|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM can do bad things, but the GM cannot violate the rules because the GM is the one who decides what the rules are.
And if they are changing the rules as they go, that is cheating.
RPGs are not different in this respect just because they have fluid rules. The social contract of the group is a rule just as much as the mechanics are.
Naturally, if the contract says 'it is okay for the GM to change the rules for the benefit of the game', then he isn't cheating the social contract.
I do not think that the GM is capable of cheating. There are certain types of malfeasance that a GM could potentially engage in (e.g. favoring one player over another) but "cheating" is not one of them. The rules come into the game via the printed materials through the GM's interpretation of them.
The GM can be doing things that have a deleterious effect on people's experience with the game, but the GM cannot cheat, as there are no rules in effect save for the ones the GM chooses to enforce modulo their method of enforcing them.
We can say "fudging is bad because it potentially harms my experience" and that's a valid perspective and potentially correct, but it is never, and could never be *cheating*.
or you have two or more GMs at the table and DMG is no longer a separate book, and everyone knows the rules, so if you change them behind the scenes without prior consent....guess what - cheating.
And if they are changing the rules as they go, that is cheating.
RPGs are not different in this respect just because they have fluid rules. The social contract of the group is a rule just as much as the mechanics are.
Naturally, if the contract says 'it is okay for the GM to change the rules for the benefit of the game', then he isn't cheating the social contract.
Sure, but violating the social contract isn't *cheating* it's "violating the social contract" which is bad for reasons that are different from those inherent in the word "cheating."
The reason behind all these conclusions of "x is bad" ring hollow when they are an appeal to rules either written or unwritten, since the primary rule in tabletop RPGs is that the person running the game is allowed to edit or change the rules whenever he or she feels doing so would improve the game experience (i.e. "rule 0".)
Insofar as the GM is correct in interpreting "doing this would improve my players' experience" then they are doing nothing wrong, even if they are just making it up as they go along, and thus do not deserve the pejorative term of "cheating." If they are incorrect and are hurting the experience of their players, then their transgression is not in violating some rule somewhere, but in making someone else have a bad time when they need not have.
or you have two or more GMs at the table and DMG is no longer a separate book, and everyone knows the rules, so if you change them behind the scenes without prior consent....guess what - cheating.
If there's more than one person actively GMing a game, then the two (or more) of them need to work this out between themselves since they have sort of a co-authorial role. If someone else at the table has GMing experience in the past, then I think it's safe to say that they should understand that the GM is allowed and able to make up stuff as they go along as needed, and should not object when someone else does it.
I mean, I play with 5 people who all GM a variety of different game systems from time to time, and all of us do this regardless of the system in question. If we wanted to play a game without an authority that can overwrite printed materials as they like, then we'd play a board game that doesn't have anybody in that role.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it you think that all the fudging is against your...character...
I don't, which is why much of your post is irrelevant to me.
I've fudged. I will fudge if I think it necessary. I just don't see a distinction between fudging and cheating.
Sure, but violating the social contract isn't *cheating* it's "violating the social contract" which is bad for reasons that are different from those inherent in the word "cheating."
See my earlier post about cheating a player out of an experience.
You appear to be overly invested in the idea that cheating is limited to the definition 'breaking the rules'. I am not.
I have created a new thread to continue this discussion, as it seems that people have a lot of different opinions about it.
Have you resolved the issue with your players at least?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line for me at least is this, if I wanted to run a game that counted on me adhering to the rules as if my life counted on it I'd still be playing chess a few times a week.
One of the main reasons I run RPG's is the freedom to customize. To find out what works and doesnt work for me and adjust accordingly.
I don't think anyone is telling you that your preferences are wrong. On my part, what I've been trying to say is that they're not universal. Therefore, it behooves you, as DM, to tell the players up front that you'll be using the rules more as loose guidelines rather than as strict rules. That way everyone knows what to expect, and is on the same page.
The only time anyone's personal preference becomes "not cool" is when they foist it on others without any warning or discussion.
Now if the group playing is okay with Fudging/Cheating then that's fine. It is by no means an incorrect play style.
Cheating is never "fine". Cheating is a loaded word. It has an inexorable negative context. Cheating is bad, that's inherent to it's usage. If something is fine, then it can't be cheating and you should come up with another non-loaded word.
Cheating is never "fine". Cheating is a loaded word. It has an inexorable negative context. Cheating is bad, that's inherent to it's usage. If something is fine, then it can't be cheating and you should come up with another non-loaded word.
Now if the group playing is okay with Fudging/Cheating then that's fine. It is by no means an incorrect play style.
Oh do you mean like "Fudging"???
Which is the same damn thing.
That's like being offended because someone called me on being a Liar and I respond with i prefer the term "exaggerate".
Liar is a loaded word.
