Discussion on the Topic of GMs "Cheating"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 725 of 725 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

I will say it is refreshing that the other DM's are showing up to defend traditional running methodologies. For a while there it seemed that we were really outnumbered.

(Though there were also a few people switching aliases back and forth, which makes it look like there are more on the anti-fudge side than there really are. Though I also understand that people swap names because of the need to even out posts.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shamelessly Stolen from somewhere on these boards:

All players should know and be aware of the following:
1) You are here to have fun.
This is really a no-brainer. If you're not being entertained, something is wrong... BUT REMEMBER:
2) You are here to help EVERYONE ELSE have fun, too.
This is really a corollary to rule 1, but it bears saying- this is not a solo experience. If something you're doing is contributing to someone else's unhappiness or giving them a negative experience, you need to figure out what it is and make adjustments accordingly. This is a game, but it is a group activity, not "The Me Show." Directly tied in with this is the concept of playing a character who has a reason to adventure and a reason the other characters adventure with them. Be a team player, both in and out of character.

3) Stay engaged and interested.
In other words: be an active contributor to the game, even when your character isn't. This applies to all situations, combat and non. Stay interested and involved.
4) Mistakes happen. Accept them and move on.
This is a biggie. Players and GM alike *WILL* make mistakes. We all try to avoid them, but they happen. Don't be resentful or irritable about it. Persistently making the same mistake might be cause for concern, but most of the time it is better to have a short (SHORT!) discussion about things, find a resolution, and agree to address the issue out of game for the next session. Even if you KNOW something is being handled incorrectly it is better to address it in a way that doesn't torpedo the rest of the game in a rules debate.
5) PC, Know Thyself!
Know your character's capabilities. Perhaps making some note-cards would help. It is up to you to know and remember what your character can do or be willing and able to look up those rules... but keep in mind rule 4 as well. Human fallibility happens, and so you should brush off the occasional memory glitches and focus on the chronic amnesiacs in the group.
6) Limit Dead Ale Wives, Or Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or... you get the idea.
Different groups have different tolerances for this sort of thing, but generally keeping talk about extraneous topics, even ones as amusing as Monty Python, to a minim is usually best.
7) The GM is playing the game, too.
This is not a game about the players vs. the GM. It's cooperative storytelling in which the GM provides a setting and you develop your characters. A game is doomed to fail the moment the DM tries to "win" the game, or the players blame the DM for storytelling elements and "biases." It's just as important that the DM enjoy the game as it is the players do.

8) Be open and honest as a player.
Your character can be a crafty bastard intent on killing the rest of the party, but you as a player need to be open to your fellow gamers. Don't cheat (ooc), don't steal (ooc), and don't try to trick the DM with clever interpretations of specific rules. Breaking this rule can destroy friendships and gaming groups alike.


First, I love that this conversation started on Tuesday of this week and is already at page 14. The passion this conversation topic has invoked is great.

It also means I haven't had time to read all 14 pages, since I just discovered this now and I want to post my thoughts today. Huzzah for impatience!

In my opinion, the occasional fudge on the part of the GM is ok, especially if it makes the whole group have a better time. There is a fine line on when the fudging has gone too far and crossed over into cheating. Being too obvious about it is on the wrong side of that line, but I don't GM enough to say when we have officially crossed it.

I will say that a player fudging dice is cheating. Besides, the players shouldn't fudge the dice rolls, anyway. The GM should fudge the DC, assuming it's necessary. After all, sometimes the DC in published material can be absurdly high, and getting close enough let's the party have more fun.


Lorewalker wrote:
The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one.

I mean if you have a group of n players and m<n players think X is fun and Y is not and n-m players think that Y is fun and X is not, for X and Y mutually exclusive...

This is a thing the players need to work out among themselves; you can mediate.


OilHorse wrote:

I had never heard of the Rules Lawyer term until into 3E. We never thought of Power Imbalances between classes or Martial Caster disparity.

These to me started later, though I will say this, I never played 2E after 93/94, I never saw or played the Tactics-Skills books (or whatever they were named). So maybe I just missed that part of DnD history.

