|
Mistakes are OK. We play for fun, not in a competitive way.
All to often mistakes are not, and usually we take time for a talk.
Cheating not OK.
First time "ahahah, nice try, NO".
Second time "don't do this. Stop now".
Third time "please go away".
GM's cheating is in a strange place where is allowed to make the game better for all the players. Does cheating mean no useless, stupid PC death? a better narrative? a more enticing and cinematic scene? a smoother flow of the game? That's all OK.
Otherwise (the dreaded DMPC, unkillable NPCs, forced railroading, etc.), no thanks, go write a novella in which everything works as you intended.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
EDIT: Let me add that, for an occasional less-serious game showcasing goofy characters and over-the-top scenarios, I'd heartily approve of any amount of fudging, if it sets the atmosphere. I just intensely dislike it when we're supposedly playing a more serious game in which death actually exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
I don't mind as long as the GM makes the game more fun. After all, that's his job. Obviously, if the GM does it too much or does it when it's not appropriate, then it's not fun anymore.
I had a GM accidentally cause a TPK when he had a god come out of no where and save a PC that should have died.
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
Yes. DM fudging is integral to a fun game otherwise we can end up with 1 round boss fights or TPK's. This is not to say no one dies in our game--plenty of PC death is enjoyed by all--it just prevents complications due to the DM either under or over estimating what he's put us up against.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM fudging is integral to a fun game otherwise we can end up with 1 round boss fights or TPK's. This is not to say no one dies in our game--plenty of PC death is enjoyed by all--it just prevents complications due to the DM either under or over estimating what he's put us up against.
Thanks, b_o_f. I think you described your opinion as a player (and your reasons for it) very clearly. If I can follow up, though, can I also ask another question -- when you say "integral to a fun game," does that imply that the DM should override the other players (if they're like houstonderek and me) and fudge dice even if they ask him not to?
EDIT: I remember TOZ suggesting a "death flag" for each player -- you put it up when you feel like your PC dying might be suitably cool to tolerate, and lower it if you don't want to die by random roll. Basically, having it lowered tells the DM he can fudge dice, but when you raise it, it tells him to let them fall where they may. I liked that idea because it allows the same DM to accommodate both types of players, in the same game.
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
That is how I like to play also. I would prefer for my character to live, but not everyone who sets out to be a hero actually gets to be a hero. Someone else aka my new character, will just have to try to fill that void.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.Yes. DM fudging is integral to a fun game otherwise we can end up with 1 round boss fights or TPK's. This is not to say no one dies in our game--plenty of PC death is enjoyed by all--it just prevents complications due to the DM either under or over estimating what he's put us up against.
I wouldn't say its integral. It is useful if the goal is to not kill PC's as much and certain errors are made with regard to the party's capability to handle certain encounters. If the GM is very good at estimating the party's ability to handle fights then he may never need to fudge to avoid a TPK.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also more accepting of it in the first four or five levels than the next ten. Once we get out of "lucky crit instagibs a PC" territory, I'd prefer to play the dice straight.
I was hesitant to ask at all, given some of the threads on the topic a few years ago, but now I'm glad I did. I don't remember ever seeing someone express this opinion, and I find it adds an interesting new dimension to the conversation. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
EDIT: Let me add that, for an occasional less-serious game showcasing goofy characters and over-the-top scenarios, I'd heartily approve of any amount of fudging, if it sets the atmosphere. I just intensely dislike it when we're supposedly playing a more serious game in which death actually exists.
You know, I did include that in my opening post; most people just ignored it and focused on player cheating. :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I have a board game (technically a card game, I guess, but it feels like a board game to me) where the game's instruction manual actually states that cheating is allowed as long as you don't get caught.It all depends on the sort of social contract a group has.
Outside of PFS, my groups expect a little fudging of rolls by the DM, at certain, but rare times, for dramatic effect.
What infuriates me, is when a player, or DM, breaks that social contract.
So, if a DM suddenly begins fudging rolls on a consistent basis, or fudges rolls in favor of a particular player, over others, the contract is broken.
When a player does it, he violates the social contract by ignoring/creating his/her own rules.
