|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you understand that, as a person who wants to prep extensively because when I just make up stuff in the moment it tends to be far more arbitrary than "fudging the dice", if I spend a considerable amount of time stating up NPCs and figuring out their tactics and personalities, that I would like those people to show up somewhere in the story, even if they don't show up where I first intended?
As I said in my edit, The Alexandrian has good words on this.
Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that.
1. No one has said its badwrongfun.2. Fudging is just a nice way of saying Cheating. So whatever.
3. Agency Destroying. It is a little since it does negate some player choice and actions.
4. Subversive. No one is claiming "Fudge" GMs are trying to overthrow a government.
5. Wrong. No one has said it's wrong in general. Only wrong when the GM doesn't tell the players they are doing it.
Even with all that said. Fudging is a fine house rule for a group as long as the group knows it works that way; the same can be said of any house rule.
No i haven't. I've actually said quite the opposite.
If you'd stop getting overly defensive about your house rule, maybe you would see that.
I'm sorry i don't see a reason to sugar coat what "Fudging" is. If you "Fudge" a die roll your cheating what actually happened. Get over it.
Is it a bad practice to use in a game? No.
It's a fine and acceptable use of a house rule in a group of players who know that's the style of game being played.
"Fudging" or "Cheating" is just as acceptable as not doing that in a game. Neither is superior to the other in terms of play style choices.
I'm not trying to lay a language trap. Just asking questions.
I have no issue with fudging. But for those that do I was wondering whether a house rule that grants the GM "x" number of fudge points (for fiat calls, rerolls whatever) would be a palatable solution.
It's an idea noteworthy only of it's redundancy. The only rule a GM is bound by is to show their players a good time. How they choose to do so is up to them. The only measure for success is whether the players book or not.
Most GM's are generally biased towards their players anyway. Those who are otherwise should simply be avoided.
As I said in my edit, The Alexandrian has good words on this.
The thing is though, if I want anything to happen at all, I need to prep *scenes* and an ambush is a scene. If I want to connect the scene to an underlying narrative that is motivating the players forward, I want to have an idea of that connection in advance.
If I don't have scenes prepped I end up in situations where *I* don't know what to do next. If I don't have connections to the thing the PCs care about, then I end up in situations where *the players* don't know what to do next.
|
|
You clearly didn't understand the point of the article.
It's an idea noteworthy only of it's redundancy. The only rule a GM is bound by is to show their players a good time.
And if they were ACTUALLY bound by it, we'd never have a bad game.
I think we all understand that the only thing holding GMs accountable are the players, not the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the word "cheating" an adequate tool to accurately describe the action subverting the rules of a game to obtain or prevent a certain outcome.
I feel like the "GM cannot cheat" perspective is predicated on observing that there are no rules in a game save for the GM's interpretation and enforcement of rules. After all, the person who decides what the rules are generally cannot be considered to be breaking them. They can be guilty of malfeasance, but likely not rulebreaking. The question is less "is this cheating" and more "does this hurt the experience."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, maybe there's one and only one road between city A and city B and you design and ambush to occur on that road, assuming the players would take it, but the players decide to take a boat, or hire a wizard to teleport them there, or summon monsters to create a tunnel through the earth, or something else. Are you going to have the ambushing party never show up for the remainder of the story?
They might show up later if they find out where the players went.
I usually have the NPCs make use of gathering information of the players if they haven't attempted subterfuge or covering their movements or make use of divination depending on the resources said NPCs had.
I tend to follow the same rules i enforce on my players for my NPCs. Even if they find the players it's a different encounter now.
Instead of an ambush on the road that the players avoided. It might later become a hastily attempted ambush in the city, which changes portions of the old encounter.
The players avoided the ambush on the road, so now later in the city they might have an easier time escaping or getting help from the watch etc. or maybe the NPCs can't find the players if they have taken action to cover their movement (leaving the city at night under cloak of darkness, disguises, magic used to prevent divination etc.).
Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that.
1. No one has said its badwrongfun.2. Fudging is just a nice way of saying Cheating. So whatever.
3. Agency Destroying. It is a little since it does negate some player choice and actions.
4. Subversive. No one is claiming "Fudge" GMs are trying to overthrow a government.
5. Wrong. No one has said it's wrong in general. Only wrong when the GM doesn't tell the players they are doing it.
Even with all that said. Fudging is a fine house rule for a group as long as the group knows it works that way; the same can be said of any house rule.
You're doing something to change and alter the game to a certain outcome you want, doing something that the other players don't want, and doing it in secret hoping that they'll never find out. The whole "doing it in secret against their desires" is breaking the contract of the game and thus would be cheating.
Changing the dice, or "fudging the dice" is the act with which you are deciding to cheat with.
If players are aware that it may happen then changing or "fudging" the dice is a part of the game and may happen at times.
Can you understand that, as a person who wants to prep extensively because when I just make up stuff in the moment it tends to be far more arbitrary than "fudging the dice", if I spend a considerable amount of time stating up NPCs and figuring out their tactics and personalities, that I would like those people to show up somewhere in the story, even if they don't show up where I first intended?That seems like potentially a tremendous waste of your preparation time.That would be why I don't waste my time prepping.
I really wouldn't consider fictional and narrative positioning of the world and it's characters cheating. There can be bad form obviously, which comes down to group and ultimately GM preference. But it's hard to make the assertion that it's cheating assuming there's no mechanics being interacted with.
However I would say deciding that encounter X happens the exact same way regardless of left or right could be cheating, but more in the sense that you're presenting a false choice. But if they say dodged the ambush and they catch up later under different circumstances (meaning their choice mattered to some degree) then it's not cheating.
But that is more of a quandary about weather or not a totally uninformed choice is really a choice at all (and you will get a ton of variation on this point).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that.
1. No one has said its badwrongfun.2. Fudging is just a nice way of saying Cheating. So whatever.
3. Agency Destroying. It is a little since it does negate some player choice and actions.
4. Subversive. No one is claiming "Fudge" GMs are trying to overthrow a government.
5. Wrong. No one has said it's wrong in general. Only wrong when the GM doesn't tell the players they are doing it.
Even with all that said. Fudging is a fine house rule for a group as long as the group knows it works that way; the same can be said of any house rule.
No i haven't. I've actually said quite the opposite.
If you'd stop getting overly defensive about your house rule, maybe you would see that.
I'm sorry i don't see a reason to sugar coat what "Fudging" is. If you "Fudge" a die roll your cheating what actually happened. Get over it.
Is it a bad practice to use in a game? No.
It's a fine and acceptable use of a house rule in a group of players who know that's the style of game being played.
"Fudging" or "Cheating" is just as acceptable as not doing that in a game. Neither is superior to the other in terms of play style choices.
You're still not seeing the delegitimizing aspect of what you're saying. If it's fine then then stop calling it cheating. Stop calling it sugar coating the term. All of that's just a passive-aggressive way of being pejorative.
I really wouldn't consider fictional and narrative positioning of the world and it's characters cheating. There can be bad form obviously, which comes down to group and ultimately GM preference. But it's hard to make the assertion that it's cheating assuming there's no mechanics being interacted with.
However I would say deciding that encounter X happens the exact same way regardless of left or right could be cheating, but more in the sense that you're presenting a false choice. But if they say dodged the ambush and they catch up later under different circumstances (meaning their choice mattered to some degree) then it's not cheating.
Don't Paizo's published APs and modules often include things like "Run this encounter somewhere between point A and point B" assuming that the GM is going to finagle things somehow to make it appropriate for the choices the players make?
It seems like that's official sanction for this sort of narrative device.