Just for the history and because I looked it up awhile back, the term is used in the 2E DMG (as a discussion of problem players the DM might run into, IIRC) and the similar phrase "barracks room lawyer" is in the equivalent section of the 1E DMG.

Your experience does roughly match mine, though I ran into some issues when I moved from my high school group to a different college group - assumption clashes more than anything. My few early con experiences were a bit more fraught.

And honestly, I expect most people's home game experiences are pretty much the same today. For all the fuss and bother on the Internets, mostly we just play.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Bigger Club wrote:


And I would most likely knock you out. See I can make bold claims on the internet hiding behind the screen too.

Remember how I said people with these extreme reactions strike me as those who have been booted or otherwise frozen out of campaigns for being fun vampires?

Well you would be wrong. It has never happened to me, since I bow out of campaings that are not for me. If you had read what I have been talking about since the thread started, it is when I am deceived when reactions are less than polite. But instead you chose to quote without context, as a reply to make a point that other 'discusser' was being an asshat.

OilHorse wrote:
Bigger Club wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
Bigger Club wrote:

I don't think you quite understand what it means to some of us when you lie like that. You are implying that your opinion matters more than mine, when it comes to how I spend my time, wich you have also wasted. Also I might have declined another game to join yours and now as a adult that time is very much premium. Those are no insignificant offenses, so yeah I do not need those kind of persons in my life.

If you took it so seriously then I would snicker in your face. Then I would tell you to calm down and not take it so seriously.

How do you react when you find out that people were not telling you the truth in real life about some things that may be embarrassing to you, like maybe something stuck in your teeth, or your breath is just not very pleasant. Things along that line. Do you throw hissy fits? I doubt it.

You probably would get more upset if that one person said your breath smells like turds in front of everyone,because he was being honest.

And I would most likely knock you out. See I can make bold claims on the internet hiding behind the screen too.

As to the rest of the post, you just don't get it. It is not some white lie. It is changing the activity we are doing on a fundamental level. aka it ain't rpg anymore. You did so with intent to do so. Wasted my time for lets say 4 sessions 6 hours each, so 24h you have wasted. And you see someone getting annoyed at that something to snicker at. I don't know even how to respond properly to that level of ignorance, I just hope that your tubes are tied so those genes don't pass on.

Gots us an internet tough guy here.

I would actually do what I said, you wouldn't. You take yourself too seriously if you act like that to a GM fudging.

Lies are lies. Or does that only apply to things you are ok with. You are inconsistent in your approval of when to lie.

Fudging as mentioned in the CRB is done to help improve the game. Isn't that what you expect from the GM? I will figure that you would want that.

If there is a trust issue then that is actually on you.

I was just demonstrating that you were being an asshat. Apparantly it flew over your head. As to the rest, yeah I have no reason to discuss with you further since you seem incapable of actually having a discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:

Like I said that entire section is advice.

*citation needed

RH, please bear in mind that your stance has consistently been that ALL of the rules are merely advice. Therefore the argument tack you're taking is a trifle disingenuous. Much like when you tell us (a) lying is always OK and no one should be offended, and yet (b) only the offended party is capable of determining if offense is given -- you contradict yourself in every argument.


Talonhawke wrote:
If the fact that some monsters may take class levels or use gear other than the Bestiary entry is your make or break then go play a video game. The only and i mean only reason to insist that nothing be changed on a stat block when an adventure is written is so you can metagame.

In fairness, having class levels generally means a higher CR and thus more experience. Having better gear means you get better loot.

Bumping stats up to increase challenge without increasing rewards is somewhat different.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
please bear in mind that your stance has consistently been that ALL of the rules are merely advice.

I thought that was self-evident in the sense that "the rules are just advice" is isomorphic to Rule 0.


HWalsh wrote:

I will say it is refreshing that the other DM's are showing up to defend traditional running methodologies. For a while there it seemed that we were really outnumbered.

(Though there were also a few people switching aliases back and forth, which makes it look like there are more on the anti-fudge side than there really are. Though I also understand that people swap names because of the need to even out posts.)

As far as i can tell generally both stances are legitimate not diametrically opposed. They boil down to "do you have consent to do this?".

