Blatant cheating for low-level tables

[redward]

Netopalis wrote:

Redward: You're being intentionally thick here. You can't look at just the one dice roll. The monster will run at the stat block indicated. In the unlikely event that I threaten a crit with said monster and roll high enough to confirm a hit that would have rarely confirmed otherwise, I drop the number on the die down by, say, 2. That's a big difference from thinking that enemies hit too much and dropping 2 from their to hit for the entirety of the scenario.

I'm not being intentionally thick. I am naturally exactly this thick. You're saying it's okay to change numbers as long as it comes from the die. I'm saying that's pure rationalization.

Player's AC is 18.

It doesn't matter if you change the roll, change the attack bonus, "forget" the bonus from Bless, decide that a sudden aneurysm has temporarily robbed him of weapon proficiency to impart a -4 penalty. If you change any one of those things to make the total less than 18, it's the same as changing any other. There's nothing magical about the dice roll that makes it the one number it's okay to change. They're completely fungible*.

If you have changed the total then you have changed the total.

Exercise for the reader: Assume an attack bonus of +10. Roll the die until you get a 10. Write each number on a slip of paper. Put both pieces of paper in a hat. Randomly draw a piece of paper. It says '10.' You've got to get the total below 18 to save the character from certain death. Is it okay to change the '10' that you drew?

*Except for a natural 1 or 20, but changing to one of those is even worse, IMO.

[N N 959]

Eric Brittain wrote:

It seems to me that there is a fundamental misconception here.

The game will never be fair.

You're presenting a fallacy here. The game can never be proven to be fair, but it can be fair within the context of parameters like Table Variation(TM).

More to the point, the game must striveto be fair. It must include rules that engender fairness. Not a single person, including myself expects things to be exactly the same. Nor is anyone claiming that the absence of such similarity is unfair. What is unfair is the arbitrary application of rules by a GM.

Quote:

We can make it similar.

We don't need it to be similar. In fact, we don't care if it's similar, we care that given the same exact inputs, we'd get the same result. It's irrelevant that we'll never get the same exact inputs.

Quote:

It will never be fair.

And you will never write the perfect short story and never paint the perfect picture or craft the perfect melody, so we should stop trying?

Quote:

But it should be fun.

No game is going to be fun if the players perceive it to be unfair. Name a single game that has survived where fairness is a casualty to fun? The GM is not a player, he or she is tantamount to a referee/official/judge. In all cases they are expected to be impartial to the player.

Quote:

A part of doing this is realizing that everyone has fun in different ways.

That's exactly right. And in cases where GMs have never GM'd a person before, please don't tell me they can mind-read each player and know exactly when they need to cheat and when they don't.

Quote:

You can read your table and adjust how you present the experience.

Has it occurred to you that if the GM just plays the game with precision and passion, the rest will take care of itself? Has it occurred to you that D&D is successful because the game is inherently fun? You know what isn't fun? Sitting down at a table and worrying about whether the GM is cheating...in either direction.

Quote:

You can also hide every single thing you do to make sure that the table is engaged. You can fudge dice, tactics, and even the story (within bounds) and do it with finesse so that the players at the table don't ever see it happen.

I think you're deluding yourself. Considering that players may have already read the scenario as a GM or in preparation to GM (or going forward, have already played it), you're deluding yourself if you think you can do this as SOP and not be detected. The only reason a GM needs to consistently roll attack and damage dice behind a screen is so that they can fudge at some point.

Quote:

But try as hard as you want you will never make this game fair.

The game already IS fair. It's the GMs job to see that it stays that way.

[Netopalis]

Redward: And yet again, you miss my point which is that the one dice roll matters less than the fight as a whole.

[Eric Brittain]

N N 959, I invite you to come to San Diego and see this in action.

The game by itself is jjust like notes on a piece of music, lifeless until someone breathes a bit of themselves into it.

[Eric Brittain]

I will admit that there are those people who feel that roll dice, adding, and subtracting by themselves are fun. If this is what you enjoy more power to you.

It is not what I enjoy, .or have I found it effective in attracting and keeping new players.

Edited to fix typos

[N N 959]

Eric Brittain wrote:

N N 959, I invite you to come to San Diego and see this in action.

San Diego is a beautiful city. I doubt my wife would let me spend the day at a game store :(

Quote:

The game by itself is jjust like notes on a piece of music, lifeless until someone breathes a bit of themselves into it.

Nothing I've said contradicts this. And I certainly don't think you are trying to say that GMs need to cheat to make the game fun.

[redward]

Netopalis wrote:

Redward: And yet again, you miss my point which is that the one dice roll matters less than the fight as a whole.

I get your point. You're saying it's okay to change a die roll, because it's just one die roll. And it's not okay to change the stat block, because that applies to every roll.