For me, no cheating is allowed, or tolerated, unless everyone is cheating, in the same agreed upon way.
In this way, it becomes a houserule, and is no longer cheating.
If that's fnord the game I'm thinking of, years ago I played fnord in a tournament for it at a convention.
There was a certain point where one player turned to the other and said "You know, if you make this one particular move, then I would win."
"Yeah, so why would I do that?" the second player asked.
"Because I will give you twenty american dollars if you do." The first player then reached into his wallet and put a twenty in the middle of the table. (The prize for the tournament was a $40 gift certificate to Steve Jackson Games.)
We all looked turned and looked at the judge. He shrugged and said, "I've got no problem with it. It's Illuminati."
Cheating as in illegal builds I don't tolerate at all. I audit my players character sheets regularly and get them to correct any errors.
Players cheating as in the fudging of dice rolls... meh. I can't get too worked up about it. The way I see it everyone around the table is (or at least should be) invested in the characters and the outcome. If every now and then a player decides to take the reigns and ensure an outcome it really doesn't bother me.
Moderation in all things of course. If it gets to the point where every other rolls is "a 20" and the character never fails at anything then it's time for the talk. There's a fine line. I'm not sure exactly where it is but it's there.
DM cheating I view as a tool that also should be used sparingly.
Cheating in favor of the PCs I reserve exclusively for situations that strike me a grossly unfair or particularly lame. Unless of course they've earned a stupid death.
Cheating in favor of the enemies is tricky, I feel like the players should occasionally get to absolutely wreck encounters. I also feel that if your players suspect you've cheated then you've failed, not because it's some dirty little secret but because you've broken their immersion. So usually I don't do it, I just make a note of why that encounter got so horribly trashed and I try to plan better for next time.
When I do go there I try to keep it subtle, close misses might become close hits, HP might get padded by one or two solid hits from the DPR of the party, that sort of thing.
I guess to sum up, in order for cheating to bother me it has to be ruining my fun, and unless I'm playing a competitive game with a clear winner and clear looser then it doesn't ruin my fun. To me breaking immersion is a bigger crime than bypassing the random number generator and deciding on an outcome every now and then.
- Torger
The worst thing I ever did in known memory was look up the stats of a monster on my laptop, just as we were fighting it. I was caught, and it did untold damage to my relationship with that group of players. They still don't fully trust me to this day, even though I have never done anything before or since.
I now have a pretty hard view against cheaters, in no small part due to my own shame stemming from those early days.
I don't like it when GM's fudge or change the rules spontaneously. I take a negative view of anyone who feels they need to lie about or conceal their dice. I wouldn't play with someone ever again if I found they were using rigged dice.
I don't see "making mistakes" as cheating, but I do ask that said mistakes be corrected before the next game.
Fudging as in changing the outcome of the dice is something that I do not tolerate from the GM. I do make this clear however before sitting at a table. Improvisation is fine however.(The boss fight that is turning out to not be so epic, well maybe some reinforcements come in another wawe is fine by me.) This also partly explains why absolutely hate playing at the lowest levels, wich highest worth is establishing characters before the real game can begin.
My reasoning is rather simple, now we are roleplaying and that is a big part of my enjoyment of the hobby. That being said RPG has that G in it. And it ain't a game anymore when fudging starts. The game aspect of PF is essentially all about judging probabilities(at least outside of builds) and d20(well on 99% of the rolls) is what determines what those probabilities are. Essentially if fudging is there, there are no probabilities, that means there are no tactics. Magical tea time is perfectly fine way to enjoy things but it is not for me and never has been.
I totally agree!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try and give the benefit of the doubt when I can, but I don't care for people who cheat at the game. I'll give a warning, in private, about what behavior is causing a problem and let them know that I'm not interested in excuses or what ifs, just please don't do it again. If it is a mistake, let's not do it again. If it's on purpose, don't do it again.
We had some bad cheating back in the old, old days when you colored in your own dice (remember that?) For people who missed those halcyon days, you'd have a d20 with 0-9 repeated twice, and you'd color them two different colors to indicate 1-10 and 11-20.
