but they can't cheat.

That is not true at all. If the rules did not change, and the GM did the opposite of what the rules state then he is not following the rules, therefore he broke the rule. There is difference between changing a rule on the fly, and just ignoring it.

Quote:

Nah. It's a dick move, but it's not cheating. Because the rule just became that characters played by girlfriends or others providing favours (sexual or otherwise) are better than others.

So you are saying that the moment a GM breaks a rule it changes to whatever just happened even if only for an instant?


Sounds excellent!

The Exchange

Some people are being rather pedantic about what constitues a "rule", which is muddying the water. The DM can bend the rules if he wants - i.e. the normal outcome can be altered, on a one-off basis, as he or she sees fit. The basic rules don't change because of that.

The issue is the extent to which he does it, and the reasons for which he does it, and whether it is obvious to the players. My view is that, if it results in something that is more fun for everyone, it's no big deal. Some feel differently - a long and ultimately fruitless argument about a certain scene and how it would work in terms of game mechanics in Curse of the Crimson Throne made that clear. It boils down to DMing style, and abstruse discussion about whether the ruleset has just changed is missing the point. Setting a house rule is different from fudging the outcome of a die roll, which is where most DMs will "step in" to alter game reality.

Does that constitue cheating? In my view, no. The DM's job is different to other players, in that he is much more responsible for everyone's fun instead of, largely, just his own. So he has to balance those considerations. And there is more to fairness than just whether the dice are allowed to rest where they fall. That actually isn't "fairness", which implies a moral component which is absent from random events (as does the word "cheating"). And there is the issue of spectacle and story.

Personally, I will generally play according to the rules with PCs and do what I like to NPCs, for examples. Having to fudge a lot would suggest I can't build appropriate encounters encounters. But if I think the outcome would be "funner" (which it wouldn't most of the time for the players) I might fudge.


John Kretzer wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

And as a DM, my response would be "you're damn right it matters, now answer my fricken question."

As the DM, I'm entitled to know how wounded the players are. I have multiple monster hp tracked, buffs, etc. I shouldn't have to count how much damage my players are taking, but when my foe needs to choose appropriately who to attack (whether they prefer more wounded foes to finish off, or less wounded foes to fight with honor, or what the hell ever), I don't need a snarky response tossed at me to slow down combat even more. The foe can see how wounded the character is, and thus the DM needs to know how wounded the character is.

So yeah. It does matter.

I was more refering to after the damage roll is made....

But sure you can ask me what my condition of my character....I'll reply with the like of unijured...or slightly injured...or about half-way...badly injured or near death. Just like how I would respond if I was a GM and a player asked me how hurt any of the NPCs are.

Heck I would even allow Bluff checks to make it appear you are not as hurt...or more hurt then you are.

*part edited out for due to misinterpretation*

Seriously, DM asks your HP, you tell them. Whatever the DM's motives for using this information is none of your business. When player's start hiding numbers, THIS is where the adversarial stance comes from in some games. The DM is arbitrating the game, and you are purposely withholding information. Yeah, I'd boot you from the table pretty quick.

To the overly-self-entitled players who feel the need to deny information asked for by the DM(thus furthering the loss of trust on both ends), did you guys ever stop to consider that maybe the DM is using this information to better and more accurately describe what's happening? If I know a certain player is low on HP, I have this monster attack and miss, I can paint a better picture of what happened that round, rather than just say "It missed. Next?"

Which sounds better?

A: "The creature lunges toward you, fangs bared, attempting to gore you with it's crude, jagged horns. However, in it's haste and rage, it over-estimates it's attack. Clutching your wounds, you painfully manage to pull your body out of the way just as the creature's horns graze your tattered armor."

or

B: "The creature attacks, but you dodge it. Next?

See how the DM having that little bit of extra info can paint a prettier picture?

Grand Lodge

Jandrem wrote:

Which sounds better?

A: "The creature lunges toward you, fangs bared, attempting to gore you with it's crude, jagged horns. However, in it's haste and rage, it over-estimates it's attack. Clutching your wounds, you painfully manage to pull your body out of the way just as the creature's horns graze your tattered armor."

or

B: "The creature attacks, but you dodge it. Next?

Honestly? B.

Had a GM describe my wife's glaive attack as 'busting the enemies spleen out his back'. We were both disgusted by it.

