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


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok some background...

I am currently Co-GMing a 7th Sea game with a person who is new to GMing. So I am also helping him figure how to GM and help him find his style. It is great fun...and such. But after his 1st mistake ridden session(it was still fun) that I am helping him iron out I came to some realizations.

I really hate it GMs cheat. There are three kind of ways a GM can cheat.

1) Is what I call the care bear GMs...the one where you can go skiny sipping into lave and your characters just don't die. They never kill a PC...really all the PCs have to do is show up and they win.

This is utterly boring. And I don't care how well you think you can 'hide' it I have never meant a GM who could actualy hide from me for long.

2) Is the other end of the 1st one...it is the killer GM. These are the GMs who drop a cr 20 dragon on a 1st level and when they get the tpk the get up and do a dance shouting "I win! I win!". Again the PCs could really just phone it in.

Again it is boring.

3) This type alot people don't talk about...but I think it is just as bad as the first two types. These are the GMs that cheat for their 'story'. What they want to happen will happen period. It does not matter if you roll 100 on your perception check to detect the assassin coming in your camp...you'll either just hear a twig snap...and the assassin will come back the next night to kill the npc you are protecting(and again till he succeeds)...or you will just auto fail. It does not matter if God comes down and say you will win...it just does not matter.

Again boring.

The common theme here is that the above makes the player feel disenfranchaised from the game. The worst thing a player can say about a game is 'Why am I here?" When I GM and I hear a player say this...I immediately revaluate what I am doing and talk to the player.

Anybody else has any thoughts on this?

Note: I know the above are extreme examples I did it in part to be humorous.

Grand Lodge

Ive heard of all 3 of these before, though I, thankfully, havent played under any of them.

Ive actually only ever met a #3 just recently. We had a small local con, and there were a couple guys there who were from the company that makes Castles and Crusaders, and one was talking to a friend of mine, and he described how he just makes up the DC, cause "If I need them to see the orcs in the bushes, theyre gonna see them" or somethin like that.
Im sure he was a nice guy, but crap like that drives me crazy. If I wanted to listen to a story about how my character does stuff really without my input, then Id watch a movie or read a book.

Also, listening to him talk, the entire time I wanted to ask 'Why do you bother using dice, if you just arbitrarily decide what happens?'

Also also, didnt even look at the C&C stuff, but now I definitely am not interested.


The "married to the story no matter what" is especially problematic when the GM won't transfer (plot device X) to something or some one else when the players get a wild hair and 86 the critter that is (plot device X). One example is yours. Another is when they won't let the players do harm to the critter in question.

Example: Princess Bobarella, a recurring NPC that reveals plot points A, B and C during the campaign. After plot point B one or more of the players gets sick and tired off the snotty tart and declares that he is stabbing her. The GM said "no, you can't, she's needed later!"

Uh, what? Who cares - let the paladin "fall" for stabbing the tart 'just because'. (If the paladin had smote her and it worked, then his hunch was correct and he should by all means be praised for smiting the villainess. If she isn't evil, then the paladin's code rears its ugly head, at least potentially.) Have her come back via raise dead for plot point C - and to get some payback if she was indeed Evil Scum and had it coming.

Silver Crusade

I have been in both the first two types of game and I agree it's no fun.

I occassionally fudge a dice roll if I feel that the outcome of the roll as it stands will make the game suck. This is usually because I've screwed up somewhere along the lines and it's a way of preserving verisimilitude and immersion rather than saying "nope I screwed up".

However, that is extremely rare and I make sure I do it equally for both sides. It's only there to fix a mistake I have made that has made things too easy or too hard.

A case in point would be if two players fell down a pit trap and I realise after the event that I had given the wrong DC to spot the trap and so they should have spotted it. They then proceed to climb out but they miss the DC of the pit trap by a couple of points. In that case I would say let things balance out and let them climb out, no harm no foul.

That said, a game is a story yes, but it is a collaborative story. If the players refuse to engage with your story then explore the story they are writing. Players constantly amaze me with what they fixate on and what they miss and it leads to some exciting roleplaying opportunities. For example in our current Kingmaker game a throwaway hex encounter has led to thievery, assassination and war. That's all player led.

A good GM guides his players but doesn't control them. It is the job of a GM to create the world and illustrate the way forward. If the players want to turn left and turn right instead it's the GM's job to follow where the players are leading him.

Light the way but be prepared to illuminate the darkness.


@Fallofcamolot: I agree I ocassionaly fudge the dice to save a character's life if it is due to my mistake or if I can tell that the player is just having a bad day. And I am not saying it is bad to do that...or any of the above on the occassion.

Also yeah when I GM I don't view myself as telling a story. The way I do that and the way I am advising the GM I am co-gming with is don't plan everything that will happen...just plan out the set up and react to what the players do. And if you want x to happen at y location...but the PCs decide to go to location z...adapt x to happen at location y.

