|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trigger warning concerning the word "cheat".
I agree with Matthew in that (and only that) fudging a die roll is cheating. That is not meant as a judgment statement. To be perfectly clear: when I say cheat, I mean dictionary-definition "to violate rules dishonestly." Changing the number on a die is mathematically the same as changing someone's AC or Attack bonus. The result is the same: you've changed a hit to a miss, or a crit to a hit, or whatever. You are being dishonest with the result.
Again, I am not saying that as a judgment statement. I am not saying someone is a bad person for changing a 20 to a 19. I am saying they broke a rule dishonestly. "Dishonestly" does not imply malice, just a general lack of truthiness. This is only my opinion.
Netapolis asserts that there is a rule that says it's okay to fudge results if it's for the good of the table. I am not in the mood to argue that (again).
Instead, I am now going to make an assumption. If anyone finds fault with this assumption, please call me out. The assumption is that for everyone saying it is okay to fudge a die roll, they are implying that it is really only okay as long as the players never know. Right? Because it's not supposed to work like this:
GM: "I got a 20. 15 points of damage. What's your AC?"
PC: "20. I'm dead. Dead dead."
GM: "Woah! I...read the die wrong. I got a 19! Lucky you!"
Party: "...yay?"
It's supposed to work like this:
GM: "What's your AC?"
PC: "20"
GM: "Bah, I got a 19."
The latter is okay because the party gets the drama, but the player doesn't lose his character and therefore interest in PFS. The former is bad because everyone's memory is tainted by the blatant softballing.
/assumption
Now if that assumption is correct, then the party line becomes "it's okay for a GM to fudge a die if no one knows." To which I say, duh.
Because you know what? It's okay for a player to fudge a die if nobody knows.
PC1: "And...make my concentration check to cast defensively. Breath of Life goes off."
PC2:"I'm alive!"
Party:"Yay!"
vs.
PC1: "And...make my concentration check to cast defensively. Breath of Life goes off."
PC2:"I'm alive!"
PC3:"It looked like you rolled a 1..."
PC1: Errrmmm...
Party:"Boo..."
Pathfinder is a cooperative game, and that includes the GM (unless you're doing it wrong). When you cheat, you're really only cheating yourself. The deep dark shame of your false victory over the band of Pugwampis lives only in your heart. Unless you're a clumsy liar, in which case the other players talk about you behind your back and try to figure out how to passive-aggressively remove you from the group.
Here's the thing, GMs. You may not be as good at cheating as you think you are. When you ask me my AC before declaring your Attack result, my mind grapes start churning. When you ask everyone for their Save results, and the PC near-death makes his roll on the dot, I am suspicious. If you roll behind a screen, I immediately distrust anything that miraculously goes in my favor.
If you are going to cheat (not that there's anything wrong with that), you need to be very good at cheating.
Speaking only for myself, I don't like knowing something was fudged in my favor. I don't like suspecting that something was fudged in my favor. I don't particularly like softball tactics, but it is at least within the rules of the game, and that makes my borderline-OCD brain feel better.
I do not know anyone old enough to vote who likes it when someone else lets them win at a game. It is a belittling and hollow victory. It is bumpers at the bowling alley. Please consider that as much as you may not want to kill someone's PC, there are a lot of us who would rather they die honestly than live via divine intervention.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Taken in isolation as a single hit, yes, fudging a die roll is mathematically the same as increasing the bonus to hit. Taken over the course of an entire combat, which may have the GM making 10-20 rolls, it is far from the same.
The key to fudging at low levels is consistency. Always ask whether something hits before announcing the damage. Always roll behind a screen at low levels. Always ask everyone affected by a spell for their saving throw before announcing the result. That maintains the illusion, especially when allowing deaths that are due to a PC's own stupidity.
Actual example: Level 3 PC gets dropped by a Shocking Grasp. PC is made conscious at 3 HP by a channel. PC walks up to enemy again. Funnily enough, the boss has another Shocking Grasp. I let that one go as the dice fell because the player made a poor decision.
Counter-example from actual experience: A well-built fighter who has an interesting background and engages in roleplay is slaughtering his way through wave 10 of random Level 1 Warriors armed with heavy picks. These warriors can't hit the fighter except on a 20. One of them rolls two 20s in a row. No matter how well-built you are as a level 2 character, you are unlikely to survive that. The player made no poor choices, it was merely astronomically bad luck. So, I rolled it the first time, asked if it confirmed, then asked if the confirmation roll (22) hit. I knew that it wouldn't. The player walks away wiping their brow, feeling as if it were a very close call. The GM doesn't have to remove a good character from play. Everybody wins.
