The example provided above...is absolutely cheating.
I agree. I have always felt like a good GM can work within the rules without ignoring them.
Adding more HP is fine sometimes, but dying "when I feel like it" is not. At that point you have to start fudging saves and possibly more, which is basically wasting a player's actions. Things like that will just stop me from using save based spells as a player.
I can't tell you how many powerful characters I've had feel like complete crap because the GM was flubbing saves behind the screen.
There is nothing quite so aggravating as KNOWING creatures CR + 2 above your level typically need to roll a 17+ on their saves to not be taken out of the fight entirely, and that they've nevertheless miraculously passed their saves nearly ten times in a row. The fact that everyone in your group negatively criticizes your character and its build as a result of constant lack of party contribution is salt on an open wound.
GMs who bestow this kind of unfair frustration upon their players should be dragged out into the street, pelted with large metal dice, and not allowed to GM until they've learned the error of their ways.
Yes. It. Is. Cheating.
CR's kind of a crap shoot; I'm more okay with "cheating" in a fight that's supposed to be epic if I see it as compensating for my errors in constructing it. I try not avoid fudging rolls if at all possible (and can't remember the last time I had to), but any fight that's supposed to be a big deal has a few "complications" built into it that may or may not occur depending on how the fight is going. The more complicated or unusual the fight is, the more I rely on these, because complex encounters are harder to accurately eyeball, challenge-wise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I frequently change the HP/BAB on the fly for the BBEG.
I choose to either lower, or raise them.
Why?
If PCs are being destroyed, and have no chance of success = NO FUN
If PCs are walking through the encounter after the buildup. it becomes anticlimactic =NO FUN
The only thing I never do is change the rolls as I roll in front of PCs
I think you could only consider it cheating if you have a rigid GM vs. PC
mentality.
I call it aiding the quality of the story and giving the PCs the most of their experience.
The GM appears to have designed a set of encounters balanced to give his players a very serious challenge. Through a mix of poor planning, bad luck, and bad tactical decisions, they blundered into a TPK.
These things happen. I wouldn't blame the GM OR the players: Neither planned that debacle. GMs make a mistake when they water down encounters halfway through an adventure: If players start to feel as if their foes won't go for the throat, they grow careless and complacent. Combats lose their tension and drama.
My quick post-mortem critique:
1.) The party went in without sufficient intel. They had a spell direct them to the area, but didn't take further steps to find out more about the area they chose to invade: "We didn't know this was the vault of Nethys!" There may have been other ways to deal with the area's inhabitants or to bypass their traps.
2.) The party was not adequately prepared for battle, having devoted too many resources to overcoming the fireball trap. A more efficient insertion strategy would have been better. The wizard should have made sure he was able to provide a solid offensive contribution.
3.) The party's equipment was sub-par for the mission. I consider alchemists' fire and low-level curative magics vital to party success.
4.) Mid-level party members should be prepared to "get out of dodge" if events go against them, using magic as needed. They didn't have an effective extraction plan.
There is a pretty big selection of the gaming public out there, that does not think changing the bad guys on the fly is cheating at all. As a matter of fact, it is actually encouraged NOT to have fully developed NPCs at all in the GURPS gaming system.
A GM being a slave to the numbers on his notes who sacrifices the fun of the encounters and thus the game because of it, does not a good GM make. A good GM is an entertainer, not an adversary. A GM MAY be a bad GM by being adversarial, or showing favorites, or may just be a mean person on a power trip. But a good GM is not a slave to notes on his bad guys, if it means making for a more entertaining game session for all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This all depends hugely on the group.
There are groups (read: players) who are more competitively oriented. Fudging rolls to avoid TPK's or simple deaths is anathema to them, because for them, fun in the game comes from the tactical challenge, the task of building a solid powergamebuild that can lay waste to the mobs. For them, being able to tag team the BBEG with a combined hold person+full attack sneak flurry thingie in one round is an accomplishment, and fumbling that will save that results in TPK is a bitter-sweet defeat that is appreciated as well. (I know, I like to call them powergamers or rollplayers, but I don't mean to offend anyone with this - I know these people exist, and I play with them frequently). I'd think these people would take fudging the dice as cheating, or at least as bad form.
Some people, on the other hand, are in it more for the drama, story, and character development. Sometimes, a character's death is part of it, some times, it's not and kills the fun. This is often called "playing by the rule of greater drama" - Most of the GM's I know prefer this type. Interesting story and it's development is often more important than wether or not the BBEG had too many hitpoints or not.
All in all, cheating depends on the view about the game. Of course, if you establish the context first, it comes quite a bit clearer.