@godsDMit: Just reading that has turned me off of C&C stuff...though I have to say reading John Wick's stuff on how to GM in 7th Sea...meh I can ignore that and run the game as I want. By the way John Wick is a great writter of RPG( L5R and 7th Sea are both really great games) but I don't think you could pay me to play in one of his games.

Turin the Mad: That is exactly what I am trying to teach the new GM is to roll with the punches better...adapt his plot better to the PCs actions. He is learning. I am hopeful.

Anyway great feedback. I was starting to wonder if I was all alone here.

My cardinal rules of GMing is be fair. Be fair to the players...be fair to the NPCs(which might sounbds silly but it makes them more real), and be fair to the world. Which will all help you get a consistent story for your game.


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.


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.

Yeah...I do have a irrational hate of GMs rolling behind screens...for that reason.

Also spoting these types of GMs is easy...I don't get how they think they are hiding it...


My "favourite" is #2 followed by #1 -- where every fight involves the PCs getting pummeled within an inch of their lives, only to end by the PCs getting rescued by a random NPC or the bad guys mysteriously giving up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hogarth wrote:
My "favourite" is #2 followed by #1 -- where every fight involves the PCs getting pummeled within an inch of their lives, only to end by the PCs getting rescued by a random NPC or the bad guys mysteriously giving up.

You are right they can be combined to become absolutley hideous. I did not even think of that in my orginal thinking...but I have seen it once and heard stories of it on the internet.

The GM get to 'kill' the part...but look here comes super NPC(or worse yet GMPC) to save them..so he does not allow them to die(which I think would be more merciful at this point by the way) and well the GMPC gently or not so gently down the story line.

That has to be the worse game imaginable...it is like a perfect storm of bad.


John Kretzer wrote:
That has to be the worse game imaginable...it is like a perfect storm of bad.

It reminded me of "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer 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.

Yeah...I do have a irrational hate of GMs rolling behind screens...for that reason.

Also spoting these types of GMs is easy...I don't get how they think they are hiding it...

Rolling behind screens is not always a shield for cheating. Sometimes it's useful and fun for the players not to know if they've successfully saved against a disease, or if their perception was high enough to potentially spot the hidden enemy. Sometimes it's helpful to make meaningless hidden rolls to prevent metagaming.

Fortunately for me, the only "cheating" I have ever dealt with is a variation of #3. The "you have to accomplish X, which can only be done by following steps A, B, and C, and no matter how creative and/or sensible you are, if you don't do it ABC, you fail."


John Kretzer wrote:


The GM get to 'kill' the part...but look here comes super NPC(or worse yet GMPC) to save them..so he does not allow them to die(which I think would be more merciful at this point by the way) and well the GMPC gently or not so gently down the story line.

That has to be the worse game imaginable...it is like a perfect storm of bad.

No, the perfect storm of bad would include #3 as well, where a railroading GM won't let the climactic encounter not happen.

Say for example the PCs find all the clues and figure out that opening the tomb entrance will actually open the prison of a demonic horde, with plenty of time to destroy the entry and seal the prison forever. If the PCs do so, then no climactic battle with the demons. So no matter what the PCs do it has no effect, even if it would work. And just to make sure they stop trying, the GM jumps time ahead to the opening of the portal just so the PCs stop trying to keep it from happening.

Then have the PCs beaten within an inch of their lives by the demons and saved by the GMPC.

I've had first hand experience with #3 in a scenario similar to the one I just described (except without the beaten within an inch of their lives a and saved by GMPC part).

----------
That said, I have no problem with GMs cheating per se, but they should do so in a way that you're never really sure they did anything at all.

An example of good cheating. The key to the adventure requires a channel positive energy attempt to open the door (and only channel positive energy will open it), but no one in the party can channel energy. Somehow the party opens the door anyway. DM cheating, and it can be considered both #1 and #3. But it's not a bad thing.

Another good cheating. Last PC standing, BBEG is 1 hit (any hit at all) from dropping. GM rolls a crit against the PC (behind screen) and knows it will drop the PC. GM ignores the crit. PC survives, attacks, and kills BBEG. The Player never knows they won by GM intervention and there is much rejoicing.

At the right time and for the right reasons cheating can be the best thing a GM can do. Unfortunately you only ever really hear about the backlash against heavy handed GMs whose cheating wrecks the game. The ones that get it right you don't hear about because no one knows they did anything at all.

The problem isn't GMs who cheat, its bad GMs who cheat badly.

Grand Lodge

I wouldn't call #3 cheating, necessarily, just a pathetic, good-for-nothing person who should not be allowed to breathe or procreate, let alone DM. I wouldn't even come for a second session -- luckily, I haven't known a DM like that since the early 90s, knock on wood.