One player, who was problematic to begin with, tended to color all his dice in shades that you couldn't tell apart on a bet. He always seemed to manage to get an inordinate amount of high numbers and 20s. Or even better, his dice hit the floor and wouldn't you know it, high number.
We bought him some dice, colored them ourselves and told him he could roll in this box on the table and no where else. He stopped playing soon thereafter.
I had a player who modified his D6s. They were actually quite good, too. He made them with extra 4, 5, and 6 sides replacing the 1, 2, and 3 sides. I confiscated them from him after they were discovered in his dice bag and used them against him (but only him). I still have them, safely tucked away in a sandwich baggie in my dice bag to show others the folly of their ways. /evil grin
If anyone cares to see the character that got all this started for me, here it is:
How many things wrong can you find?
This is a 20 point buy character.
It IS a 20-point buy character, or it was SUPPOSED to be a 20-point buy character?
It's supposed to be. From my calculation, it IS a 21 point buy. One point off.
When he was asked about it, he commented that there's no mechanical difference between an 11 and a 10, so he didn't see why he should bother correcting it.
The worst thing I ever did in known memory was look up the stats of a monster on my laptop, just as we were fighting it. I was caught, and it did untold damage to my relationship with that group of players. They still don't fully trust me to this day, even though I have never done anything before or since.
While I would called it cheesy, I definitely wouldn't call this cheating? what possible help do you get from viewing the stats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@bookrat: The extra skill ranks seem pretty blatant there. Personally, I tend to fall on the side of thinking it'd be nice for a few extra at character creation but it honestly looks like the player was getting 2 (class) + 1 (favored) + 5 (amount of Int above 10) + 1 (I have no idea where they'd get this one) each level. That's pretty nuts.
@necromental: Looking at the stat sheet does a few things, actually: It tells you what their weakest save/stat/AC is; It tells you what any special abilities or feats it has; It tells the GM that you don't trust them to properly adjudicate a Knowledge roll; It tells the other players that you're willing to metagame instead of playing with the team. It's not the worst thing in the world, and I'd forgive and forget, but some people would take it very seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I told my wife as long as its another woman, I'm cool with it. But no guys.
Sorry, was just reading the "succubus in a grapple" thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst thing I ever did in known memory was look up the stats of a monster on my laptop, just as we were fighting it. I was caught, and it did untold damage to my relationship with that group of players. They still don't fully trust me to this day, even though I have never done anything before or since.While I would called it cheesy, I definitely wouldn't call this cheating? what possible help do you get from viewing the stats?
Knowing a monster's strengths and weaknesses, as well as target AC can help inform someone of what spells to target it with, whether or not to use combat expertise or power attack, or even where to stand on the battlefield to best avoid its special attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also am a huge fan of using some kind of hero points/action points. It's a lot like the "death flag" mentioned above, except much more limited -- you can't just keep the flag lowered at all times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also am a huge fan of using some kind of hero points/action points. It's a lot like the "death flag" mentioned above, except much more limited -- you can't just keep the flag lowered at all times.
Yep. Love those hero points.
Those plus playing mythic, making surges usable at no action cost, and enhancing healing have created a much less "rocket tag" like environment in my games.
May not be everyone's taste but we like it. We all also roll in the open and most use dice towers/trays + we audit each other regularly.
Yeah, he was right, you were wrong. First, you should have discussed it with him. Then the DM. Once the DM did nothing- that's exactly what you should have done. Or- walked.After announcing every little thing wrong with the character to the entire group the player got mad at me for doing something that was the job of the GM. He didn't like that another player would look at his character sheet.
Diametrically opposing this. I'd be happy for any and anyone to
A: Check my sheet AND
B: Announce any errors to the table.Why wouldn't I? Because it may prove me fallible? I'm up for that. No ego here. Sure it could be annoying if it happens all the time, but someone doing it all the time only proves there are errors to find, and there isn't enough others for sufficient oversight - if your group is even interested in this kind of thing.
It's not invigilation, or prying. It's helpful. Up to a point. ;)
Sure, and that's great. But the other player didnt like it.