But you seem to think that changing a stat block means it is automatically changed for the entire fight. I am saying I could just as easily change it for one round, or even one attack, and then immediately change it back.

PFS says I can't alter the stat block, not even for that one round or attack.

But if I change the die roll, it is effectively the same as that temporary alteration of the stat block. Because the die roll doesn't matter, in and of itself.* The attack bonus doesn't matter, in and of itself. They are just numbers. The total is the only thing that matters because that is what determines whether it is a hit.

*Again, excepting natural 1s and 20s.

[Eric Brittain]

N N 959 wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

N N 959, I invite you to come to San Diego and see this in action.

San Diego is a beautiful city. I doubt my wife would let me spend the day at a game store :(

Maybe someday it will happen. Who knows if you find the right GM and group of people your wife might even join you in gaming. :-D

N N 959 wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

The game by itself is jjust like notes on a piece of music, lifeless until someone breathes a bit of themselves into it.

Nothing I've said contradicts this. And I certainly don't think you are trying to say that GMs need to cheat to make the game fun.

you are right. I am not saying that the GM needs to cheat to make the game fun.

I am saying that we needs to focus on the people first and rules second.

And that sometimes in certain situations that normally arise with brand new players where that new player hasn't yet had the gaming joy hook properly set and that player would most likely have a bad experience that they would likely ever afterward associate with gaming and the GM perceives this then I feel the GM has a duty to make a choice and choose the person over the rules and work to skillfully and subtly fudge what happens to be less impactful so that the player can get the hook fully set and experience the full awesome of our hobby.

If you are not that judge that can do something like this, then you would not be a person I would use to introduce new players to the game.

That was quite a mouthful and I hope it comes across clearish.

:-)

[Chris Mortika]

I acknowledge the debate between changing die rolls versus changing stat blocks. But I don't want to debate that. Insteead, I want to tell you all a story.

Back in 1983 or so, I attended the Chicago Comic Con -- at that time, it and San Diego's convention were about the same size -- and the dealer's room included a booth by TSR, and a fellow thee named Jeff Grubb was debuting the new Marvel Super-heroes game.

He was running product demos for folks -- mostly kids-- and most of the folks wanted to play Hulk or Wolverine. And Jeff ran each of them through a five- or ten-minute fight, and they all won. It might have been the case that somebody lost, due to really bad die rolls, but I never saw that.

Spoiler:

I walked up and asked if I could play Mr. Fantastic. His head snapped up and he said, with a desperate edge to his voice, "Yes!" And when it came time to build a hero, I asked about the Osprey, from FF #177. And that was the day Jeff Grubb learned my name, and that was my first step through the door of TSR freelancing.

Now, the question is: to what extent is a low-tier Pathfinder Society scenario a demo for the game? If you think of it as a demo, then making sure that everybody wins all the fights is important. If you see it more as an adventure, as part of the PFS experience that is being sold, then the time for fudging is over.

Myself, I think that the First Steps or "Master of the Fallen Fortress" are more in the line of demos. Once a player sits down to "Severing Ties" or "God's MArket Gamble", I take that aspect of demo-environment away.

[Mark Stratton]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Now, the question is: to what extent is a low-tier Pathfinder Society scenario a demo for the game? If you think of it as a demo, then making sure that everybody wins all the fights is important. If you see it more as an adventure, as part of the PFS experience that is being sold, then the time for fudging is over.

Myself, I think that the First Steps or "Master of the Fallen Fortress" are more in the line of demos. Once a player sits down to "Severing Ties" or "God's MArket Gamble", I take that aspect of demo-environment away.

+1!

Now, I don't fudge die rolls in Society games, but home games are another matter. But, I have to say, Chris, what you have described here? This, to me, is a good middle-ground. Accordingly, this will be my new practice for Society games.

[Eric Brittain]

Chris, I think your insight helps explain a lot.

The true test comes when you have both demo and adventure players at the same table.

[N N 959]

Eric Brittain wrote:

I am saying that we needs to focus on the people first and rules second.

If you are not that judge that can do something like this, then you would not be a person I would use to introduce new players to the game.

I know enough to recognize that what I don't is like an ocean to a cup of water. There are obviously some methods that are better for introducing neophytes to the game than others. But before we agree to doing that, there has to be a lot more in place than some random GM deciding some player they've talked to for 10 minutes deserves having the rules bent in their favor and some other person doesn't

No game works by trying to cater to the individual. When kids first start playing little league, you don't have some hitting from a tee and the others hitting a live pitcher.

You want to have demo mode, great. But then everyone gets the benefit of demo mode.

[Finlanderboy]

Changing the rolls or changing the stat block is not the same thing. But the results are the same.

Using the verbage fudged the die roll is a way of using words to make the siutation seem less extreme form of cheating.