As far as combining #2 and #1, well, see my first comment.

But I have to 'fess up a bit, too -- and it's why I'm posting:

I'm a "bit" of a Number-1er.

But I've never had it as a problem. The Players in my games are almost always certain that they are gonna die in any given fight (most combats, in fact).

How 'bout this to consider: pretty much ALL PCs go below zero HP in my games more than once during the course of events. But they don't die.

And every once in a while a PC does die and cash is spent from the party fund to bring him back, with a lost Level (Homebrew).

Also, every so often a monster will drop a PC to, say, -8 and I'll give the other PCs a chance for a Free Action Sense Motive to realize that that monster, instead of intelligently going after a PC that is still standing, is going to coup de grace the fallen PC his next action -- that forces the other PCs to change their tactics to save the fallen PC and THEY ARE SCARED.

Or sometimes the monsters will go after one PC in particular -- the healer -- and the PCs get really scared.

Again, I don't have TPKs or anything close and will fudge die rolls, monster HP and such to ensure that. So I'm guilty of #1. But my Players, unlike the OP, are still scared.

Oh, and finally, I do tell my Players that at the very end of a Campaign or Adventure I'll make all rolls on the table and not change any monster stats in my notes -- BUT if a TPK does happen I won't be bothered because it won't kill the game -- the game will be over one way or the other.

.... So, am I guilty of being a #1 DM?

I still say "Yes" but I don't see it, the way I do it, as a weakness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to point out that there are some situations where the RAW actually calls for rolls to be made in secret. Off the top of my head Disguise rolls are to be made in secret. This is so the PC doesn't know how well they've actually disguised themselves until the opposing check is made and they either succeed or don't. So hiding rolls behind a screen is sometimes necessary, and not cheating.

Shadow Lodge

W E Ray wrote:

I wouldn't call #3 cheating, necessarily, just a pathetic, good-for-nothing person who should not be allowed to breathe or procreate, let alone DM. I wouldn't even come for a second session -- luckily, I haven't known a DM like that since the early 90s, knock on wood.

As far as combining #2 and #1, well, see my first comment.

But I have to 'fess up a bit, too -- and it's why I'm posting:

I'm a "bit" of a Number-1er.

But I've never had it as a problem. The Players in my games are almost always certain that they are gonna die in any given fight (most combats, in fact).

How 'bout this to consider: pretty much ALL PCs go below zero HP in my games more than once during the course of events. But they don't die.

And every once in a while a PC does die and cash is spent from the party fund to bring him back, with a lost Level (Homebrew).

Also, every so often a monster will drop a PC to, say, -8 and I'll give the other PCs a chance for a Free Action Sense Motive to realize that that monster, instead of intelligently going after a PC that is still standing, is going to coup de grace the fallen PC his next action -- that forces the other PCs to change their tactics to save the fallen PC and THEY ARE SCARED.

Or sometimes the monsters will go after one PC in particular -- the healer -- and the PCs get really scared.

Again, I don't have TPKs or anything close and will fudge die rolls, monster HP and such to ensure that. So I'm guilty of #1. But my Players, unlike the OP, are still scared.

Oh, and finally, I do tell my Players that a the very end of a Campaign or Adventure I'll make all rolls on the table and not change any monster stats in my notes -- BUT if a TPK does happen I won't be bothered because it won't kill the game -- the game will be over one way or the other.

.... So, am I guilty of being a #1 DM?

I still say "Yes" but I don't see it, the way I do it, as a weakness.

I like this idea of the free sense motive checks. That scenario is also a quick way to stop party squabbling -- nothing unites a group like a threat to their cleric/wellbeing.

On the other hand, i keep reading this thread and quoting Futurama. You know that episode where Bender gets ejected into space, and ends up being a planet for a bunch of really tiny aliens? He meets "God" at the end, who imparts some cosmic wisdom onto him: "If you do things right, they won't be sure you've done anything at all."

IE, it means a GM should have everything of those three types at their disposal. Sometimes you're just hot - you rolling ten crits in a row will murder the bejeebus out of your party and that's no fun - so you have to nerf it (You need to err towards #1). On the other hand, your PCs are just too good at what you're doing, and you need to remind them that this adventuring business? This is still dangerous. I mean, don't go killing a PC just because you're frustrated, but beating them to within an inch of their life is perfectly acceptable (Moving towards #2).

This of course, leaves #3: the EPIC SAVE. sometimes you go too far in the #2 direction, and... well, you screw the party without meaning to. This shouldn't be an out, but let's say the party's off track, and wondered into the dragon's lair a few levels too early. No better way for Evil Organizaion (TM) to get the PCs to do their bidding than a well-timed save from said dragon.. Heh. But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THEY EVER BE A DMPC. DMPCS ARE A SIN AGAINST EXISTANCE. If you wanted a PC, why are you DMing? Seriously.