The vast majority of people opposed to cheating/fudging are of that stance under the caveat that the players have explicitly expressed that they do not wish to play that way and their desires are being ignored. The most adamant are those who despise the breach of trust when one says explicitly they will not cheat/fudge but do so anyways.

It's not cheating if it's consented to by the collective.

The main argument is a disagreement over weather or not this consent is automatically provided via the rules.


thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
If the fact that some monsters may take class levels or use gear other than the Bestiary entry is your make or break then go play a video game. The only and i mean only reason to insist that nothing be changed on a stat block when an adventure is written is so you can metagame.

In fairness, having class levels generally means a higher CR and thus more experience. Having better gear means you get better loot.

Bumping stats up to increase challenge without increasing rewards is somewhat different.

I'm a whole cloth type. When a monster gets levels and gear it's CR is adjusted and that gear is from the horde. I don't short change the party on the rewards for the monster.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one.

I mean if you have a group of n players and m<n players think X is fun and Y is not and n-m players think that Y is fun and X is not, for X and Y mutually exclusive...

This is a thing the players need to work out among themselves; you can mediate.

Negative. If one person isn't having fun he or she shouldn't suck it up and keep playing because the others are having fun. That isn't how gaming works.

If you aren't feeling it, then you shouldn't play the game. This applies to players and DMs. Never feel obligated to keep doing something for fun that you aren't having fun doing.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
please bear in mind that your stance has consistently been that ALL of the rules are merely advice.
I thought that was self-evident in the sense that "the rules are just advice" is isomorphic to Rule 0.

Its also beholden to that whole section on page 402 where it gives the gm latitude to change rules and dice rolls on the fly to enhance the game, and that their interpretation stands.


Firewarrior44 wrote:
The main argument is a disagreement over weather or not this consent is automatically provided via the rules.

I think the only realistic perspective is that if nobody says anything about it, then there is not contract to be violated one way or the other so the question of "is this okay" is less about "did this violate a contract" and more "is this beneficial or not."

Which is to say, if a player has strong feelings about this, it's incumbent on them to make this known. Do not assume that the GM will understand your point of view before you explain it; likewise don't assume the rest of the players will agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one.

I mean if you have a group of n players and m<n players think X is fun and Y is not and n-m players think that Y is fun and X is not, for X and Y mutually exclusive...

This is a thing the players need to work out among themselves; you can mediate.

Negative. If one person isn't having fun he or she shouldn't suck it up and keep playing because the others are having fun. That isn't how gaming works.

If you aren't feeling it, then you shouldn't play the game. This applies to players and DMs. Never feel obligated to keep doing something for fun that you aren't having fun doing.

Though if the table can modify how things are being done in such a way that everyone can have fun, that would of course be preferable.


Ventnor wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one.

I mean if you have a group of n players and m<n players think X is fun and Y is not and n-m players think that Y is fun and X is not, for X and Y mutually exclusive...

This is a thing the players need to work out among themselves; you can mediate.

Negative. If one person isn't having fun he or she shouldn't suck it up and keep playing because the others are having fun. That isn't how gaming works.

If you aren't feeling it, then you shouldn't play the game. This applies to players and DMs. Never feel obligated to keep doing something for fun that you aren't having fun doing.

Though if the table can modify how things are being done in such a way that everyone can have fun, that would of course be preferable.

I think ideally in that case the two factions of players can agree on doing Z instead, which everybody finds fun. The point I was making is that it's not the GM's job to interrogate players about their preferences or make people like things that they don't.

If you're at a table and you particularly dislike something, please speak up. I make use of the X-Card system in case it's something you don't actually feel like getting into why you don't like it. But no one else playing this game (AFAIK) is a mind-reader, and people who haven't played together before can have wildly different expectations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If you're at a table and you particularly dislike something, please speak up. I make use of the X-Card system in case it's something you don't actually feel like getting into why you don't like it. But no one else playing this game (AFAIK) is a mind-reader, and people who haven't played together before can have wildly different expectations.

I fully agree with that. If there is something that bothers you, bring it up. None of my players are A-hats.

Perfect example:

One of my past players was an awesome young lady we'll call Amy. Amy had a problem with spiders. A major problem with spiders. Even mentioning the word "spider" made her start to sweat.