I find the word "cheating" an adequate tool to accurately describe the action subverting the rules of a game to obtain or prevent a certain outcome.I feel like the "GM cannot cheat" perspective is predicated on observing that there are no rules in a game save for the GM's interpretation and enforcement of rules. After all, the person who decides what the rules are generally cannot be considered to be breaking them. They can be guilty of malfeasance, but likely not rulebreaking. The question is less "is this cheating" and more "does this hurt the experience."
The problem with that predicate is that if you have no rules you don't have a game.
I find the word "cheating" an adequate tool to accurately describe the action subverting the rules of a game to obtain or prevent a certain outcome.I feel like the "GM cannot cheat" perspective is predicated on observing that there are no rules in a game save for the GM's interpretation and enforcement of rules. After all, the person who decides what the rules are generally cannot be considered to be breaking them. They can be guilty of malfeasance, but likely not rulebreaking. The question is less "is this cheating" and more "does this hurt the experience."
No, the rules of the game are made by the table. The GMs that think THEY ARE THE GAME and thus are infallible are people that probably don't want to play with.
The games rules are what the table knows are the rules. The GM is able to inform players that certain aspects of the base game are changed, aka they have houserules. If you have a houserule that X happens, and then in the game don't do X when you're supposed to then you're cheating again, even though X happening ins't a normal rule.
You're still not seeing the delegitimizing aspect of what you're saying. If it's fine then then stop calling it cheating. Stop calling it sugar coating the term. All of that's just a passive-aggressive way of being pejorative.Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that.
1. No one has said its badwrongfun.2. Fudging is just a nice way of saying Cheating. So whatever.
3. Agency Destroying. It is a little since it does negate some player choice and actions.
4. Subversive. No one is claiming "Fudge" GMs are trying to overthrow a government.
5. Wrong. No one has said it's wrong in general. Only wrong when the GM doesn't tell the players they are doing it.
Even with all that said. Fudging is a fine house rule for a group as long as the group knows it works that way; the same can be said of any house rule.
No i haven't. I've actually said quite the opposite.
If you'd stop getting overly defensive about your house rule, maybe you would see that.
I'm sorry i don't see a reason to sugar coat what "Fudging" is. If you "Fudge" a die roll your cheating what actually happened. Get over it.
Is it a bad practice to use in a game? No.
It's a fine and acceptable use of a house rule in a group of players who know that's the style of game being played.
"Fudging" or "Cheating" is just as acceptable as not doing that in a game. Neither is superior to the other in terms of play style choices.
No it's not. It's a way of understanding words and their meaning. Look up "Fudging" and look up "Cheating".
In my early days as a GM i "Cheated"/"Fudged" and the players where aware. It's not a bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wouldn't consider fictional and narrative positioning of the world and it's characters cheating. There can be bad form obviously, which comes down to group and ultimately GM preference. But it's hard to make the assertion that it's cheating assuming there's no mechanics being interacted with.
However I would say deciding that encounter X happens the exact same way regardless of left or right could be cheating, but more in the sense that you're presenting a false choice. But if they say dodged the ambush and they catch up later under different circumstances (meaning their choice mattered to some degree) then it's not cheating.
Don't Paizo's published APs and modules often include things like "Run this encounter somewhere between point A and point B" assuming that the GM is going to finagle things somehow to make it appropriate for the choices the players make?
It seems like that's official sanction for this sort of narrative device.
In that instance i would wholeheartedly agree with TOZ. If they manage to fictionally position themselves in such a way that they negate or circumvent the encounter then they should be rewarded with avoiding the encounter. Depending on the encounters nature it may catch up with them later or it may cease to be relevant.
For example if there's a linear dungeon and the PC's teleport past a room/level/floor (and it's encounter(s)) then they have avoided them. Depending on those encounters nature they might come and flank them from behind (if say they were guards) or they may be incapable of posing a threat any longer (like say a trap). Such arbitration is the preview of the GM to adjudicate.