John Kretzer wrote:


This is utterly boring. And I don't care how well you think you can 'hide' it I have never meant a GM who could actualy hide from me for long.

You've missed the irony here.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

As a response I'm more than happy to have any petulant player who can't trust me to run a game to leave right at that. I have reasons to roll dice behind a screen. Many of which involve die rolls the players have no buisness knowing about.

Nothing I hate more than dictatorial players. And yes I am of the philosophy that occasionally the dice should be overridden. If you can't trust me to be fair in how I do that or don't do it, then find another judge.


@Freesword: In my perfect storm of a bad game...I did include #3 with the GMPC bullying the PCs in doing what is 'needed.

Also if it you are running a module that require something to open a door...which you party does not have and you ignore that requirement...that is not cheating...that is adjusting the modules to your party. If I was writting the adventure...I don't use the 'one way only way solutions'.

And like I said I get fudging the dice occassionaly...to save the party. But some GMs out there seem to use it like a crutch. Sometimes it is actualy funner to let the dice land where they fall.

There was is one campaign where that I play in where the party has been defeated on numerous occassions...not tpk level of course...but either captured or fled or even half and half. Everytime we turned it around for a victory. I think people are too afraid of loosing sometimes.

@W E Ray: Maybe it just my luck with GM #1 but I have always saw though it. Maybe I am just that perceptive or they were bad actors. Also you are right in D&D death is not perament...but as DM I don't get involved if the PCs will bring back a particular PC...it cuts down on the number of players who play douch bags and hide behind the PC T-Shirt.

But I would actualy love to play in your game...just to see if I do see the...DM's protection. You might be right...though just with #1...maybe it just because all the DMs like that I have seen has been bad it.

Mendedwall12: You are absolutely right...that is why I called it irrational...though to note I don't look at the dice when the GM rolls them out in the open. That would be cheating..:) But hiding behind the screen...just breaks the trust for me if you will.

Also I play with somebody who does have the habit of 'doing the math' for all dice rolls...and argueing how the npc hit him...that would make me want to use the screen.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
Nothing I hate more than dictatorial players. And yes I am of the philosophy that occasionally the dice should be overridden. If you can't trust me to be fair in how I do that or don't do it, then find another judge.

Pretty much.

But doesn't this apply to the DMs in the example situations you opened the topic with?


Dan E wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:


This is utterly boring. And I don't care how well you think you can 'hide' it I have never meant a GM who could actualy hide from me for long.

You've missed the irony here.

No irony really...it is true. I have a mutant power to detect GM fudging I guess as I have always caught every GM I played with doing it at one time or another.


Feral wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Nothing I hate more than dictatorial players. And yes I am of the philosophy that occasionally the dice should be overridden. If you can't trust me to be fair in how I do that or don't do it, then find another judge.

Pretty much.

But doesn't this apply to the DMs in the example situations you opened the topic with?

Um to be fair he did not open the topic with any sample...that was me.


LazarX 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.

As a response I'm more than happy to have any petulant player who can't trust me to run a game to leave right at that. I have reasons to roll dice behind a screen. Many of which involve die rolls the players have no buisness knowing about.

Nothing I hate more than dictatorial players. And yes I am of the philosophy that occasionally the dice should be overridden. If you can't trust me to be fair in how I do that or don't do it, then find another judge.

So you can't trust your players? And yes I see the use of a screen...

And yes occasional the dice to need to be overridden...to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

Not saying you should let the dice fall all the time...just sometimes don't be afraid too.

Grand Lodge

John, I know what you're saying about #1 -- there are DMs out there who just won't hurt the PCs. And yeah, once a Player sees that and realizes it for what it is -- the game sucks for that Player.

How 'bout this for a horror story: I sat in on a game for 3 sessions a few years ago. The DM seemed to "play nice" to two of the Players and, er, "not so nice" to another. I noticed it at first when two PCs got a huge amount of the DM's time in-game while another Player was kinda brushed off. I didn't really see how bad it was until my last session when one of the "favored" PCs decided to *run back in* the room where all the zombies were coming while the rest of the party was screaming away and about to cast a Wall of Fire between us and the undead -- so we could run completely from the Dungeon and come back another day. The PC that went back was after some magic item we had to leave behind.

The DM paused in a classic Uh, wasn't expecting that! moment as it became clear the PC had no where to run and was surrounded by hungry undead.

But the PC survived, finding a secret exit that I figured had to be made especially by the DM in a johnny-on-the-spot decision.

Later that same session, another PC was trying to run out of a burning building and did, I thought, everything he could to try and escape. But he didn't and he died.