Now that I have clarified how I do this, I'd like to ask everybody in this thread: Do you have any logical reason to expect that a GM needs to follow the same rules as a player? For the life of me, I am at a loss to figure out where this idea came from. GMs do LOTS of things that players aren't allowed to do. They know what's coming ahead on both sides and use it to their advantage. They make judgement calls about what effect something would have. They are the final arbiters of the rules as they apply to players. As a player, you don't have that power, responsibility or right. You are held to a different set of rules.
In conclusion, just because you may enjoy a very stark and grim campaign does not mean that everybody does. Your enjoyment does not trump my table's enjoyment. Likewise, I see no reason to change my GM style to fit your style.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do you have any logical reason to expect that a GM needs to follow the same rules as a player? For the life of me, I am at a loss to figure out where this idea came from.
Maybe the idea came from people already having experience with playing games in general, in which everyone at the table plays by the same rules. Is it that crazy to think that someone with some concept of how "playing games" works might assume that some fundamental elements of game-playing might carry over into playing this game?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with you on whether fudging is appropriate. I'm just saying that if you don't understand how someone might come into RPGs with an expectation that the rules apply to everyone, then you might need to recognize that not everyone's baseline experiences of what it means to play with their friends began with RPGs.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, Netopalis has gotten my wheels a-turnin'. I'm thinking of every non-RPG cooperative game I've played:
The deckbuilding game Rune Age has multiple "scenarios" (win conditions and sets of peripheral rules), one of which is called "The Cataclysm" and has everyone working together to survive. There is no "GM" type of role; everyone plays by the same rules.
Level 7: Escape similarly has nobody serving as a GM, yet it's actually remarkably similar to RPGs. So similar, in fact, that if I knew someone was familiar with L7:E, I'd introduce Pathfinder by saying it's like that but in a fantasy setting and more involved/customizable. But still no concept of someone at the table not being subject to the same rules as everyone else.
As a teenager I played an interesting group game called "Mafia" (I think some groups call it "Werewolf"?) in which townspeople hang each other by day while the mafia/the werewolves kill people at night, until one or the other group is dead. There's a moderator (basically the GM) who has special duties and doesn't take part in most player activities; but they still don't get to decide that (for instance) "the mafia is winning too fast and therefore I'll fudge that the doctor saved the right person tonight". Such a moderator would never get to moderate again.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head (though I'm sure there are more), and none of them give the impression of the GM "being" the rules.
|
|
The important thing to keep in mind is what your players want.
I'm the knid of player that enjoys the chance of death and even dying. I would not like it to discover that GMs had been pulling punches on me. Enough so that I would probably not play with that GM again.
There are players who feel the exact opposite.
As a GM, I don't *want* to kill players. There are those that do, and they really don't have a place in Organized Play. At the same time, you can't be afraid to kill a player as well.
|
I suppose that's true, but to me, the GM is less akin to a player and more akin to the rules themselves. It's like saying that Bowser shouldn't be able to breathe fire because Mario can't.
The GM, to me, is very much like another player in PFS. Can't change the scenario. Must follow tactics as written. Doesn't sound very GMy to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Jiggy: I didn't say that the GM has no rules at all, but rather that the GM follows a different set of rules. Players and GMs have vastly different actions available to them, and vastly different levels of knowledge about the events going on. While yes, most of that discretion is taken away in PFS, the guide fairly explicitly allows fudging. If something is allowed, doing so is not cheating. It's not incomprehensible for two groups of people involved in a game to have two different sets of rules applicable to them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree fudging the dice is cheating. But a DM is not held to the same rules a player is, but they can cheat the same as anyone else.
Now as a DM I very much try and tell the player of the dnagers they put themselves in, and if capable give them the chances of what could happen.
This is how I teach new players. I present them the odds and let them decide if they want to risk it. This is not always easy as there is a lot to complicate things.
I will never fudge a die roll. But that is my choice.
Also as a player if a DM fudges die rolls in our game I would not appreciate it in the slightest. Because fudging for one player effects everyone. So keep that in mind when you start to fudge dice.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy: I didn't say that the GM has no rules at all, but rather that the GM follows a different set of rules. Players and GMs have vastly different actions available to them, and vastly different levels of knowledge about the events going on. While yes, most of that discretion is taken away in PFS, the guide fairly explicitly allows fudging. If something is allowed, doing so is not cheating. It's not incomprehensible for two groups of people involved in a game to have two different sets of rules applicable to them.