I have easy access to most of this stuff like monster stats on my phone. I only use that crap when planning a game. Mostly I'm too lazy to write more than the spell name down and use it to look stuff like that up. Sucks that nobody trusts you because of that anymore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
EDIT: Let me add that, for an occasional less-serious game showcasing goofy characters and over-the-top scenarios, I'd heartily approve of any amount of fudging, if it sets the atmosphere. I just intensely dislike it when we're supposedly playing a more serious game in which death actually exists.
Yeah - that would annoy me to no end.
If - no matter what I do - every fight is going to be a 'nail biter' - why bother trying? Why bother making a good build? Why use tactics? Apparently Joe Schmoe will succeed as easily as Drizzt would!
If you're going to play that way - don't bother playing Pathfinder - play a diceless system - or at least one with far less crunch. I enjoy the crunch - so let's play with it.
DM fudging is integral to a fun game otherwise we can end up with 1 round boss fights or TPK's. This is not to say no one dies in our game--plenty of PC death is enjoyed by all--it just prevents complications due to the DM either under or over estimating what he's put us up against.Thanks, b_o_f. I think you described your opinion as a player (and your reasons for it) very clearly. If I can follow up, though, can I also ask another question -- when you say "integral to a fun game," does that imply that the DM should override the other players (if they're like houstonderek and me) and fudge dice even if they ask him not to?
EDIT: I remember TOZ suggesting a "death flag" for each player -- you put it up when you feel like your PC dying might be suitably cool to tolerate, and lower it if you don't want to die by random roll. Basically, having it lowered tells the DM he can fudge dice, but when you raise it, it tells him to let them fall where they may. I liked that idea because it allows the same DM to accommodate both types of players, in the same game.
With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rolls and the players don't get to see the NPC's so there's no way to know if he's doubled their HP's to extend the fight or some such. What you don't know shouldn't bother you. The only reason I know about it is that I'm married to the DM and we discuss the game during the week.
To clarify: after the game, he'll say something like "man, you guys destroyed that villain in the first round so I gave him 200 extra HP's" or "I crit the cleric and it would have killed him so I just hit him for normal instead." Generally these things work out without anyone the wiser.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rolls and the players don't get to see the NPC's so there's no way to know if he's doubled their HP's to extend the fight or some such. What you don't know shouldn't bother you. The only reason I know about it is that I'm married to the DM and we discuss the game during the week.
You might not know the first time, perhaps not even the second - but most will catch on pretty quickly.
And again - why bother fighting effectively if it'll only result in the enemy being buffed to compensate?
With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rolls and the players don't get to see the NPC's so there's no way to know if he's doubled their HP's to extend the fight or some such. What you don't know shouldn't bother you. The only reason I know about it is that I'm married to the DM and we discuss the game during the week.You might not know the first time, perhaps not even the second - but most will catch on pretty quickly.
And again - why bother fighting effectively if it'll only result in the enemy being buffed to compensate?
No one has ever mentioned it and we have no shortage of players. YMMV
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a thread similar to this one a few years ago GM's admitted to giving out less XP if a "tough" encounter was defeated too easily saying the players didn't deserve the XP since the effort was not put forth. Some of these same GM's said an easy encounter that turned out being much harder than expected did not deserve extra XP. The players should have done a better job. To me that is also cheating.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
EDIT: Let me add that, for an occasional less-serious game showcasing goofy characters and over-the-top scenarios, I'd heartily approve of any amount of fudging, if it sets the atmosphere. I just intensely dislike it when we're supposedly playing a more serious game in which death actually exists.
I honestly don't get this dichotomy between "no fudging: death always on" and "fudging: no death ever".
If a player "gets in over his head", death for his character is absolutely fine. Stupid tactic? Sorry, fantasy life is harsh. A fight that ends poorly just for that last roll, despite being head to head for all the time? That makes stuff for an epic dirge. A failed save that means a spell will stop a character dead on his tracks, while the battle is raging (and his companions will have to spend hard won resources to bring him back to the living)? Fine, too.
If a player's character risks death for another player being dumb and putting other PCs in mortal danger for his foolishness... well not so much fun (nor sense, narratively speaking). And I've seen this scene once too much.