I remember thinking then that it had to be so obvious to the other Players that the DM was playing favorites, never allowing one PC to die while being especially hard on another. But the other Players didn't seem to notice and they all had fun. (I wasn't having so much fun so I joined another game, the appropriate thing to do, I feel.)

. . . .

Also, I've never had a Player, to my knowledge, "Test" me the way it seems that you're talking about.

Let's say, for example, that you were in my game and I was doing my "soft-on-PCs" #1 stuff and you saw through it and decided to do something dumb to see what would happen.

I really don't know what I'd do in-game -- actually, no -- I'd do what I think the specific circumstance would call for.

But out of game I'd certainly approach you and ask what was up -- try to see if we could find a happy medium.

But I don't think it'd be a problem. There's a difference from a Player's perspective between dying & missing an hour or so of the game, losing a level in the process (which happens once in a blue moon) and dropping below zero every once in a while and having it a REAL possibility -- EVERY fight -- of dropping below zero.

I think you'd be scared of dropping below zero even if you were pretty certain you knew you wouldn't drop below say, -15.


@W E Ray: Favoritism probably is the worst trait in a GM...but that goes back to just being fair. When a GM favors anything over much that it is a problem for the game...

As for people not noticing I am a very socialable person with fellow gamers so I have played with alot of different groups over the years and such...and noticed sometime people just don't notice it because it either all they know...or suffer terrtibly at one extreme that they over react.

There was one game with a GM who type 3( I feeling like I am back in 1st ed D&D describing demons...;) ) but not that bad...and when I was thinking outside the box I 'derailing the story' sorta to speak I actualy got a more negative reaction from the players than the GM. As they thought that what RPG was all about. I left the group because hey different play styles sometimes just don't mix no hard feeling on either side. Though I think the GM was actualy enjoying the challenge...shrug.

But if I feel like I am in a game such as yours and I see it...I would probably approach you out of game with it instead of breaking character to do something stupid. Probably just tell you don't need to hold back with my character...if you want to with the others that is fine with me...you know them better than I would.

That is the other thing...I have had players who were really great RPers and such but took a character's death pretty hard...and I have in the same group players who get angry when they sense you are cheating for them. So I hold back for the first one and let loose on the second. This I still consider fair because it is what they want.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:


As a response I'm more than happy to have any petulant player who can't trust me to run a game to leave right at that. I have reasons to roll dice behind a screen. Many of which involve die rolls the players have no buisness knowing about.

Nothing I hate more than dictatorial players. And yes I am of the philosophy that occasionally the dice should be overridden. If you can't trust me to be fair in how I do that or don't do it, then find another judge.

I agree completely. I am a bit of a #1 And a little of #3. Just to say that i kinda like the same party that began the game, also finish it, and that if i spent several hours writing a story, damn well they are going to play it.

@ John Kretzer: Also, if you noticed i was going easy on the players and did something stupid just to test me, i would kill your character without mercy or remorse...stupidity in my games means death.

The screen exists for three things imo.
1. So you can make rolls whose results players are not supposed to know.
2. Do the occasional fudging.
3. Keep all your notes and important references.

Dark Archive

W E Ray wrote:

I'm a "bit" of a Number-1er.

How 'bout this to consider: pretty much ALL PCs go below zero HP in my games more than once during the course of events. But they don't die.

......

Also, every so often a monster will drop a PC to, say, -8 and I'll give the other PCs a chance for a Free Action Sense Motive to realize that that monster, instead of intelligently going after a PC that is still standing, is going to coup de grace the fallen PC his next action -- that forces the other PCs to change their tactics to save the fallen PC and THEY ARE SCARED.

Or sometimes the monsters will go after one PC in particular -- the healer -- and the PCs get really scared.

Again, I don't have TPKs or anything close and will fudge die rolls, monster HP and such to ensure that. So I'm guilty of #1. But my Players, unlike the OP, are still scared.

Oh, and finally, I do tell my Players that at the very end of a Campaign or Adventure I'll make all rolls on the table and not change any monster stats in my notes -- BUT if a TPK does happen I won't be bothered because it won't kill the game -- the game will be over one way or the other.

.... So, am I guilty of being a #1 DM?

I still say "Yes" but I don't see it, the way I do it, as a weakness.

Looks like you are guilty of both #1 and #2, Killer DM (#2) whi is also a Fake Killer DM (1#)

Quote:

I wouldn't call #3 cheating, necessarily, just a pathetic, good-for-nothing person who should not be allowed to breathe or procreate, let alone DM. I wouldn't even come for a second session -- luckily, I haven't known a DM like that since the early 90s, knock on wood.

As far as combining #2 and #1, well, see my first comment.

LOL, so do you apply all that criticism/vitriol to yourself?

Grand Lodge

LazarX 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.

As a response I'm more than happy to have any petulant player who can't trust me to run a game to leave right at that. I have reasons to roll dice behind a screen. Many of which involve die rolls the players have no buisness knowing about.