To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.I don't see how you can refer to anything the GM does as "cheating", it's literally the GM who dictates the rules of the game you're playing. Worst you can say about the GM is that they're not very good at it. And I would certainly consider adhering to the RAW blindly without any consideration for the table, setting or players as being bad GMing.
It usually comes from people who've been kicked out of a lot of groups for being obnoxious.
Not even once.
I'm sure its totally a thing completely anonymous people on a web board are completely open and honest about too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It usually comes from people who've been kicked out of a lot of groups for being obnoxious.To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.I don't see how you can refer to anything the GM does as "cheating", it's literally the GM who dictates the rules of the game you're playing. Worst you can say about the GM is that they're not very good at it. And I would certainly consider adhering to the RAW blindly without any consideration for the table, setting or players as being bad GMing.
Since the term badwrongfun has been thrown around a lot incorrectly let me just take some time point out that what is being said above is accusing other players of badwrongfun.
Now let me demonstrate how to criticize a position without accusing an entire group of being "usually" obnoxious.
The reason players are distrustful of fudging is because largely fudging is perceived as being about neither about "avoiding metagaming" or "to increase player's fun" but rather GM wanting to control the narrative. So GM's that fudge, here's a test to see if your fudging is really about controlling the narrative:
Instead of the GM hiding their rolls, have the player's hide their rolls. This will:
1. Prevent the GM from accidentally having the enemies metagame.
2. Actually let the players decide what will "increase their fun".
If you are OK with player's hiding their rolls, then your issue is not control. If you are not OK with player's hiding their rolls, the issue is almost certainly control.
So GM's that fudge, do you pass this test?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I don't even look at what players roll, I just ask them.
I'm usually too busy looking at something else to bother to look at other people's dice, it would interrupt the flow of the game. You can also be pretty confident that the players are going to police each other on this too.
I mean, I don't even look at what players roll, I just ask them.
I'm usually too busy looking at something else to bother to look at other people's dice, it would interrupt the flow of the game. You can also be pretty confident that the players are going to police each other on this too.
Players hiding their rolls would include hiding them from other players. To prevent metagaming and all. And under this test there would be nothing to police. If a player decides that being petrified would make the game unfun for them, they can fudge a natural 20.
Edit to clarify.
I have literally never seen "player hides rolls from the person sitting next to them" but if it happened for some reason, it's not like I would object. Maybe if I was playing with kids, I might suggest otherwise but not with adults.
But I'm also lead to believe that there are people who will assiduously hide their character sheet information from other people, and I've never seen that either. So anything is possible.
I can guarantee though that if someone were rolling privately and did something statistically improbable, like roll 50 natural 20s in a row, I would not be the first person to say something.
I mean, I don't even use antagonists who use "save or you're out of the fight" effects because it sets up outcomes where one roll of the die is uninteresting, and I prefer all failure states to be interesting ones, both locally and globally.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason players are distrustful of fudging is because largely fudging is perceived as being about neither about "avoiding metagaming" or "to increase player's fun" but rather GM wanting to control the narrative.
I think you've hit on a good point for why some players don't like fudging. It can easily lead to feeling like combat is being railroaded: no matter what happens, every encounter ends the way the GM wants it to. Your clever tactics aren't rewarded, and mistakes have no consequences. Nothing you do matters, because the outcome has already been determined.
I would imagine most fudging GMs don't want things to feel that way, but what the GM intends might not always match up with how the players take it. The thread's made it fairly clear that people have very different opinions on fudging.
The reason players are distrustful of fudging is because largely fudging is perceived as being about neither about "avoiding metagaming" or "to increase player's fun" but rather GM wanting to control the narrative.I think you've hit on a good point for why some players don't like fudging. It can easily lead to feeling like combat is being railroaded: no matter what happens, every encounter ends the way the GM wants it to. Your clever tactics aren't rewarded, and mistakes have no consequences. Nothing you do matters, because the outcome has already been determined.
I would imagine most fudging GMs don't want things to feel that way, but what the GM intends might not always match up with how the players take it. The thread's made it fairly clear that people have very different opinions on fudging.
Especially those GM's that just increase enemy AC/HP/Saves/etc to match whatever the player's have making investing in anything pointless. Got Weapon Focus? Monster's AC goes up. Took Spell Focus (X)? Monster's Save goes up. Taking feats to make you better at something become effectively dead feats without the player being told this.
Now if player's are told this in advance and are OK with it, then no problem. The issue is that I often see GMs suggest these kinds of tactics to other GMs without asking their players if it's OK and that's worrying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM should roll behind the screen if that's the way the DM and players like the game to be run. The DM should roll in the open, if that's the way the DM and players like the game to be run.
Fixed that for you -- see bold.