Or for an incredibly long string of poor rolls. Two, four, one, three, six... close but not enough, hey! four again, five, sorry you're dead. Ugh. That too happens.
I don't ask the GM to have PCs "barely win" every fight (or when I'm the GM I won't do that), it's just that having them survive - when the overall story balance and the choices made by the players grant this privilege - maybe fleeing the encounter with a sense of dread and impending doom, doesn't feel like cheating at all.
A GM adjusts encounters when designing adventures to make them more challenging and fun for the PCs, taking away stuff too dangerous or too easy.
A GM often has to improvise an encounter because the PCs took an unexpected turn, adding stuff on the fly to make up for a better scene, that would be otherwise unsatisfying.
A GM can't fudge a roll or two, saving a PC (different from making him win) or having a climatic scene "boss enemy" survive for another round or two, 'cause that would be cheating. Well, no.
I've had to pull some stupid tactics to survive. I was swallowed by an animated cauldron and was the only person with an ability to kill it's DR. I ended up bombing myself and it up with bombs.
I honestly don't get this dichotomy between "no fudging: death always on" and "fudging: no death ever".
Well, I see it like this: if I get pulled over for speeding and say, "Well, officer, I usually go the speed limit, so it's totally OK that I was just going 90, right?" -- it's not really going to help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rolls
Unless any of the players are also poker players... I can pretty well guarantee that within a couple of sessions, I'd be able to tell with 90% accuracy when you were fudging and when you weren't.
Most people live around "white lies" as a matter of course: someone says, "Oh, I'd love to make it!" and then doesn't show up -- that sort of thing -- trying not to hurt anyone's feelings or whatever. Some very few of us, though, were lied to as children and were marked by it; we grow up mistrustful, and view nothing as more deadly an insult than lying to our faces as if we won't know it -- the lie itself triggers mistrust, and the assumption that we're too blind to see it triggers anger, because it comes across as incredibly condescending. So if a player asks you point-blank not to fudge the dice, maybe it's because they enjoy the added risk, maybe they hate being lied to, and maybe both. It might not be a super-bad idea to clear that up in advance.
For example, if I were in a game with TOZ, he'd be respectful enough say point-blank at the start, "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me on it I'll admit it." I can respect that approach far more than the people who fudge the dice and then pretend like they don't. Hell, I've run games for players who preferred the DM to fudge rolls; I roll in the open, but I'd occasionally say, "Screw that 20! I'm rerolling it, unless anyone objects!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a DM rolling behind a screen, there's no reason to even know if he's fudging dice rollsUnless any of the players are also poker players... I can pretty well guarantee that within a couple of sessions, I'd be able to tell with 90% accuracy when you were fudging and when you weren't.
Most people live around "white lies" as a matter of course: someone says, "Oh, I'd love to make it!" and then doesn't show up -- that sort of thing -- trying not to hurt anyone's feelings or whatever. Some very few of us, though, were lied to as children and were marked by it; we grow up mistrustful, and view nothing as more deadly an insult than lying to our faces as if we won't know it -- the lie itself triggers mistrust, and the assumption that we're too blind to see it triggers anger, because it comes across as incredibly condescending. So if a player asks you point-blank not to fudge the dice, maybe it's because they enjoy the added risk, maybe they hate being lied to, and maybe both. It might not be a super-bad idea to clear that up in advance.
Since it seems I was unclear the first time I said it, I will be more specific. In 21 years of gaming 5-7 hours in a weekly session for a regular group consisting of no less than 6, usually 8 and as many as 11 players, the topic has never come up for discussion. Guarantee me anything you like, my hundreds of hours of gameplay experience bare out otherwise. No one has ever brought up your concern. There is no lack of trust in our group because the DM is good at what he does which, first and foremost, is giving us a good time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't get this dichotomy between "no fudging: death always on" and "fudging: no death ever".Well, I see it like this: if I get pulled over for speeding and say, "Well, officer, I usually go the speed limit, so it's totally OK that I was just going 90, right?" -- it's not really going to help.