Nothing I hate more than dictatorial players. And yes I am of the philosophy that occasionally the dice should be overridden. If you can't trust me to be fair in how I do that or don't do it, then find another judge.

Agreed...

I don't need players that aren't willing to trust me to be fair. For I too have reasons for rolling dice behind the screen...

Trust is to be earned to be sure, but trust is also built on faith...


While I've experienced all three, and was a number one when I first started, I have to say the third one is the one that really gets me annoyed. The first two I can chalk up to being inexperienced with the challenge rating system or being new in general to the game, but the third is unexcusable to me.

There are few things more aggitating to me then knowing that one of the non-player characters is pure evil but you can't do anything about it, having to slog through a death trap filled maze because teleport suddenly doesn't work, or not being to skip past the obvious ambush. Even more so when your character's skills and abilities should allow you to do it. It starts to play like a badly scripted video game after awhile as the plot becomes obvious but you can't do anything to short-cut it.

As for Game Master Screens, I'm...wary of them. I've never used one as I feel they distance me from the players and every Game Master (and I do mean every single one) that I've played under that used them was an excessive cheater. I prefer an open table and open rolls, for everyone and for every roll.


I game online, but I don't roll in front of players. There is no need for them to know what I've rolled or more importantly, what the modifiers of the foes they face are.


Hama wrote:

@ John Kretzer: Also, if you noticed i was going easy on the players and did something stupid just to test me, i would kill your character without mercy or remorse...stupidity in my games means death.

The screen exists for three things imo.
1. So you can make rolls whose results players are not supposed to know.
2. Do the occasional fudging.
3. Keep all your notes and important references.

Sure and you should. Stupidity should not be ignored.

As for the screens...I have never demanded a GM not use one...it is a irrational pping in the back of my head. I have said so. I personaly don't use them. But that is me...my players don't look at all rolls...and I will shield some...but in general I roll out in the open.

Also to clear something up...every GM(well almost every GM) does all three.

I have already say I would do #1 at times.

#2 anytime I RP the villians I am totaly going for the win. I don't do this when setting up the encounter...I set it up to be a fair challenge.

#3 is the one I do very rarely and it is more to balance out the player's control of story...if somebody is just taking the spot light the whole time I might fudge the scenario to let somebody else shine. It is part of the job of the GM to make sure everyone is having fun...well it is everybodys but the GM is in the best position to do so.

No I am more refering to the types of GMs who this is the way of gaming for them.


John Kretzer wrote:
I personaly don't use them. But that is me...my players don't look at all rolls...and I will shield some...but in general I roll out in the open.

So how does not using a screen work for you? I use a screen to hide maps and monster stats but I have the players roll all my dice. Even though all my rolls are out in the open I'd feel weird not having a screen at all. In fact, I think I would feel weird being a player in a game without the GM behind a screen.

Dark Archive

See as a GM myself #3 is a tempting one. But all I do to protect my story is if the players ignore it, then the situation gets worse til it's not so easy to ignore.


Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
See as a GM myself #3 is a tempting one.

I will admit to #3 as well, but only once in my memory, and it was just recently and with the player's OK. I DM-fiat-ed the "Body Theif" plot from the Age of Worms adventure "Hall of Harsh Reflections". But like I said, I got the player's OK with it. So even though dice were never rolled, it happened anyway.

Greg

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
See as a GM myself #3 is a tempting one. But all I do to protect my story is if the players ignore it, then the situation gets worse til it's not so easy to ignore.

It try to follow the players action to logical conclusions, taking into consideration what is going on in the world that I know about and they don't.

And example from a game I played in (not as GM) was our party was sent in to find a very powerful artifact. We went into the place, couldn't find the artifact and killed a BBEG's wife in the process.

We escaped, but the heart was mission critical and the GM couldn't just logically give us another chance as the whole premise was a sneak in and out before they guarded it properly.

So the GM thought about it and realized the BBEG would suspect this was an act of war from his enemy, start a war to avenge his wife and use the artifact in battle.

So we went from a sneak, sneak to an epic battlefield confrontation where we were looking for opportunities to take back the artifact.

Turned into a month long story arc completely off the original plan, but epic in it's own right, just because we didn't look in the dresser.

Literally, we didn't search one room. The room where we killed his wife, because we wanted to get out of there since she screamed and alerted the guards.

Grand Lodge

John Kretzer wrote:
( I feeling like I am back in 1st ed D&D describing demons...;) )

LOL

Yay, I'm a Vrock!

And didn't China Mieville say his favorite DM was the Type III, the one with a doberman's head, crab arms and a pair of little tyranosaur-human arms jutting out of his chest. The one that still -- after all these decades -- still hasn't gotten decent artwork in a monster book. What kind of railroading DM is THAT?!
(Glabrezu is my favorite, too.)