I don't think anyone is under the impression that the GM doesn't have a different set of rules to abide by than the players have. I think where folks are having issues is the claim that the rule stating that an attack is resolved by rolling a d20, adding modifiers and comparing to AC is somehow not in both rulesets.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh, also, when your defense of fudging is that "we don't endorse" is different than "we don't allow", don't be surprised when players treat your position the same way you might treat theirs when they claim their build is legal because "the rules don't provide" is different than "the rules don't allow".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still fail to see how me fudging a single roll with nobody knowing about it in West Virginia affects you all the way in Indiana.
Your right. My character din't get saved my GM cheating. Now I had to pay a 5000+gp fine to be raised. I'm cool with that because I'm a mature player.
Jack a third player is looking to fill up his group for Bonekeep and looking for a wizard. He picks Jill over me since her character has some nice gear (such as those gloves of Breath of Life) that I couldn't afford. Now my experience is less because you as Jill's GM cheated for her.
We do all interact. And not wanting to let someone loose is a poor reason to cheat.
|
|
Maybe we're playing different games. For me, the point of PFS isn't to see how close to the rules as written I can get; it's to have fun in a collaborative, social environment. It's to share something I enjoy with others, possibly to learn, possibly to teach, but primarily just to have fun. There's a whole list of reasons "why" I do what I do at any given moment...but getting as close as possible to the mythical unicorn that is "rules as written" is pretty far down the list. I suspect that if I'm "doing it wrong" someone will report me soon enough. After 100 plus games, I'm surely running out of luck.
|
|
Maybe we're playing different games. For me, the point of PFS isn't to see how close to the rules as written I can get; it's to have fun in a collaborative, social environment. It's to share something I enjoy with others, possibly to learn, possibly to teach, but primarily just to have fun. There's a whole list of reasons "why" I do what I do at any given moment...but getting as close as possible to the mythical unicorn that is "rules as written" is pretty far down the list. I suspect that if I'm "doing it wrong" someone will report me soon enough. After 100 plus games, I'm surely running out of luck.
How about the rules as intended? Do those mean anything or should I be prepared for a round of interactive storytelling where what dice read are irrelevant at your table?
I don't really care how many games you run. If you aren't playing Pathfinder I don't understand your association with PFS.
Also to those of you who think you're so much more clever than you're players here's a newsflash - you aren't. People know who the carebear GMs are. Less scrupulous players keep you in mind for mods that they hear are hard (gotten any invitations to run The Elven Entanglement recently?). And those of us who want a fair game are avoiding your tables.
|
|
I can almost guarantee that you and I can read the same rule and both will see slightly different things in it. We will each remember different things from the various books we have read, or officially sanctioned seminars we have attended, or conversations we have had. We may or may not remember where each bit of information came from; brain filing systems vary more than hair or eye color. No matter how I try, I'm never going to be perfect. I will do my level best to have fun and to see that my table does as well.
|
|
Maybe we're playing different games. For me, the point of PFS isn't to see how close to the rules as written I can get; it's to have fun in a collaborative, social environment. It's to share something I enjoy with others, possibly to learn, possibly to teach, but primarily just to have fun. There's a whole list of reasons "why" I do what I do at any given moment...but getting as close as possible to the mythical unicorn that is "rules as written" is pretty far down the list. I suspect that if I'm "doing it wrong" someone will report me soon enough. After 100 plus games, I'm surely running out of luck.How about the rules as intended? Do those mean anything or should I be prepared for a round of interactive storytelling where what dice read are irrelevant at your table?
I don't really care how many games you run. If you aren't playing Pathfinder I don't understand your association with PFS.
Also to those of you who think you're so much more clever than you're players here's a newsflash - you aren't. People know who the carebear GMs are. Less scrupulous players keep you in mind for mods that they hear are hard (gotten any invitations to run The Elven Entanglement recently?). And those of us who want a fair game are avoiding your tables.
Oh I always do my best to balance all of the rules, from all of the sanctioned sources I've read or attended, for every game I play. That said, if you choose to avoid my tables, that is your right and I firmly support your decision.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simple fact of the matter is, that we are all intelligent people and as intelligent people we tend to interpret things. That interpretation generally runs to being different than others interpretation.
To say someone is cheating because they make a choice based on their interpretation of a given line in the guide isn't fair.
Can we please stop using the word cheat or cheating .. it isn't cheating when we are given that smidge of leeway in the guide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your right. My character din't get saved my GM cheating. Now I had to pay a 5000+gp fine to be raised. I'm cool with that because I'm a mature player.