I can't imagine sitting through a whole combat of overwrought descriptions like that.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

Which sounds better?

A: "The creature lunges toward you, fangs bared, attempting to gore you with it's crude, jagged horns. However, in it's haste and rage, it over-estimates it's attack. Clutching your wounds, you painfully manage to pull your body out of the way just as the creature's horns graze your tattered armor."

or

B: "The creature attacks, but you dodge it. Next?

Honestly? B.

Had a GM describe my wife's glaive attack as 'busting the enemies spleen out his back'. We were both disgusted by it.

I can't imagine sitting through a whole combat of overwrought descriptions like that.

Ok, so I did lay it on pretty thick, just for example really. Not every single attack in the game would be like that. But if you do prefer every action to just be "You hit, roll damage." or "You miss. Next?" then I don't think we'd enjoy the same style of game.

Why did you compare my example to something graphic like an exploding spleen? Those are pretty far off comparisons; I didn't think my description was all that graphic.

EDIT: Addendum: The point was not to see who can over-embellish actions, but just pointing out an example of a DM using knowledge of player and monster conditions to describe a scene better.

Grand Lodge

It was the first thing that sprang to mind. Of course, he was a pretty bad DM in the first place, so basing my opinion of the practice off of that one example is unfair.

I'm trying to add description to my combats, since it is one of my weak points as a DM. Describing every sword swing just slows things down in my experience.

Sovereign Court

I like describing combat in graphic detail...and my players love it, because i have knack for doing it the right way (writer and all) and because it increases immersion, because i actualy went and studied anatomy (hobby-wise) to better describe damage. I also make educated guesses about anatomies of other creatures. It is fun. Maybe not around women who are squeamish about that stuff, but still very fun.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

It was the first thing that sprang to mind. Of course, he was a pretty bad DM in the first place, so basing my opinion of the practice off of that one example is unfair.

I'm trying to add description to my combats, since it is one of my weak points as a DM. Describing every sword swing just slows things down in my experience.

I tend to describe the death shots, and crits, to make them more memorable. Also week or strong hits.

Min roll : "You all see Fighter Frank swing his sword in a mighty arc... that all but misses the Dire Tiger, just slicing the tip of an ear off."

Max roll : "Barbarian Betty roars and brings her maul overhead in both hands, slamming it into the Dire Tiger's shoulder, the sound of a thick meaty whack fills the air a fraction of a second before the celery breaking sound of bone's crunching begins."

Critical Failure : "Rogue Randy rakishly rams his rapier at the ravenous foe, but unfortunately trips over his feet as he tries to think of an R name for a dire tiger and drops his rapier in an attempt to maintain his footing."

Critical Hit : "Sorceress Sally's eyes glow and she releases a ray of frost, all of you feel a sudden chill as it bleeds the heat from the air before it hits the Dire Tiger in the nose, freezing his sensitive nostrils and making it mewl in agony."

Death Blow : "Fighter Frank, humiliated by his earlier attack, abandons caution to the wind and leaps onto the tiger's back and drives his sword into the back of it's skull, sending the thing crashing to the ground to twitch."

Now, I do get tired and forget to embellish these, but if I remember I try.

Grand Lodge

Kain Darkwind wrote:
hopeless wrote:
cibet44 wrote:

Well the way to sniff out a potential "cheating DM" (your words) is pretty simple. At the start of each session simply say to the DM: "Can you please roll all your dice in the open or have the players roll for you?"

Any DM that is not willing to do this is probably planning to "cheat" at some point, so you can just leave the table then and spare yourself the pain of being part of his game.

I'd actually agree to that if asked, but then I'm in it for mutual enjoyment not to win at all costs.

Calling B.S. on this one. Mutual enjoyment and not being in it to win have nothing to do with the DM not rolling in front of the players, or kicking a player who inferred the DM was a cheat and needed to do so so far out of the game they got a nose bleed.

Don't act like it is some high moral pedestal that causes you to roll in front of the players, or be willing to.

On her first outing as a Network play DM for the Living Arcanis campaign, my spouse rolled her dice all in the open as the OP would have requested. She TPKed the party with all legal rolls. The players then asked her to put her screen back in place.