And just wait 'till we describe the Type V DM.
Bit*#ch has six arms to slap around all the PCs.

Grand Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:

I don't need players that aren't willing to trust me to be fair. ....

Trust is to be earned to be sure, but trust is also built on faith...

Yeah, I'm about to start a brand new game with several new Players. In fact, all new Players except for one who is in my regular group.

And I'll have to establish my trustworthiness quickly.

I threw what seemed to be a curve ball at one of the new players, a Verrick Monk of the Sacred Mountain (Verrick is a Race in Monte's Arcana Evolved). My initial impression of him as a Player -- we met informally at the LGS to make his PC and such -- is that he's really into PC PERSONALITY and COMBAT.

Anyhooo, when I told him I was one of those DMs who doesn't use a battlemat or minis (*curveball*), his head exploded. So I realized, after cleaning the blood and brain-bits off my cheetos, that when I run our first session or two, I'm gonna have to make sure that I'm really fair and consistent. (In a game w/ no mat a DM "arbitrarily" rules how many mooks get hit in the fireball, if the PCs are flanking, when AoOs are possible, etc., etc. Fairness and consistency are vital.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

This isn't all that reasonable.

Grand Lodge

W E Ray wrote:
(In a game w/ no mat a DM "arbitrarily" rules how many mooks get hit in the fireball, if the PCs are flanking, when AoOs are possible, etc., etc. Fairness and consistency are vital.)

This is how I usually DM/GM...

I will break out the mat and minis for an extra-complicated fight or some other "special occation" however, but not very often...

Silver Crusade

All minis, all the time :)


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.

As a GM, I roll my dice away from players eyes, but mostly because I have to sit at a second table since we have 7 players and the main table is full. I have no compunctions about showing anyone what I rolled if they want to see.

But, also as a GM, there are dice to be rolled that the players don't necessarily need to see. If I'm rolling a Stealth check on someone/something trying to sneak up on them, I shouldn't need to announce "Ok guys, someone is sneaking up on you and I'm going to roll a Stealth check for them. Here, see what I rolled? Now make Perceptions checks." I roll the Stealth check behind the screen, ask the players to make their Perception check, and if they succeed, I tell them what they herd/saw. If they fail, they don't notice what happened.

I think transparency for most of the gaming can be good, but some things are really none of the player's business to be seeing. If I go see a magic show, I don't want to Magician/Illusionist explaining how he did every little trick; I want to see some magic.

If a player came to my table making demands about my rolling habits, I would ask them to leave. I see it as being very rude. If you don't trust me to run a fair game, don't come to my table in the first place.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jandrem 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.

As a GM, I roll my dice away from players eyes, but mostly because I have to sit at a second table since we have 7 players and the main table is full. I have no compunctions about showing anyone what I rolled if they want to see.

But, also as a GM, there are dice to be rolled that the players don't necessarily need to see. If I'm rolling a Stealth check on someone/something trying to sneak up on them, I shouldn't need to announce "Ok guys, someone is sneaking up on you and I'm going to roll a Stealth check for them. Here, see what I rolled? Now make Perceptions checks." I roll the Stealth check behind the screen, ask the players to make their Perception check, and if they succeed, I tell them what they herd/saw. If they fail, they don't notice what happened.

I think transparency for most of the gaming can be good, but some things are really none of the player's business to be seeing. If I go see a magic show, I don't want to Magician/Illusionist explaining how he did every little trick; I want to see some magic.

If a player came to my table making demands about my rolling habits, I would ask them to leave. I see it as being very rude. If you don't trust me to run a fair game, don't come to my table in the first place.

Exactly. I love my screen. If I roll a 20, I lift the screen up to show the roll to the players. Otherwise, they need to trust me or leave the table.

The Exchange

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
See as a GM myself #3 is a tempting one.

Me too, plus a bit of #1. There is an element where, if you've gone to the effort of creating a campaign arc and the buggers you are playing with are being dicks about it (like stabbing a key NPC just for lulz), then a DM is entitled to be a bit eggy about it. I really don't get it when players want to trample over a scenario, just because they can - that's just rude, but fortunately no one has done that since we were teenagers in my game. But then I've also heard of a DM who would simply kill a character for plot reasons, irrespective of what the player felt - that is bad DMing, but probably also very rare. But when they are making legitimate choices you just didn't plan for, the trick is to roll with it, maybe alter the near-term scenario, but keep the long-term goal in mind. (PbP works best with this, as you have time to think around the situation and move on from the initial reaction of "Noooo!")

And character death isn't necessarily all that much fun. Some players invest heavily in their character and may abandon a campaign if their character is killed. I like to challenge my players and their characters, but not to destruction if I can at all avoid it.