The reason players are distrustful of fudging is because largely fudging is perceived as being about neither about "avoiding metagaming" or "to increase player's fun" but rather GM wanting to control the narrative.I think you've hit on a good point for why some players don't like fudging. It can easily lead to feeling like combat is being railroaded: no matter what happens, every encounter ends the way the GM wants it to. Your clever tactics aren't rewarded, and mistakes have no consequences. Nothing you do matters, because the outcome has already been determined.
I would imagine most fudging GMs don't want things to feel that way, but what the GM intends might not always match up with how the players take it. The thread's made it fairly clear that people have very different opinions on fudging.
Yeah.
At a certain point why even use dice? Why not skip the middle-man in this case the dice.
I've seen plenty of game systems that require little to no dice rolls. My favorite for it is FATE, it basically a game with "Fudging" built into the rules system.
To me a game system like Pathfinder doesn't make sense for "Fudging" when games like FATE or other games like it exist.
At a certain point why even use dice? Why not skip the middle-man in this case the dice.
Sometimes you skip the dice, sure. If, for example, the players devise a particularly clever and effective ambush that would plausibly take out all of the antagonists in one fell swoop, I'm content to just say "it works" and just narrate what happens without having anybody have to roll for anything.
Do other people not do this? I figure that to reward the players for being creative and clever, I can remove the risk of failure for one conflict.
Do other people not do this?
Believe it or not, we all have our own styles and preferences. None of them are universal.
|
|
Yeah, I don't tend to just hand-waive encounters unless I know the enemies aren't a threat anyway. And even then, there might be other factors that I want to see played out, like a guard getting an alarm off or the like.
If an encounter can be skipped without rolling dice, it probably shouldn't have been an encounter in the mechanical sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "You can solve this encounter with cleverness without any expenditure of resources" is a good way to encourage players not to just fight everything. This is a bad habit I find new (to me) players having learned that I would like to break them from, since the whole "murderhobo" notion doesn't really fly outside of d20 games.
I find offering the players options other than murder helps.
I agree, I once ran a 3.0 game where there was no combat for four months of sessions, the players just resolved every issue by talking to people and roleplaying. It was great. I often did not even ask for diplomacy checks, because the players themselves were persuasive and made compelling arguments that were compatible to the perspectives of the people the PCs were talking to.
Sometimes newish players have that mindset that "roll initiative, lets throw down" is the be all and end all, and you have to build them to the point where they fit in a party who gains three whole levels without spilling any blood, ichor, etc.
I find offering the players options other than murder helps.
Yes, but a lot of times, those offers can backfire.
After all, look at Paladins.
Is that a problem, or an opportunity? :)
That's for the GM to decide, and if the player of the Paladin is okay with the GM's decision.
Unfortunately, time and time again, GMs turn it into the former, and not the latter, whether he's aware of it or not.
Nothing wrong with the Gm hiding rolls. If a player has had a string of bad luck or describes something really awesome, you can roll and just say they succeeded as a reward. Otherwise things get really dumb with no matter how well you describe something, be creative in planning, or whatever, the enemy rolled above the saving throw. Honestly I hate how high saves are and how enemies always tend to have crazy high saves. It got to the point where I avoid any spell with a fort or will save because every real enemy has those so high and generally will pass.
Uh no, enemies do not tend to have high saves assuming you are focusing on increasing your Spell DCs. The math of the system literally does not support the idea that saves tend to be high. Your experience makes it sound like you were on the receiving end of a GM fudging against you. Let me tell you, anyone who has played a Focused SoS/SoL/SoD in a game where dice are rolled openly, they tend to succeed significantly more then they fail. Take Slumber Witches in PFS for example. Players routinely succeeding against most things they encounter that are vulnerable to it is a very common story.
I routinely hear "does 36 beat your DC?" even when I had a DC focused Kitsune fey blooded sorcerer
It is a mathematical certainty that your GM is cheating you if that is routine. The expected good save for a CR18 is only +20. For your GM to be routinely getting +36 they would need to be rolling above 16 for an expected CR 18 Monster. At CR 13 and below, the GM would need to be consistently rolling natural 20s as the expected good save is only +16. This is exactly why GM's cheating is such a big deal, because you basically have had your entire build invalidated by the GM. There was no point to you taking any DC boosters, because the GM rendered them meaningless.
Eh, even though we are technically in the Pathfinder forum, a lot of people reading this thread probably play other games with some degree of regularity. It's entirely possible that Jacinto regularly hears "does a 36 beat your DC" when playing games other than Pathfinder. Or when playing a heavily house-ruled game based on Pathfinder in which a roll of 36 is more common.I routinely hear "does 36 beat your DC?" even when I had a DC focused Kitsune fey blooded sorcererIt is a mathematical certainty that your GM is cheating you if that is routine. The expected good save for a CR18 is only +20. For your GM to be routinely getting +36 they would need to be rolling above 16 for an expected CR 18 Monster.