What I wouldn't expect is for the pit trap to suddenly now be in the room I teleport-ed to because 'the story says you're supposed to encounter a pit trap'
The games rules are what the table knows are the rules. The GM is able to inform players that certain aspects of the base game are changed, aka they have houserules. If you have a houserule that X happens, and then in the game don't do X when you're supposed to then you're cheating again, even though X happening ins't a normal rule.
I feel though, that we need to acknowledge that the GM is really the only person at the table with the power to observe regarding an existing rule "okay this is ridiculous, let's house rule this to be better". The GM can (and probably should) ask for input from their players, but the GM is the only one who can really call for house rules in response to a situation and is the final arbiter of what those new rules should be.
A player who decides "this is ridiculous, let's house rule it to be better" can only pursue this line of thinking with the approval of the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The games rules are what the table knows are the rules. The GM is able to inform players that certain aspects of the base game are changed, aka they have houserules. If you have a houserule that X happens, and then in the game don't do X when you're supposed to then you're cheating again, even though X happening ins't a normal rule.I feel though, that we need to acknowledge that the GM is really the only person at the table with the power to observe regarding an existing rule "okay this is ridiculous, let's house rule this to be better". The GM can (and probably should) ask for input from their players, but the GM is the only one who can really call for house rules in response to a situation and is the final arbiter of what those new rules should be.
A player who decides "this is ridiculous, let's house rule it to be better" can only pursue this line of thinking with the approval of the GM.
And every other player (or at least a majority). If you don't have player buy in things tend to get rough fast.
Example would be Timmy can use 3.5 material but only Timmy and no one else. Technically valid because the GM ok'd it. But everyone else would be well within their rights to resent it or at least be opposed to it and possibly leave because of it.
Which is the main point. Communication and discussion between players and GM about the game they are playing and how they want it to be played.
Granted, but the power the players have over house rules is more veto power than authorial power. The GM is the only person at the table with both.
The games rules are what the table knows are the rules. The GM is able to inform players that certain aspects of the base game are changed, aka they have houserules. If you have a houserule that X happens, and then in the game don't do X when you're supposed to then you're cheating again, even though X happening ins't a normal rule.I feel though, that we need to acknowledge that the GM is really the only person at the table with the power to observe regarding an existing rule "okay this is ridiculous, let's house rule this to be better". The GM can (and probably should) ask for input from their players, but the GM is the only one who can really call for house rules in response to a situation and is the final arbiter of what those new rules should be.
A player who decides "this is ridiculous, let's house rule it to be better" can only pursue this line of thinking with the approval of the GM.
right, but the collective understanding of the table is the rules. The GM gets to put forth overrides while players can't. But the rules are still a table attribute.
Deciding mid game to alter the game or "make up a new houserule" is cheating if the table had an understanding of how something should work, and you aren't following that and not informing the table of the change or "new rule".If the players have cared enough to tell you that they don't want fudging and you say okay and then secretly fudge then it's cheating, the understanding of the table was no fudging.
If you decide that this boss will suddenly have stats shift all over the place to fit your desired length of fight without telling the players that you're doing it OR that it may happen (ex, bosses have hero points) then you're cheating.
If you say that all large+ enemies will fall to the south and potentially do damage to anyone in squares south of them, and then secretly change it to NOT fall like that, then you're cheating because the table had an understanding of the rules and you're not following that rule, nor updating the rule by informing the table of the rule change.
You clearly didn't understand the point of the article.
It's an idea noteworthy only of it's redundancy. The only rule a GM is bound by is to show their players a good time.And if they were ACTUALLY bound by it, we'd never have a bad game.
I think we all understand that the only thing holding GMs accountable are the players, not the rules.
I absolutely don't have a problem with that. This is a venue where people come before rules. Where Players AND GM's hold the ultimate veto... voting with their feet.
Most GM's actually are fairly tightly bound by the rules. If you're going to insist that the game is hopelessly broken unless EVERY GM is being absolutely rulebound all the time, you should probably skip this hobby for a console game.