As far as I am concerned, the aim of the game is to have fun, not necessarily to be fair. I would imagine most DMs will have strayed into each of #1, 2 or 3 at some stage in their DMing careers, and probably for quite legitimate reasons. It's a case of DMing style rather than moral failing.

Liberty's Edge

When I DM, I always use battlemats and mini's. I always make all battle connected rolls in front of the players. I attempt to give the players a bit of tactial leeway ( not always having the opponents use optimal tactics, largely dependent on the opponent's intelligence ). As a DM in my home games, I have to be ready to quickly adjust the storyline, as I have found that the players will- more often than not- take the game in unexpected directions ( after all, it's THEIR story ).Finally, I do not bend over backward to save player's characters from the consequences of very bad luck or very bad decision making. Character death is relatively infrequent, but it does occur; and the players know in advance that this can happen. Even TPK's are possible though very rara. And when I play, even in Pathfinder Society, I NEVER resurrect my own character.


cibet44 wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
I personaly don't use them. But that is me...my players don't look at all rolls...and I will shield some...but in general I roll out in the open.
So how does not using a screen work for you? I use a screen to hide maps and monster stats but I have the players roll all my dice. Even though all my rolls are out in the open I'd feel weird not having a screen at all. In fact, I think I would feel weird being a player in a game without the GM behind a screen.

It works fine for me. I don't keep really in depth notes on adventures mostly a outline in my head.

Maps and stats...well I usualy have enough table space that players would have to be obvious about looking at them(and they are often in note books so when not in use I close them or just cover them up). So I can see their use if the play area is more tight and a player could causly read the map or a stat block.


Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
See as a GM myself #3 is a tempting one. But all I do to protect my story is if the players ignore it, then the situation gets worse til it's not so easy to ignore.

I do similiar...if I set a plot in motion and the PCs ignore it...that is fine by me...but the plot will continue and they might have to deal with it later.

But I have a question....if your PCs ignore your story...ever thought of how to change it to make it interesting for them?


Jandrem wrote:


If a player came to my table making demands about my rolling habits, I would ask them to leave. I see it as being very rude. If you don't trust me to run a fair game, don't come to my table in the first place.

Exactly.

I think that a lot of the time the players forget that the dont be a d*ck thing goes BOTH WAYS. Also as mentioned before players will look at rolls and figure out modifiers and also there are rolls that NEED to be secret. If players want full transparency they need to find another table to sit at. I'm not your pet monkey.


The worst experience I've had with a DM "cheating" is...

A GM we had a couple years ago would succeed at EVERY fort or will save he ever had to make but would allow his mooks to fail ref saves. This went on for a while to the point that the players stopped using potentially powerful spells/abilities for crummy 10d6 ref save spells etc.

We had arguments and the GM would say "Why would I allow one player to end an encounter with one spell/ability? It ain't gonna happen."

Now, it has gotten better since then but that experience made all of us players revolt and boot him from behind the screen. I for one favor diverse casters over blasters and I couldn't stomach it.


Spaetrice wrote:

The worst experience I've had with a DM "cheating" is...

A GM we had a couple years ago would succeed at EVERY fort or will save he ever had to make but would allow his mooks to fail ref saves. This went on for a while to the point that the players stopped using potentially powerful spells/abilities for crummy 10d6 ref save spells etc.

We had arguments and the GM would say "Why would I allow one player to end an encounter with one spell/ability? It ain't gonna happen."

Now, it has gotten better since then but that experience made all of us players revolt and boot him from behind the screen. I for one favor diverse casters over blasters and I couldn't stomach it.

As crappy as that is, I've seen the complete opposite happen too. We were going up against the big, King bad-guy at the end of a year-long campaign, and a new player used a Save or Die spell on the baddy, it failed the save first round, and ended the fight. The rest of us that toiled in the game for the year prior felt like it was a pretty hollow victory, we didn't even get to throw down with BBEG.

The Exchange

John Kretzer wrote:
Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
See as a GM myself #3 is a tempting one. But all I do to protect my story is if the players ignore it, then the situation gets worse til it's not so easy to ignore.

I do similiar...if I set a plot in motion and the PCs ignore it...that is fine by me...but the plot will continue and they might have to deal with it later.

But I have a question....if your PCs ignore your story...ever thought of how to change it to make it interesting for them?

Well, for me, it hasn't happened like that for a very long time.

But I remember one guy saying his PCs lined up outside the tomb at the very beginning of Age of Worms, and then refused to go in. He rolled with it and they did something different, but that is just players being difficult for the hell of it - they had no idea what they missed.


For GMs who fudge the rolls alot....do you have a problem when a player fudges the roll? I mean logicaly you should not. It does make the whole dice in the game silly though...the reasons given can be applied to a player who is doing the same thing.

1 to 50 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.