If you cheat for the players or against them at the end of the day you cheated.

I understand why some people do it. I horribly disagree and am slightly offended by it. If these people survived their gamnes due to DMs cheating the dice rolsl so they would not die it is a threat to me.

When they play at higher level teirs they expect to survive no matter what, and when I rely on them as a teammate in a game where a DM will nto cheta for them. It puts my characters in danger.

You earn the right to play a 5th, 7th, 11th level character. Being given one when they do not learn how to play said character is a threat to everyone that they play with.

In my local area where they softball everything I am starting to see this. Where characters are reaching mid-level and they do not expect a threat.

[Netopalis]

It has been stated over and over again, Finlander, that fudging a dice roll as a GM is not cheating. I take cheating very seriously, and that is not cheating. The rules allow the GM to do it. Anybody who would try to force me to not fudge the dice rolls when I feel it is necessary would be the ones breaking the rules.

Again, I ask anybody here - please give me some sort of lesson that can be learned from your AC 19 fighter getting crit to death in your character's first scenario. Anybody? I can't think of anything learned. It feels stupid and pointless, and if that's the game we're going to play, we might as well just go flip coins all day. There's exactly as much strategic input.

[N N 959]

Netopalis wrote:

Again, I ask anybody here - please give me some sort of lesson that can be learned from your AC 19 fighter getting crit to death in your character's first scenario. Anybody?

Speaking on general terms, the fact that players die on their first mission gives meaning to those who survive. Hearing of character death, at any level, reminds me to pay attention. It reminds me not to just mail it in. It reminds me to invest in armor, think before entering into melee against people with battle axes and picks. Hearing about crit death makes me appreciate the frontline fighters who are willing to risk their lives to keep my archery ranger free from the ravages of bad luck. The fact that they can and do die makes me willing to use my CLW to heal them so they can save their money for better armor.

I don't know what impact it has writ large. But crit death on one someone's very first mission reinforces the nature of the game. Reading that GMs are willing to fudge dice reminds me of why I won't play non-pfs at FLGS.

[Finlanderboy]

Netopalis wrote:

It has been stated over and over again, Finlander, that fudging a dice roll as a GM is not cheating. I take cheating very seriously, and that is not cheating. The rules allow the GM to do it. Anybody who would try to force me to not fudge the dice rolls when I feel it is necessary would be the ones breaking the rules.

Again, I ask anybody here - please give me some sort of lesson that can be learned from your AC 19 fighter getting crit to death in your character's first scenario. Anybody? I can't think of anything learned. It feels stupid and pointless, and if that's the game we're going to play, we might as well just go flip coins all day. There's exactly as much strategic input.

CHeat definition from google

1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination.
2. avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill.

I would say fudging follows number 2 definition of cheating exactly. Redefining words to make your point is a poor logical debate. Is it a legal form of cheating? Thats debatable.

Again the falalcies Netapolis??? You are smarter than that to really on tricks to convince people in your methods. It is not coin flipping. Coin flipping would suggest 50/50. There are 20 sides on that die so 5%. To trivilize it to pointless luck is horribly incorrect. A player can effect their luck. There are near INFINTE ways to raise their armor class. If a player goes face first into the x4 crit weapon and gets critted. Well that is a lesson to not do that. Prepare for somethign deadly. Being in an imaginary game protects people from the voilence themselves and some players will think this extends to their characters too. But they need to realize when somethign is a threat and how to mitigate that threat. When I DM new players I do teach them this.

I am sorry but if you think "There's exactly as much strategic input." as flipping coins. Well then you miss a lot of the game. Every step my character makes or does not make is a form of mitigated risk.

Deifnition of mitigate: make less severe, serious, or painful

If you would like I could go into details of the hell knights feast to prove this.

My level 9 has 12 AC with 5 strength. Positioning is more important than AC for him.

[Finlanderboy]

As an additional note.

For new players I will pause the game tell them a possible fatal move or action they plan. Describe how it is risky and allow them to redo/rethink their actions. If they choose the risk at that point then I continue the game.

You could call this cheating as well. But once they know and take that risk I let the dice fall where they may.

I remember telling someone. There is an 85% chance he will hit you. If he hits you a 12.5% he will kill your character to dead, are you sure you want to do that?

[Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome]

I seriously cannot believe we're having this discussion yet again...

if people are truly interested ....

thread from April 2013

Also from April of this year

yet another one from April of 2013

I could link older threads, but really what's the point. All these thread essentially say the same thing... and they are starting to sound like a broken record.

Perhaps a new thread topic is in order???? please

[Sin of Asmodeus]

Thea. U con?
Also Death to everyone, and um... HAIL MING!

[Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome]

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

Thea. U con?

Also Death to everyone, and um... HAIL MING!

working on it lol