So... Easy solution... Spiders in my game were not present. In the event of a monsterous Spider-Enemy, I never called it a Spider. Taking a cue from Kevin Smith my game had Snare Beasts. Which were basically Spiders. They had 6 legs, they shot strands of glue, they made nests from the glue... They were Spiders... But they didn't have 8 legs, they weren't called spiders, and I used a miniature of another creature to represent them. Problem solved.

Sovereign Court

Bigger Club wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Bigger Club wrote:


And I would most likely knock you out. See I can make bold claims on the internet hiding behind the screen too.

Remember how I said people with these extreme reactions strike me as those who have been booted or otherwise frozen out of campaigns for being fun vampires?

Well you would be wrong. It has never happened to me, since I bow out of campaings that are not for me. If you had read what I have been talking about since the thread started, it is when I am deceived when reactions are less than polite. But instead you chose to quote without context, as a reply to make a point that other 'discusser' was being an asshat.

OilHorse wrote:
Bigger Club wrote:
OilHorse wrote:
Bigger Club wrote:

I don't think you quite understand what it means to some of us when you lie like that. You are implying that your opinion matters more than mine, when it comes to how I spend my time, wich you have also wasted. Also I might have declined another game to join yours and now as a adult that time is very much premium. Those are no insignificant offenses, so yeah I do not need those kind of persons in my life.

If you took it so seriously then I would snicker in your face. Then I would tell you to calm down and not take it so seriously.

How do you react when you find out that people were not telling you the truth in real life about some things that may be embarrassing to you, like maybe something stuck in your teeth, or your breath is just not very pleasant. Things along that line. Do you throw hissy fits? I doubt it.

You probably would get more upset if that one person said your breath smells like turds in front of everyone,because he was being honest.

And I would most likely knock you out. See I can make bold claims on the internet hiding behind the screen too.

As to the rest of the post, you just don't get it. It is not some white lie. It is changing the activity we are

...

Kk, bye bye special snowflake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Whenever I play with new people, I always talk a little about my GMing style. In an IRL game, we'll talk about it in Session Zero.

In PbP games, I always write something like this in the Recruitment thread, so everyone is on the same page.

Original post from by Castle Ravenloft PbP, from which this is excerpted

GM Haladir wrote:

Dice rolling: We'll use the Paizo dice roller. I will make all my rolls behind the screen (i.e. behind a Spoiler tag.) I will ask that players honor the "GM Only" spoiler tag and not peek behind it. I will freely admit that I do occasionally overrule dice rolls to keep the game on-track.

On my style as a GM:
To me, the magic of a role-playing game is the collective storytelling aspect. When I GM, I strive to spin a fun, engaging story where the players take on the roles of the protagonists. As a collective experience, I very much encourage players to add to the story. Go ahead and build references to your own (or other PCs'!) backstories in your posts. When appropriate, make up minor NPCs to interact with. Take the story down an unexpected path.

I'm not a fan of pointless PC death. It's one thing to make a heroic sacrifice to defeat the Big Bad, or to hold the pass to let innocents escape. It's quite another to get decapitated by an owlbear in a random forest encounter, or to get your throat cut during a fight with Thug#3 who happened to score a two critical hits and roll max damage both times. Consequently, my philosophy is not to let a bad die roll derail the plot. (Complicate the plot? Certainly. Derail? No.) That said, being an adventurer is dangerous profession, and it can be deadly. I'm far less merciful with PCs making bad decisions than I am with bad dice rolls.

I'm not a huge stickler for rules-as-written, and try to live by rules-as-intended. (This is why I'd make a lousy GM in PFS.) I have no problem with ruling "No. Because that's dumb." If the rules are getting in the way of everyone having fun, then I'll ignore them on an ad hoc basis. Usually, I'm pretty liberal with interpretations, unless it leads to absurdity. None of the PC submissions in this game use bizzare combinations of corner-case rules, so that's probably not going to be a big deal.

It's less a thing with PbPs, but in the case of rules questions, I like to make a table ruling to keep the encounter moving, and then figure out the real rule between sessions. Since PbP is asynchronous, that's less an issue.