The games rules are what the table knows are the rules. The GM is able to inform players that certain aspects of the base game are changed, aka they have houserules. If you have a houserule that X happens, and then in the game don't do X when you're supposed to then you're cheating again, even though X happening ins't a normal rule.I feel though, that we need to acknowledge that the GM is really the only person at the table with the power to observe regarding an existing rule "okay this is ridiculous, let's house rule this to be better". The GM can (and probably should) ask for input from their players, but the GM is the only one who can really call for house rules in response to a situation and is the final arbiter of what those new rules should be.
A player who decides "this is ridiculous, let's house rule it to be better" can only pursue this line of thinking with the approval of the GM.
right, but the collective understanding of the table is the rules. The GM gets to put forth overrides while players can't. But the rules are still a table attribute.
Deciding mid game to alter the game or "make up a new houserule" is cheating if the table had an understanding of how something should work, and you aren't following that and not informing the table of the change or "new rule".If the players have cared enough to tell you that they don't want fudging and you say okay and then secretly fudge then it's cheating, the understanding of the table was no fudging.
If you decide that this boss will suddenly have stats shift all over the place to fit your desired length of fight without telling the players that you're doing it OR that it may happen (ex, bosses have hero points) then you're cheating.
If you say that all large+ enemies will fall to the south and potentially do damage to anyone in squares south of them, and then secretly change it to NOT fall like that, then you're cheating because the table had an understanding of the...
Oh my... a whole field of strawmen to burn. All of your rantings boil down to one issue... Trust. You either trust your GM or you don't. And if you don't, you are wasting yours and everyone else's time at the table you're at.
The nature of Houserules is that they generally arise in a mid-game situation where the campaign and/or gM comes on a situation where the collective rules knowledge or the ruleset itself does not adequately address. So in most mature tables the players and gm may have some discussion, the GM will make a ruling, and life goes on.
I feel though that rules changes in the moment are appropriate to broach as a subject of discussion when faced with something nonsensical.
For example, taking the "all large+ enemies fall to the south" example when you have a giant facing east who takes a big hit from a west-facing siege weapon.
You might say "okay, this guy just took a big hit with westerly momentum and he's going to either fall backwards or 'how a humanoid's leg joints work' suggests that he'd either slump forwards or fall backwards, so the 'always falls to the south' rule here is absurd. Does anybody want to change it?"
Then you'd talk about it, and probably change the rule. If you decide to change it to make more sense, you'd probably excuse anybody in the new blast zone that was not in the old blast zone from danger, because the rule changed after they got into that position.
Speaking as both a player and a GM, I feel that people who consider a GM's "fudging" a roll hear or there to be cheating are taking this game way too seriously.
On a healthy gaming table, there is no win or lose in the interaction between the GM and the players.
Of course, there are unhealthy gaming tables out there, and there are GM's who are heavy handed in the artistic use of the "fudge."
All that being said, in my 30-odd years of playing and GMing experience, there is one definite thing I can say about a GM who makes all his/her rolls in the open: Those tables are far more deadly to the players.
From your lips to the Gaming Gods ears. You've nailed it. PC's often face the brunt of rolls.
I guarantee that everyone saying, "A die has never been fudged in my game" is lying. To themselves primarily.
All of your rantings boil down to one issue... Trust. You either trust your GM or you don't. And if you don't, you are wasting yours and everyone else's time at the table you're at.
The nature of Houserules is that they generally arise in a mid-game situation where the campaign and/or gM comes on a situation where the collective rules knowledge or the ruleset itself does not adequately address. So in most mature tables the players and gm may have some discussion, the GM will make a ruling, and life goes on.
Yes it's trust based. The fact that the GM is breaking my trust in all of them.
The nature of houserules are informing players that your games alters from the printed game in certain ways. As you say, when the situation comes up the players and GM have a discussion OR the GM informs the players of the new rule.
If the GM is needing to make a ruling on something that has ambiguity on how it works, and the players weren't courteous enough to vet with the GM beforehand how it is run, then the GM makes/tells his ruling to the players and it goes on from there.