Big deal, we play in hard mode and take our licks when it all comes apart. I don't care how others are rolling because it straight up doesn't affect me.
Jack a third player is looking to fill up his group for Bonekeep and looking for a wizard. He picks Jill over me since her character has some nice gear (such as those gloves of Breath of Life) that I couldn't afford. Now my experience is less because you as Jill's GM cheated for her.
First up, Jack doesn't get a say here - first in best dressed on sign-up, Jack gets no say. Jill is probably a softball player anyway, hence getting a Carebear GM and so is probably REALLY NOT INTERESTED in the Bonekeep table and its 'Abandon all faith' sign posted out front. So yeah two more reasons why Jill isn't shorting you.
Soft players will seek out the soft games, hard players will seek out the hard ones, good GM's will work out which sort of player is in front of them and play to their tastes - the GM's job is not simply to sit around and adjudicate rules, they are first and foremost an entertainer.
What happens at other peoples tables doesn't really concern me as I am in no way competing against them. I don't get excluded because they are level X vs my Y, and their extra item doesn't mean anything to me either.
Now if there was a league ladder, or placement was a competitive thing then mate absolutely I would see your point.
I like to play PFS as a bloodsport, my mates are casual, luckily we all find what we are looking for because we have good GM's around here who can sniff out what we need.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Also to those of you who think you're so much more clever than you're players here's a newsflash - you aren't. People know who the carebear GMs are. Less scrupulous players keep you in mind for mods that they hear are hard (gotten any invitations to run The Elven Entanglement recently?). And those of us who want a fair game are avoiding your tables.
I honestly laughed at this. It's hilarious to read such adamant posts on subjective topics. Especially when I think of "discussion" as the coming together of differing opinions to expand a cumulative understanding. With that in mind, permit me to refute your claim.
I am not a carebear GM. I honestly don't think you can find a single player that has had me as their GM that would say that. In fact, I'd argue that because I'm so committed to give my players a great experience, rather than blindly follow RAW, they would refer to me as more fair than GMs that are slanted the other way.
We have a base of "powergamers" in my region, and I can frequently challenge them with no more than the tools provided within any given scenario. I can also work within the framework of a scenario to deliver a softer experience for players that are new to the game, or aren't interested in a janky, combat-heavy game. All experienced GMs can do this. It's all about reading your players and understanding their wants. And that is something that you pick up on when you make fun your primary goal, like Andrea has.
|
|
Maybe we're playing different games. For me, the point of PFS isn't to see how close to the rules as written I can get; it's to have fun in a collaborative, social environment. It's to share something I enjoy with others, possibly to learn, possibly to teach, but primarily just to have fun. There's a whole list of reasons "why" I do what I do at any given moment...but getting as close as possible to the mythical unicorn that is "rules as written" is pretty far down the list. I suspect that if I'm "doing it wrong" someone will report me soon enough. After 100 plus games, I'm surely running out of luck.
Keep in mind I come in expecting for a fair honest game. If a DM cheats for me or against me or my party it will wreck my time. That is one of the advantages of PFS.
Now I can understand and agree with different understandings of the rules. I can even understand misinterepting a rule. But altering outcomes is still cheating.
Now if some people want to change the word cheat to something else is silly. Mr. Trent and myself have every right to define that as cheating. Asking or requiring us to change our definition is highly insulting, as it dictates we are not entitled to our opinion and we must adapt to yours. If you can prove to me it is not cheating then I will accept that change. As I bet Mr. Trent would do the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that’s irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren’t doctored or loaded, of course).
Still, it’s no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right.
Even if you don't see it as a problem, many find it strong enough a word that it makes further discussion more difficult.
Thanks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself increasingly uncomfortable arguing in the same neighborhood as Matthew, but the first words under the "Do Not Cheat" section in the guide areThe simple fact of the matter is, that we are all intelligent people and as intelligent people we tend to interpret things. That interpretation generally runs to being different than others interpretation.
To say someone is cheating because they make a choice based on their interpretation of a given line in the guide isn't fair.
Can we please stop using the word cheat or cheating .. it isn't cheating when we are given that smidge of leeway in the guide.
Do not falsify rolls...
If a GM fudges a roll up because he had a vendetta against my character's Mask of Stony Demeanor, and my character dies because of it, I'm going to go ahead and call that cheating. Same if the GM fudged the roll because he felt the party needed a little more drama and that drama turned into a TPK. And same if he fudged it down because he didn't want to kill my character.