There is a pretty big selection of the gaming public out there, that does not think changing the bad guys on the fly is cheating at all.
I wouldn't call that cheating, but players need to believe that their choices govern their fate. If they feel like their decisions aren't important, they lose investment in the game.
This feeling can come from either extreme. Players may feel like the GM will pull his punches, or they may feel like there's no hope of victory ("Game over, man! We're all gonna buy it on this rock!"). Either situation hurts the game.
A GM being a slave to the numbers on his notes who sacrifices the fun of the encounters and thus the game because of it, does not a good GM make. A good GM is an entertainer, not an adversary.
While I agree, different groups will have different play preferences (as others have noted). Some want to explore their characters' personalities in roleplaying scenes, while others want the challenge of overcoming a really tough foe. Ideally, the GM will include elements tailored to his players' tastes, adjusting details as needed to provide the game his players prefer.
Unfortunately, if a DM habitually pulls out the "nerf bat" once the party gets in over its head, it quickly becomes obvious. We've all heard of games where the GM obviously started to softball encounters midway through. Once players realize that they're getting a break, they play differently. If the GM "softballs" are due to an unusual factor, they'll understand (e.g.: "Joe wasn't here with his paladin, so the GM had to water the undead encounter down a bit for balance."). If the reason comes down to "He doesn't want to kill us", the players may start to feel as if their decisions don't matter. Combat becomes less involving when you know you can't lose.
(Of course, "Softballing" encounters may be appropriate for some groups: If the game group has some kids in it, or the party is badly unbalanced, they may not be able to function efficiently and may need the GM to ease up on them.)
I can't tell you how many powerful characters I've had feel like complete crap because the GM was flubbing saves behind the screen.
There is nothing quite so aggravating as KNOWING creatures CR + 2 above your level typically need to roll a 17+ on their saves to not be taken out of the fight entirely, and that they've nevertheless miraculously passed their saves nearly ten times in a row. The fact that everyone in your group negatively criticizes your character and its build as a result of constant lack of party contribution is salt on an open wound.
GMs who bestow this kind of unfair frustration upon their players should be dragged out into the street, pelted with large metal dice, and not allowed to GM until they've learned the error of their ways.
I just think they should DM for different players. It doesn't bug me if the DM thinks he's screwed up the difficulty of an encounter and adjusts on the fly. I've never seen one change a creatures AC mid battle, but I'm sure there have been times when I've played against almost impossibly lucky foes.
I wouldn't call it cheating. I used to do it. Now I think of it as sloppy GMing. It violates my contract with the players. If you can get away with it forever and have a clear conscience, more power to you, but I like to do things by the book.
The reason we have dice in these games is so that even the GM gets knocked off-balance once in a while.
Silent Image.
Traps don't disbelieve.
|
Some systems encourage light cheating for dramatic effect, like mutants and masterminds. If you need the pcs to not do something you cheat and give the a hero point to make it up. This comes up when villains need to get away or the encounter is a cool trap the heros should not have avoided. I don't mind this style of Cheating.
whe the GM is playing by him self it it becomes double unfun.
I've played with a hand wave GM and it is boring and players lose interest fast once we noticed. Battles ended when he wanted, monsters hit when he wanted, .... We didn't even want rewards because they were not earned.
It's the same if the plot is set in stone and the players can't make interesting changes or effect things.
If a gm cheats it should be rare and unnoticed, don't pull out the DM screen on your critical confirmation rolls.... Don't roll dice and say different numbers, don't not look at the dice after rolling.
In this case, making unique traps and or monsters isn't cheating, but he did stack alot against the party. If the players are not adapting to gear they should be using (like alch fire, acid splash, lesser restoration), tell them instead of making a horrible quest.
Not following the rules is cheating for DMs as much as it is for players.
In D&D there is no rules precident to allow a DM to cheat regardless if there is in other games.
I like to extend my bad guy's life totals when someone lands a lucky spell or effect.
Monsters needs a 3 to succeed a stunning fist/hold person and rolls a 2, and it actually has like 3 more hp left? If I feel like its turn is close, it'll get juuuust enough so that the stun, effect etc. matters enough. Not all of the time, but sometimes.
I don't cheat on saves. I kind of cheat backwards sometimes and lower them, but if it's a BBEG, I just... try to pump their saves to good levels so they don't go out like a chump.
[/completelyofftopic]
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not following the rules is cheating for DMs as much as it is for players.
In D&D there is no rules precident to allow a DM to cheat regardless if there is in other games.