If the GM changes stuff in secret is when they are cheating. So if I have trust in the GM, and he then cheats the game, he violated my trust. Violation of trust causes no more trust to be had and leaving since as you say, it isn't worth anyone's time.
The reason for my examples is I had a GM, mid fight with large creatures, say that they fell on death and could cause damage to creatures nearby. This is after we've fought large creatures before and this "rule" was never mentioned nor enforced. This is the GM cheating, even though he mentions it AS he does it.
I also had the same GM rule that a witch's evil eye and other hexes were free actions for the witch "since the witch just needs to look at you, and looking isn't an action", but we didn't find out about this until we were fighting 3 witches. This I also call cheating, vastly changing the game and "surprising" the players with the change.
I soon walked from that game since I'd lost any trust in the GM playing the game as I understood the game was going to be played.
I guarantee that everyone saying, "A die has never been fudged in my game" is lying. To themselves primarily.
To circle back to a point I made earlier, everybody's feelings based on their impressions about what happened are valid, whether you thought a die was not fudged when it was, whether a die was fudged when it was not, whether a choice you made was meaningful, etc. are valid as feelings, and the underlying reality of it is pretty irrelevant if it's even accessible.
If someone accuses you of fudging a die or offering an illusory choice, there's really nothing you can do after the fact to disabuse them of that notion. Even if you show them your die (you can) or your notes (you probably shouldn't) they can still conclude that you just changed that after the fact since they saw you doing something.
The point being that you need trust between the GM and the players before this whole wacky edifice can even work.
The reason for my examples is I had a GM, mid fight with large creatures, say that they fell on death and could cause damage to creatures nearby. This is after we've fought large creatures before and this "rule" was never mentioned nor enforced. This is the GM cheating, even though he mentions it AS he does it.
I would observe that since GMs are human and thus fallible, it's conceivable that a GM had intended to apply a certain house rule from the beginning and simply forgot to mention it until confronted with the situation in which it applies. This sort of "forgetfulness" is forgivable, and probably not deserving of the pejorative "cheating." It's a mistake, but an honest mistake.
What you *should* do in that situation is mention that you had intended for this to be the rule, explain the rule, and don't punish anybody for anything they had done before they were aware of the rule, and then go from there.
If the GM decides to apply the rule in a punitive fashion even though no one but the GM knew it was a rule beforehand, that's more "being a jerk" than "cheating". There are countless ways that a GM can be a jerk wholly within the rules, and "the GM is being a jerk" is a problem unto itself regardless of how closely they're clinging to printed rules.
So the answer to this question as a whole is found on Pg.33 of the GameMastery Guide.
It would appear that the only real contention is with the notion/statement/assertion that "the GM cannot cheat". Which is a demonstrably false statement.
The second contention is weather or not it is acceptable and or to what degree. However this has such a variance that ultimately it's down to group preference as it cannot be proved one way or the other.
It would appear that the only real contention is with the notion/statement/assertion that "the GM cannot cheat". Which is a demonstrably false statement.
I would assert however, that "Is the GM Cheating" is the wrong question in almost all cases.
The question in all cases should be "Is what the GM is doing beneficial to the player's experience with the game" whether or not that thing they're doing is within the rules (written, unwritten, or house).
The problem with that question is that there cannot be a universal answer, since different groups want different things. But things like fudging, Schrödinger's plot devices, made-to-order monsters, and post hoc house rules can be beneficial to some people's experiences with the game, and detrimental to other people's experiences with the game.
You can't just say, full stop, that you should not do these things ever. Even if people say that they do or do not want these things, human beings are famously bad at being able to explain what they want (there's a famous example where polled coffee drinkers almost universally say they like a dark roast, but in a taste test those same people prefer a medium roast).