Or when playing with a gm who realizes CR is a bad balancing indicator against a party of optimized pcs and throws nonstandard monsters into the mix, or tracks monster buffs.
You'll notice the common thread in these instances is things like "I made a char to crush dc 36 with save or die spells" or "Fey blooded kitsune sorcerer"
Bring the thunder and the gm is likely going to bring the noise.
Eh, even though we are technically in the Pathfinder forum, a lot of people reading this thread probably play other games with some degree of regularity. It's entirely possible that Jacinto regularly hears "does a 36 beat your DC" when playing games other than Pathfinder. Or when playing a heavily house-ruled game based on Pathfinder in which a roll of 36 is more common.I routinely hear "does 36 beat your DC?" even when I had a DC focused Kitsune fey blooded sorcererIt is a mathematical certainty that your GM is cheating you if that is routine. The expected good save for a CR18 is only +20. For your GM to be routinely getting +36 they would need to be rolling above 16 for an expected CR 18 Monster.Or when playing with a gm who realizes CR is a bad balancing indicator against a party of optimized pcs and throws nonstandard monsters into the mix, or tracks monster buffs.
You'll notice the common thread in these instances is things like "I made a char to crush dc 36 with save or die spells" or "Fey blooded kitsune sorcerer"
Bring the thunder and the gm is likely going to bring the noise.
Then the players should be leveling at a very impressive rate. And at some point the players should notice that the monsters are way above CR. Of course, either way the GM is a bad GM since they are effectively taking away the benefit of the players choices. The GMs who do such things are naturally bad, since they are making the game GM v. players.
Of course, either way the GM is a bad GM since they are effectively taking away the benefit of the players choices. The GMs who do such things are naturally bad, since they are making the game GM v. players.
Or if they don't, they're effectively ignoring the players' choices by not bringing their A game and letting it be a cake walk.
And around and around we go...
Nothing wrong with the Gm hiding rolls.
... as long as the players are OK with it.
Of course, either way the GM is a bad GM since they are effectively taking away the benefit of the players choices. The GMs who do such things are naturally bad, since they are making the game GM v. players.Or if they don't, they're effectively ignoring the players' choices by not bringing their A game and letting it be a cake walk.
And around and around we go...
How does the above ignore the players choices? If the players took those choices and they get a cake walk... guess who chose that? No really guess.
Bring the thunder and the gm is likely going to bring the noise.
How about "I'm rubber, you're glue!" -- that one always sells your point, too.
How does the above ignore the players choices? If the players took those choices and they get a cake walk... guess who chose that? No really guess.
Of course, either way the GM is a bad GM since they are effectively taking away the benefit of the players choices. The GMs who do such things are naturally bad, since they are making the game GM v. players.Or if they don't, they're effectively ignoring the players' choices by not bringing their A game and letting it be a cake walk.
And around and around we go...
The choices the players make may indicate they want the GM to bring his A game - a high powered, highly optimized clash of titans. They may not want a cakewalk at all. Leaving it cakewalk would ignore that decision.
You can't necessarily assume that optimization means they want the fights to be easy.
How does the above ignore the players choices? If the players took those choices and they get a cake walk... guess who chose that? No really guess.
Of course, either way the GM is a bad GM since they are effectively taking away the benefit of the players choices. The GMs who do such things are naturally bad, since they are making the game GM v. players.Or if they don't, they're effectively ignoring the players' choices by not bringing their A game and letting it be a cake walk.
And around and around we go...
The choices the players make may indicate they want the GM to bring his A game - a high powered, highly optimized clash of titans. They may not want a cakewalk at all. Leaving it cakewalk would ignore that decision.
You can't necessarily assume that optimization means they want the fights to be easy.
You can, however, generally assume that someone who's optimizing their save DCs doesn't want all their spells to be automatically saved against.
That way lies madness.
Look, if the DM "fudges" the DCs to always equal 10 + the character's bonus, that definitely ensures a reasonable challenge, right?
P1: "I pick the lock"
DM: "What's your skill bonus?"
P1: "+15. (rolls) 7 + 15 = 22 total."
DM: "Well, the DC is 25."
P2: "I try, too! I have a +3."
DM: "The DC is 13."
P1: "It's the SAME LOCK!"
DM: "Well, you don't know everything. There could be a plot reason why."
P2: (smirks)
P1: "Yeah, I probably can't make it next week."
From village guards?
I only hear those numbers from double digit CR outsiders.
In a lot of Paizo AP modules, the village guards ARE double-digit CR outsiders. And for some reason no one thinks it's odd that a devil capable of subjugating entire kingdoms spends decades sitting with 5 of his friends in room C12 cutting up turnips, because sooner or later the adventurers will happen by and it would be disappointing if the fight wasn't suitably epic.