Asking the DM to roll out in the open I think is a pretty fool proof way of finding out if a DM is going to do any of the things that annyoyed the OP (or "cheat", again using the OPs word). If a DM IS willing to roll everything out in the open chances are he IS NOT going to do any of the things the OP is irritated about. If, on the other hand, a DM is not willing to roll in the open and in fact gets annoyed at the suggestion then you can surmise he is more likely to do some (or all) of the things that annoyed the OP. So I feel it remains a valid way for the OP to avoid what he feels will be a bad game.

This does not make the DM a good or bad DM, nor is it some kind of irrational request for a potential player to make of a DM. Players are entitled to play in whatever kind of game they like. Asking this upfront is good for the DM and the player as they now have a better understanding of each other at the very least. No need to get all huffy about it if you are a DM and a potential payer asks you to do this. It's no different than any other aspect of the game a player may ask about.

To me, what the OP is really looking for is a Referee not a DM. The OP is looking for impartial adjudication of the rules regardless of any ancillary impact of those rulings to story, characters, or otherwise. That's pretty much how I would define an RPG referee and happens to be the way I run my games, but that's beside the point. So I think the question really is: do you want a DM or a referee? In either case, be careful what you ask for. As a player you must understand the impact of that choice. As a DM you should allow your players to decide what they want in their game or at least explain how you run the game so they know up front.

Sovereign Court

cibet44 wrote:

Asking the DM to roll out in the open I think is a pretty fool proof way of finding out if a DM is going to do any of the things that annyoyed the OP (or "cheat", again using the OPs word). If a DM IS willing to roll everything out in the open chances are he IS NOT going to do any of the things the OP is irritated about. If, on the other hand, a DM is not willing to roll in the open and in fact gets annoyed at the suggestion then you can surmise he is more likely to do some (or all) of the things that annoyed the OP. So I feel it remains a valid way for the OP to avoid what he feels will be a bad game.

So we begin a game and i whip out a screen, and you ask me not to use it. And when i say no, because i want to roll behind the screen you have the audacity of accusing me of cheating? Which i in all reality cannot do as a GM. I would send you home that instant. I don't need players who won't trust me to run a fun game. I have authority over everything but your characters.

Grand Lodge

cibet44 wrote:
As a DM you should allow your players to decide what they want in their game or at least explain how you run the game so they know up front.

Bullpuckey. At my tables, I'm the judge. I have responsibility as to how tables are run and I'll run them the way I see fit. If you have an issue with that see the appropriate convention coordinator. If it's in my home game, I probably would not have invited you in the first place.


I don't really get graphic and gory unless it was a critical hit or some other large amount of damage in comparison to the target's overall HP. Yes, I know HP is more than simply how much damage something took, but I use it as a guideline for overall condition. Knowing how many HP's all the players and monsters have makes describing scenes much easier.

Even then, I don't use blood 'n guts much really. I can't do it without sounding cheesy, so I just keep descriptions to where on the body, and how traumatizing a hit was.

Lastly, the size of the group I'm DMing for affects how descriptive I get; in our current PF game, there are 7 players. I try to keep it short and sweet to keep rounds moving. In smaller games I've run for 2 and 3 players at a time, I'll spend a little more time. setting the scene.

Sovereign Court

Jandrem wrote:

I can't do it without sounding cheesy, so I just keep descriptions to where on the body, and how traumatizing a hit was.

Why not? You sound cheezsy to yourself or to the players? Did you ask your players how they want their gore? Pg 13? NC 17 or R?


Hama wrote:
Jandrem wrote:

I can't do it without sounding cheesy, so I just keep descriptions to where on the body, and how traumatizing a hit was.

Why not? You sound cheezsy to yourself or to the players? Did you ask your players how they want their gore? Pg 13? NC 17 or R?

To myself mostly. I go off the vibe I get from the group, and the tone of the game we're playing. When I DM Ravenloft games, I keep the actual gore sparse, but when it happens, I describe with a lot of detail. There's a delicate balance when it comes to horror games specifically; it's easy to do too much gore and horror, and the group gets desensitized. If you space it out, it keeps it scary, because they don't know when it's going to happen. In "normal" fantasy games I run, I keep it about an R rating; bloody but not intense, no spleens exploding out of people's backs or anything.

Sovereign Court

Hmmm...but R is spleens exploding and people going to pieces...NC 17 would be blood with very little gore on the side...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's amazing to me to see the wide range of difference on the role of Dungeon Master.