Uhm... if you go over the speed limits for no other reason than going fast... well no, it's not going to help. It shouldn't.
If you had reasonable motives, the police officer might listen. Maybe fine you nonetheless, but also help you get there faster.But if the debate is about a principle that exists in a void without situations that might or might not apply and influence it, we're done: subjectively altering random dice results is bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you're a GM or a player, at some point in your gaming career you will encounter a cheater. Cheating may include fudging dice rolls, altering character sheets mid game, having illegal builds, and more.
Sometimes, the cheating in accidental, like a person making a mistake on a character build. Sometimes it's intentional, but beneficial to the game, like a GM fudging dice rolls to keep a character alive or to enhance the story. Sometimes it's just someone who wants to have the "best" character and is hoping you won't notice.
I informally surveyed some of my friends and have received responses ranging from "I dont tolerate it at all and the person needs to be confronted by the GM or the group" to "if a person really has to cheat in order to enjoy the game, then so be it."
What's your toleration limit? How do you deal with it - as a player or a GM? If your response is, "It's the GM's job," then how do you deal with it when the GM either doesn't deal with it or is too afraid to confront the cheater? What do you do if the person cheating is the GM? Is it different than if the person cheating is a fellow player?
How much cheating do you tolerate?
None. Respect or find another table. If it's an accidental mistake in the build you can fix it (we all make these mistakes from time to time, there's a lot to keep track of). If you're cheating at dice, I'll warn you once that every time you "fudge" your dice I'll "fudge" mine and karmic justice is a b@+$#, so you better carefully consider if cheating is worth getting auto-crit with a life drinker sometime down the line.
As a GM I do not fudge dice. I do not think it helps the game and I have never once seen it do anything that wasn't ultimately harmful to the group. I'm vehemently opposed to cheating on an ethical level and it's one of the few things I'm very rigid on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone cares to see the character that got all this started for me, here it is:
How many things wrong can you find?
This is a 20 point buy character.
Just for fun...
1. Point Buy is off.
2. Archetype combination is illegal. Technically twice over, though I can forgive Bladebound/Hexcrafter. Hexcrafter/Kensai is a flat no though.
3. Dex mod is low. He's got a 15 and is using +1.
4. Str mod appears to be high. 14 and he's using +3.
5. Ref save is high; he appears to be building it as a high save instead of a low.
6. Not really an actual error but "spells known" and "spells prepared" are very different things and he got them backwards.
7. Too many 1st-level spells prepared (should be 3-1+1=3, he has 4)
8. Too many cantrips prepared (should be 4-1=3, he has 5)
9. I count 25 skill ranks when he should have 12
10. Stacking trait bonuses to initiative
11. Too many arcane pool points; should be 3/3=1+2=3, he has 5I was unable to find Red Hand Fetish but I assume that's a trait. 6 Action Points is odd to me since I don't know of anywhere that Pathfinder uses Action Points; if those are meant to be Hero Points it's very off because sitting on six hero points is impossible to my knowledge.
I found almost all the ones you did, except for the action points (not knowing what they were, I ignored them) and the spells known vs prepared.
In addition to what you found, I also found the following:
1. His HP is not listed.
2. His Fort is claiming a +1 trait bonus, but he has no such trait.
3. He's not listing his hero points (although we all have 1 at this point).
4. He has too many languages known (should be goblin, common, +1 more; he has five listed).
And one from in game that you couldn't tell from the character sheet:
5. His Blade Bound archetype says that he cannot have a familiar at all, even from another class, yet in game he keeps trying to pick up the chinchilla as his familiar. (We have an intelligent chinchilla that we rescued). Normally, this wouldn't bother me, but another character lost his animal companion from an archetype and took two feats to get a familiar in replacement, and this guy is trying to ignore his class restriction of never being allowed a familiar just by roleplaying it out and asking the GM - no additional feats or anything.
And lastly, I tried to find the Red Hand Fetish trait and was unable to. At first, I thought it was a reasonable trait, but looking up other traits, only one gives energy resistance of any kind and it gives 1 point, not 2 (and something else!). Normally I would assume GM approved, but based on how many other things are wrong with this character, I am not as certain.