The reason for my examples is I had a GM, mid fight with large creatures, say that they fell on death and could cause damage to creatures nearby. This is after we've fought large creatures before and this "rule" was never mentioned nor enforced. This is the GM cheating, even though he mentions it AS he does it.I would observe that since GMs are human and thus fallible, it's conceivable that a GM had intended to apply a certain house rule from the beginning and simply forgot to mention it until confronted with the situation in which it applies. This sort of "forgetfulness" is forgivable, and probably not deserving of the pejorative "cheating." It's a mistake, but an honest mistake.
What you *should* do in that situation is mention that you had intended for this to be the rule, explain the rule, and don't punish anybody for anything they had done before they were aware of the rule, and then go from there.
If the GM decides to apply the rule in a punitive fashion even though no one but the GM knew it was a rule beforehand,...
Right, 3/4 of the way through a multi month campaign he finally remembered this rule he had.
And the best way to present a rule like this is to say on death of said large creature, "Hey, you know what? These guys are big, so maybe it would make sense that they fall on you when they die. Make a save to avoid the damage." Totally makes it seem like this was a houserule he had forgotten to mention and not him just trying to make the fight go more like he had wanted.SO yeah sure, if a GM mentions that he forgot something and negates the penalty or offers a take-back for that time then it's not a problem. But no the GM was cheating, and yes, cheating at the game can make him, "being a jerk GM".
It would appear that the only real contention is with the notion/statement/assertion that "the GM cannot cheat". Which is a demonstrably false statement.I would assert however, that "Is the GM Cheating" is the wrong question in almost all cases.
The question in all cases should be "Is what the GM is doing beneficial to the player's experience with the game" whether or not that thing they're doing is within the rules (written, unwritten, or house).
The problem with that question is that there cannot be a universal answer, since different groups want different things. But things like fudging, Schrödinger's plot devices, made-to-order monsters, and post hoc house rules can be beneficial to some people's experiences with the game, and detrimental to other people's experiences with the game.
You can't just say, full stop, that you should not do these things ever.
I think it should be pretty easily in the majority that doing something underhanded and against your word to your players is ultimately not something that should be viewed as good.
The overriding rule is that the GM is to run a fun game.
If he on very rare occasions overrides a particularly unlikely dice roll that would kill a PC, that can be justified.
If he overrides his own dice rolls too much, however, the players could come to realize that their actions no longer matter -- they will survive no matter what. That is not fun.
I think it should be pretty easily in the majority that doing something underhanded and against your word to your players is ultimately not something that should be viewed as good.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree. I did, one time, run a whole campaign (in a different system) where the whole premise of the campaign was that the GM was an unreliable narrator, which is admittedly fairly high concept, but in order to make it work I absolutely could not tip my hand prematurely. I did say at the beginning that it was an experimental game, and that I couldn't say more than that, but I think everybody had a good time and in the end they figured it out and I explained everything. I could do it better if I decided to do it again, but it was a lot of work.
So I think that there are some cases where straight up lying to your players is forgivable if not appropriate.
Ha, I'm always an unreliable narrator. :)
I actually devised a series of physical tells that were subtle that would indicate whether I was speaking as myself (e.g. trying to plan when the next session would be, a situation in which lying is pointless if not actively counterproductive) or whether I was speaking as the character of "the GM", just so I could keep it straight and also in hopes that the players would grok the distinction subconsciously before they can state it explicitly.
All of your rantings boil down to one issue... Trust. You either trust your GM or you don't. And if you don't, you are wasting yours and everyone else's time at the table you're at.
The nature of Houserules is that they generally arise in a mid-game situation where the campaign and/or gM comes on a situation where the collective rules knowledge or the ruleset itself does not adequately address. So in most mature tables the players and gm may have some discussion, the GM will make a ruling, and life goes on.
Yes it's trust based. The fact that the GM is breaking my trust in all of them.
The nature of houserules are informing players that your games alters from the printed game in certain ways. As you say, when the situation comes up the players and GM have a discussion OR the GM informs the players of the new rule.