I've always seen my-self as more of an Intermediary between the players and the game world rather than a Dictator of the all the game that many of you seem to prefer. I run a very democratic table where everyone gets an equal share in how the game plays out and Rule 0 has not been welcome for some years.

The concept of telling an otherwise fine player to leave the table because they asked if you would roll in the open is mind-boggling to me. The same with getting agitated because they wish to keep their current hit point total secret for fear I might meta-game. Of course I live in an area where finding a replacement player is major work, but still. I like to have an gaming enviroment were it's all open and everyone is free to have the experience they want to have, which is why I normally turn a blind eye to the occasional bit of dice fudging from the players.

To me the Dungeon Master's role is to craft an enjoyable game for the player and I try to have a very hands off approch in doing that. I guess I would prefer to be the silent puppetmaster gently pulling strings as opposed to the director that gives direction to the actors on stage.

Also I agree with the idea that even if a Dungeon Master couldn't cheat because they control the rules, that breaking the social contract that binds the group together can leave the players feeling cheated. If the players feel cheated than they lose trust in the Dungeon Master which just makes it harder to have fun. Building trust is, like many thing, very hard to do but oh-so easy to destroy.


Hama wrote:
Hmmm...but R is spleens exploding and people going to pieces...NC 17 would be blood with very little gore on the side...

I was thinking the opposite. In the US, an R-rated movie means any age can view, they just need to be accompanied by an adult. I saw Aliens and the first two Terminator films in the theater as a child with my Mom.

NC-17 means nobody under the age of 17 permitted at all, so much more graphic.

Grand Lodge

GravesScion wrote:

It's amazing to me to see the wide range of difference on the role of Dungeon Master.

Dungeon mastering is a human social interactive activity. When it comes down to humans dealing with humans there are very few activities of that nature that don't have a wide range of possibilities.

The problem is "that being an otherwise fine player, or otherwise fine DM is not enough to overcome a fatal weakness. There are DM's that work fine with dictatorial players. and it's one thing when a player indicates a preference for a style of DMing. It's something completely different when someone brings up that question with the very hostile accusatory tone that the OP comes in, that's an attempt to bully a DM with an accusation of "cheating". A person who opens a relationship with a DM in that mode has fatally poisoned the way they will interact.

As a player, you're a guest at my table, I have a right to expect some deference with the effort I'm giving so that you can have a good time, in return I'll give respect to you as a player by being a fair judge. Expecting to Co-DM as some players seem to do is beyond what I'm willing to tolerate.

Sovereign Court

Jandrem wrote:
Hama wrote:
Hmmm...but R is spleens exploding and people going to pieces...NC 17 would be blood with very little gore on the side...

I was thinking the opposite. In the US, an R-rated movie means any age can view, they just need to be accompanied by an adult. I saw Aliens and the first two Terminator films in the theater as a child with my Mom.

NC-17 means nobody under the age of 17 permitted at all, so much more graphic.

Hm...as far as i know ESRB rating of R means Restricted, or above 18. maybe it's like that in europe...never bothered with film ratings anyway...would like them to go away completely,.


cibet44 wrote:
To me, what the OP is really looking for is a Referee not a DM. The OP is looking for impartial adjudication of the rules regardless of any ancillary impact of those rulings to story, characters, or otherwise. That's pretty much how I would define an RPG referee and happens to be the way I run my games, but that's beside the point. So I think the question really is: do you want a DM or a referee? In either case, be careful what you ask for. As a player you must understand the impact of that choice. As a DM you should allow your players to decide what they want in their game or at least explain how you run the game so they know up front.

Actualy no...as a DM I have a great effect on the characters, story or otherwise...it is just the players have a great impact too. Inb my game...and ones I perfer to play in it is a actualy cooperative story telling with a much more balance approach to the power between a GM and a player.


Jandrem wrote:

Which sounds better?

A: "The creature lunges toward you, fangs bared, attempting to gore you with it's crude, jagged horns. However, in it's haste and rage, it over-estimates it's attack. Clutching your wounds, you painfully manage to pull your body out of the way just as the creature's horns graze your tattered armor."

or

B: "The creature attacks, but you dodge it. Next?

See how the DM having that little bit of extra info can paint a prettier picture?

B...because it allows the player to imagine what happens...or better yet let the player describes what happens.

151 to 200 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Cheating GMs... and how I hate them... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.