I will also invoke the Rule of Cool if the player comes up with something that would be cinematically appropriate and spectacular for the scene. In that situation I'll usually take the approach of "You succeed. Roll to see how awesome."


Haladir wrote:

Whenever I play with new people, I always talk a little about my GMing style. In an IRL game, we'll talk about it in Session Zero.

In PbP games, I always write something like this in the Recruitment thread, so everyone is on the same page:

GM Haladir wrote:

On my style as a GM:

...

I find this to be an excellent practice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I've been following the thread, and even broaching the subject with friends I have gamed with (but don't any more due to distance apart), and with friends I currently game with.

First, and please don't cease to read because of my preference, I am whole-heartedly in the "Changing die rolls is cheating" camp. The key to that statement "Changing Die Rolls..."

Changing stats, gear, level, power (by the rules so as to continue to remain CR/Rules appropriate), is all well within the purview of the GM for the sake of creating enemies and challenges tailored to the story the players are a part of.

Changing any of those ad hoc, in the middle of the encounter... I would consider dishonest, maybe even cheating, because it is done entirely to change the outcome from the one that is naturally happening. Regardless of your intentions, you the GM are assuming that your chosen outcome is far superior than the one that is happening, which I think is possibly a fair bit narcissistic.

My distinction lies within the aspect of the die roll itself. Once you as the DM (who I expect to be an unbiased arbiter of the how the world reacts to the PC's and their involvement, as well as a strict adjudicator of the rules as they are understood to exist by the gaming group as a whole), decide to roll a die, you decided to let the die determine the outcome for you. Do not balk in your decision, if the result is a number/outcome you don't like. If you have a desired outcome, then just declare the outcome, don't lie that it was the die roll and not just your choice.

That is what you are doing when you ignore the result of the die roll. You are just deciding the outcome that matches the story you would rather tell. I don't want to be just part of the audience listening to the GM's 'great campaign idea that is horrifically unable to reach it's desired conclusion because a PC died at the wrong my-story relevant time'.

I came to play a game. A game with a very extensive set of rules of what is required to resolve actions/decisions that are tied to die rolls. Not what you can do, may do, might need to do if things get out of hand, or could do to get things back where you want them. A game where I take on the role of someone in the deadliest, yet most monetarily rewarding job in the fantasy world. I assume that everything I face could very well end my PC's life, and I develop a voice, persona, and backstory for the type of character that has chosen to live that life.

I'm summarily bad at optimization (I love rogues, and have taken toughness a decent amount of times, because they better fit the character and concept I wanted to play than because they were/were not numerically advantageous to my 'build'), and rarely make builds as much as let my characters grow based off their experiences, over any particular mechanical goal.

I also am bothered (not angry, just bothered), by the notion that 'fudging is bad' is purely a "New Player" mindset. I've been playing for about 28 years (no breaks), from 1E to 5E, PF and various other RPG's, as well as being the GM about 80% of the time. I roll all my dice (except those listed in the rules as supposed to be hidden) in the open, and I have NEVER had a player walk away from my table.

Okay, I feel like I'm rambling, and may or may not have made my point.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one.

I mean if you have a group of n players and m<n players think X is fun and Y is not and n-m players think that Y is fun and X is not, for X and Y mutually exclusive...

This is a thing the players need to work out among themselves; you can mediate.

Negative. If one person isn't having fun he or she shouldn't suck it up and keep playing because the others are having fun. That isn't how gaming works.

If you aren't feeling it, then you shouldn't play the game. This applies to players and DMs. Never feel obligated to keep doing something for fun that you aren't having fun doing.

This.

Everyone should be brought into consideration, not alienated because they aren't having as much fun as everyone else. Even if the guy is being an asshat, he should be considered. GM should take a step back and figure out what made that guy an asshat. Simply looking for different gaming experiences is not a bad thing, and players shouldn't be alienated for that because they are the one vs many. It is, ultimately, a cooperative experience. A discussion should be had, and possibly a shift to the way the rest of whole is running things. Compromise isn't THAT hard. Those unwilling to bend to better the experience of the group is only out for themselves and should be playing something like an MMO or some other RPG in which that kind of attitude is perfectly well accepted and they can actually have fun with it.