If the GM is needing to make a ruling on something that has ambiguity on how it works, and the players weren't courteous enough to vet with the GM beforehand how it is run, then the GM makes/tells his ruling to the players and it goes on from there.
If the GM changes stuff in secret is when they are cheating. So if I have trust in the GM, and he then cheats the game, he violated my trust. Violation of trust causes no more trust to be had and leaving since as you say, it isn't worth anyone's time.
The reason for my examples is I had a GM, mid fight with large creatures, say that they fell on death and could cause damage to creatures nearby. This is after we've fought large creatures before and this "rule" was never mentioned nor enforced. This is the GM cheating, even though he mentions it AS he does it.
I also had the same GM rule that a witch's evil eye and other hexes were free actions for the witch "since the witch just needs to look at you, and looking isn't an action", but we didn't find out about this until we were fighting 3 witches. This I also call cheating, vastly changing the game and "surprising" the players with the change....
Don't take this personally, the issue is YOU and YOUR GM, not a general issue on the game, or the rules, or how it's played and it goes back to my Trust point. If you don't trust your GM, then discussion is moot for all intents and purposes. This is a social issue, not a games issue. At this point it's you and your GM that should have a one to one talk on the issues that concern you, and if you can't resolve things to a mutual satisfaction, than it's time to leave the game.
The strength and weakness of this game as opposed to a computer game shall always be the Human element.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends. Chronic changing of dice rolls and fabrication of rules ad-hoc indicates that there is an issue with the game being played. In that it doesn't align with (at least one of) the players desired play experience.
I don't see why you say it's a trust issue. I trusted the GM up until I found out that he cheated. If I trust the GM that doesn't give him permission to cheat. It's the opposite, trust in the GM is what makes cheating wrong as it's a violation of that trust.
The human element is letting the game world react to your choices and to potentially allow you to attempt anything.
The human element of the game isn't to ignore the rules and make it story time.
The game is that the dice decide stuff. If you don't inform players that you've changed this rule then the default is the rule, that the dice decide stuff. If you secretly not follow this because you know your players would be upset at finding out that you're not following this rule you are cheating. The why you are cheating is irrelevant to the fact that you are.
If you inform your players that the dice no longer decide stuff alone but will be modified by your whim and pleasure and then you change the dice it's not cheating because following the dice is no longer a rule.
Thus changing the results that they dice say to do is only cheating insofar that you're breaking your players trust. And from here, it's pretty clear that there are a decent amount of people that you'd be breaking their trust, and that there are some people that intentionally and knowingly lie so that they can break that trust.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the reasons i always use hero points. I don't have to fudge if you have ways to legally change the plot.
The problem with hero points are bookkeeping or hoarding, where players will either forget to keep track of their hero points, or refuse to use them for fear that some better use will come along later.
So I think the best hero points rule is the one I mentioned in the other thread:
The players get as many hero points as they care to use, but for every one the players use, the GM gets one that he or she can use to protect his or her narrative.
This way everybody wins.
Each Player starts a session with X Fudge points. They may be used when [trigger conditions], expenditure of a point causes [desired effect]. Fudge points may only be spent during non critical encounters. If an encounter is critical the GM will notify the players.
optional addendum For each point remaining at the end of a session a player is entitled to a slice of fudge
Rough template... also now i'm hungry
I posit that alternate rule as it effectively negates the chance of random unimportant death while maintaining the agency of the player while simultaneously allowing the GM to revoke the safety net when they feel it is appropriate. All the while maintaining transparency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with hero points are bookkeeping or hoarding, where players will either forget to keep track of their hero points, or refuse to use them for fear that some better use will come along later.
So I think the best hero points rule is the one I mentioned in the other thread:
The players get as many hero points as they care to use, but for every one the players use, the GM gets one that he or she can use to protect his or her narrative.
This way everybody wins.
I helped the first by giving out a poker chip per hero point they have. With the second issue I have been thinking on which led me to a similar thought to what you had here which i just put up over on the homebrew section.