Try page 402 of the core rulebook. Actually, I'll just paste it here.
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice.
The section goes on, but I think that is sufficient.
Just roll in the open as a DM when it comes to combat stuff. There's a huge thrill for the players all waiting, knowing they get to see the roll.
Magic Dealer, it is also just the opinion of the author. I don't agree with him.
That's funny, I consider the entire rule book the opinion of the author, and I often don't agree with him.
|
Just roll in the open as a DM when it comes to combat stuff. There's a huge thrill for the players all waiting, knowing they get to see the roll.
It really is a thrill for them. When a player uses a big spell or ability from his character I often let them roll the save for the monster and they go nuts for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my initial statement. What was posted is not rules and it does not condone cheating. In fact, it says "you should try to avoid it when you can". What this section is talking about is when there are no specific rules to accurate adjucate what you are trying to accomplish. Not blatantly ignoring rules that already exist and coming up with new ones designed to hinder your players dispite the abilities they have and the rolls that they make.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The section posted is in the rulebook, and part of the rules. It very explicitly gives the dm permission to ignore rolls if he/she thinks that the game will be more entertaining by doing so.
I always find it amusing when people are self contradicting. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it stops being a rule.
Here, allow me to post another excerpt from that section. Page 403, Rolling Dice.
Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all the rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.
Or maybe you'd prefer another quote. Page 396.
Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law.
Another one? Page 402
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. His reading of the rules should be respected and adhered to.
And, again, you seem to be missing the distinction between a dm willing to adjust values on the fly, and a bad dm. You keep talking about things that a bad dm might do. Guess what? That bad dm can follow the rules exactly and make things 10 times more unbalanced and unfun for his players.
A good gm, however, can use the powers explicitly granted to him in order to change a boring encounter into something entertaining and fun for his players.
But let's talk a moment about that last sentence of yours. "coming up with new ones designed to hinder your players dispite the abilities they have and the rolls that they make."
Guess what? There's a section on that. It's called a house rule, and is something explicitly allowed by the core rule book. A good gm can use it to add more fun to the game, where a bad gm will use it to add nothing, or to take fun away.
I'll also add that while you use the word hinder, the option can just as easily be used to enhance, improve, or challenge the players. How it is used is dependent on whether you have a good dm or a bad one.
I always find it amusing when people are self contradicting. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it stops being a rule.
Rule 0 is not a rule. It is just a way of saying that at times a GM can step outside the rules.
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can you are the law in your world, and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice.
That is the same quote you posted, but I highlighted a different area.
With that said whether or not something is cheating depends more on the social contract of the group than anything else. Some people expect to win. Others expect to earn their victories or defeats.
I prefer to not fudge, but level 1 characters are really fragile, and I use AP's since I don't have time to entirely prep my own games. I also don't like the idea of partially preparing stat blocks. Somewhere around 3rd or 4th level the safety net comes off though. I am pretty honest about this so many players don't show up or after realizing I am done holding their hands don't come back. Some people love the thrill of death, and get to session well before I arrive. What I am about to do is use a modified version of PF's hero point system so those that want to live can have a better chance, and those that don't can choose not to use them.
|
|
With that said whether or not something is cheating depends more on the social contract of the group than anything else. Some people expect to win. Others expect to earn their victories or defeats.I prefer to not fudge, but level 1 characters are really fragile, and I use AP's since I don't have time to entirely prep my own games. I also don't like the idea of partially preparing stat blocks. Somewhere around 3rd or 4th level the safety net comes off though. I am pretty honest about this so many players don't show up or after realizing I am done holding their hands don't come back. Some people love the thrill of death, and get to session well before I arrive. What I am about to do is use a modified version of PF's hero point system so those that want to live can have a better chance, and those that don't can choose not to use them.
I.....want.....to....LIVE!
|
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this "fudging" rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can you are the law in your world, and you shouldn't feel bound by the dice.That is the same quote you posted, but I highlighted a different area.
The only issue I have with this back and forth is that folks are only seeming to focus on part of what was written instead of the entire thing.
In a nutshell:
"Cheating is bad and should be avoided whenever possible, but sometimes s&@* happens and to avoid having a totally anticlimactic moment, such as a BBEG getting killed off by a single attack at the end of a five year campaign, the GM should not feel bound to the results of the dice if it enhances the story and experience."
If it ADDS to the story or the overall experience, I have no problem with it and actually runs within the written rule. If it is simply used to smack down the PCs for not reason other than the GM is going on a power trip, then it is in violation of said rule.
This is, of course, my interpretation of said rule and as such may differ wildly from yours.