Playing Pathfinder, or any tabletop, isn't worth the mass hatred and raging and frustration. No GAME should be something that continually pisses you off. Once it becomes something you HAVE to do, I feel, it's not a game anymore, it's a job. If you enjoy that, good for you, that's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that. But don't play cooperative games if you aren't willing to COOPERATE, COMMUNICATE, AND CONTRIBUTE.

My two cents.


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

Okay, I've been following the thread, and even broaching the subject with friends I have gamed with (but don't any more due to distance apart), and with friends I currently game with.

First, and please don't cease to read because of my preference, I am whole-heartedly in the "Changing die rolls is cheating" camp. The key to that statement "Changing Die Rolls..."

Changing stats, gear, level, power (by the rules so as to continue to remain CR/Rules appropriate), is all well within the purview of the GM for the sake of creating enemies and challenges tailored to the story the players are a part of.

This last part is where I can see getting on common ground. When I prepare my games, I look at the stats of the monsters and of my players. Sometimes the group is more combat oriented, and what is supposed to be a tough fight ended up being a cakewalk. So I might add some slight bonus to the monster or some minions as a meat shield. Some other time, they are more social entered action and the monster would beat them all to a pulp in the first or second round. So I would adjust. Is that cheating? Not from my point of view. Do I need permission? Again, not from my point of view.

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:


Changing any of those ad hoc, in the middle of the encounter... I would consider dishonest, maybe even cheating, because it is done entirely to change the outcome from the one that is naturally happening. Regardless of your intentions, you the GM are assuming that your chosen outcome is far superior than the one that is happening, which I think is possibly a fair bit narcissistic.

Changing the stats in the middle of the encounter? No, I wouldn't do that. Having the monster being less agressive to give them a chance to withdraw? Yes, whithin reasons.

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:


My distinction lies within the aspect of the die roll itself. Once you as the DM (who I expect to be an unbiased arbiter of the how the world reacts to the PC's and their involvement, as well as a strict adjudicator of the rules as they are understood to exist by the gaming group as a whole), decide to roll a die, you decided to let the die determine the outcome for you. Do not balk in your decision, if the result is a number/outcome you don't like. If you have a desired outcome, then just declare the outcome, don't lie that it was the die roll and not just your choice.

That is what you are doing when you ignore the result of the die roll. You are just deciding the outcome that matches the story you would rather tell. I don't want to be just part of the audience listening to the GM's 'great campaign idea that is horrifically unable to reach it's desired conclusion because a PC died at the wrong my-story relevant time'.

I came to play a game. A game with a very extensive set of rules of what is required to...

The only times I changed a dice roll is when the players are new and instead off killing them on a single attack, I drop them to low negative. Nothing worst then seeing a fresh new hopeful player losing his first character because they didn't understand all the intricate rules of the game.


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
I also am bothered (not angry, just bothered), by the notion that 'fudging is bad' is purely a "New Player" mindset. I've been playing for about 28 years (no breaks), from 1E to 5E, PF and various other RPG's, as well as being the GM about 80% of the time. I roll all my dice (except those listed in the rules as supposed to be hidden) in the open, and I have NEVER had a player walk away from my table.

I won't say it is purely a "New Player" mindset. It is predominantly a new player mindset. Namely you are more likely to get a "fudging is bad" response from younger gamers, who started after 3e, than tnose who started in 1e or 2e.

I've never walked away from a table over a DM rolling in the open. I have gotten bored in sessions over it, but never walked away.

I've never had a player walk away from a table when I fudged either. Heck, I have players who, after 10 years, don't know if I fudged against them or not. (Answer: I did, but I'm good enough that the player can't tell.)

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking. This thread has gone far enough down a road of really negative commentary that it doesn't appear that it can be turned around. Folks, if a comment or thread is making you "see red" or makes you feel like resorting to tearing into each other, that might be a great moment to step away from the keyboard for a while (and possibly flag the post and move on, if it warrants moderation), or hide the thread. Some of these posts are totally unacceptable.

701 to 725 of 725 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Discussion on the Topic of GMs "Cheating" All Messageboards