I'm not saying that GM's a bad person. But he did falsify a roll.
I don't know how you guys are parsing that sentence. Break it up...
Consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when the player is new to the game.
'Consider using less deadly tactics on characters near death--especially if the player is new.'
Now put it back...
While we don’t advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when deciding whether to use especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when the player is new to the game.
'Instead of fudging rolls, consider using less deadly tactics on characters near death--especially if the player is new.'
I propose that the next revision of the guide either include a winky emoticon after the first clause, or remove it entirely.
I also find it concerning when one of Netopalis' criteria for deciding whether to kill a character includes whether it is "well-built," has "an interesting background" or the player "engages in roleplay." I don't think a PC's fate should depend on a player's willingness to attempt a Russian accent.
|
|
The next paragraph begins:CRB on Cheating & Fudging:
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. A GM should be impartial and fair, and in theory, that’s what random dice results help support.
Some players have trouble putting trust in their GM, but dice offer something that’s irrefutable and truly non-partisan (as long as the dice aren’t doctored or loaded, of course).Still, it’s no good if a single roll of the dice would result in a premature end to your campaign, or a character’s death when they did everything right.
Likewise, don’t feel bound to the predetermined plot of an encounter or the rules as written.
So...not sure how applicable either is to organized play.
|
|
So, I do roll in the open, so fudging the rolls is not exactly an option. That said, I will adjust tactics after the NPCs inital tactics have been satisfied and after the PCs have shown their tactics. This does give a little leeway to keep from killing of a table of new players based on the results of the dice.
As far as new players and bad decisions, for a completely new player, I will address questionable actions ("Are you sure your wizard wants to move towards that moving statue? It looked like it packed quite the punch.", etc.), but will leave the final decision up to them after the initial question.
For experienced players, regardless of level, I like to follow the guideline of "What is best in life? To crush your PCs, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their players."
For all tables, though, if I am wearing a shirt that allows a re-reoll, I will give it to the table and let the players decide by consensus when it should get used.
|
|
Ya know .. now that we've moved back to the argument of who's a cheater and who isn't ... and who is more virtuous in what they do... I'm done. This is an argument that is longstanding and holds little interest.
Bottom line for me is to do what is right for the given situation. Do I personally normally fudge rolls, nope, have I in the past.. yep.. would I do it again? yep
|
|
the first words under the "Do Not Cheat" section in the guide are Do not falsify rolls...
This is a bit disingenuous. The Guide (page32) also says, "As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience."
The Core Rulebook, a 100% legal and approved document, (page 402) says, "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."
Clearly, there is at least a small amount of approval for "fudging" (not cheating) dice-rolls. I would go as far to say it is encouraged, but that would be reading intent into what is in the text. Each of us has to decide to what extent we want to use these rules to provide the maximum amount of fun.
EDIT--sorry for the re-post Pirate Rob. Guess I should have opened your spoilers before posting. :-)
|
|
stuff
Now if someone is offended by my honest opinion of what someone does, and they are offended. Now argueing cheat is an offensive word? Well that is the silly part. It is part of gaming verbage. Many place the game references cheat. So saying I am unable to use it for someone doing something that is the definition of cheat I find offensive from what happens above.
In the interest of honest and accepting disccussion that does not repress my honest choice of words I would prefer you did not chastice my choice of words. I find you an agreeable person and I generally find your discussion very positive, but you should look at the otherside of the arguement as being offensive as well.
If you can find a compromise that accepts both I will gladly accept it.
Mr. Jonquet it clearly says fudging is cheating. " We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating,". Prefer does not mean always and overrides. Prefered is a suggestion.
|
|
Don't worry all you cheating GM's we got our eye on you and word spreads of your nefarious ways. I have experienced exactly 3 cheating GM's in my year and half of PFS. And we talk among ourselves and guess what we would rather stay home, read a book, or go play another game then sit at your table.
And when I say cheating this goes beyond die rolls, it includes giving creatures powers they don't have, when we read the scenario later we find out
On the other hand I have never heard a player complain about a GM that sticks to the rules, I wonder why?
|
|
Don't worry all you cheating GM's we got our eye on you and word spreads of your nefarious ways. I have experienced exactly 3 cheating GM's in my year and half of PFS. And we talk among ourselves and guess what we would rather stay home, read a book, or go play another game then sit at your table.
And when I say cheating this goes beyond die rolls, it includes giving creatures powers they don't have, when we read the scenario later we find out
On the other hand I have never heard a player complain about a GM that sticks to the rules, I wonder why?
wow .... just .... wow
