# Everybody Cheats?



## delericho (Jun 18, 2018)

In answer to the last question: yes, it's still cheating. When you're the guy following the dice results and you're watching your team mates hogging all the glory with their dice that just 'happen' to always roll well, that does indeed suck.

As for the question of whether everybody cheats...

I make no secret of the fact that there is one (and only one) roll on which I'll cheat - hit point rolls. I went almost a decade during which I never rolled higher than a '1' for hit points for any PC I was running, and while playing a character with a weakness can be fun briefly, running a succession of characters all with exactly the same weakness really isn't. So if a DM insists on rolled hit points, I'll cheat.

I wouldn't be surprised if almost everybody has _some_ scenarios under which they'll cheat, whether it's hit point rolls as above, or if their character is one roll away from death, or whatever. There's probably _someone_ out there who never cheats, but I strongly suspect they're rare enough for us to say everyone cheats.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jun 18, 2018)

I cheat because I care.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 18, 2018)

I never cheat, so this is a bit surprising to me. I never cheated as a player, and I have stopped fudging dice rolls as a DM in the last few years.

I feel that you rob yourself of fun by cheating. It takes away a lot of the excitement and drama that comes with failure. So I make it a point to always make my rolls out in the open, where everyone can witness my misfortune.


----------



## werecorpse (Jun 18, 2018)

I guess it depends on the definition of cheating for some of this stuff. 

If the game you play has rules that say that you may ignore the dice roll in certain circumstances then you are not violating a rule if you ignore a dice roll in the allowed circumstances. Imo it's not cheating to comply with the rules, it's cheating to violate the rules. 

In rpgs dice are much more an assistant than a director as they are in board games


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2018)

One advantage of playing on a VTT is dice cheating becomes extremely rare.  You can't really fudge dice when everything is 100% rolled in the open, there are logs saved of all die rolls and all dice are electronically generated.  So, no, I'm not sure we can categorically say that everyone cheats.  Over the years, it's become extremely rare that I'll change anything that was randomly generated at the table.

I find that the game works much, much better when this sort of thing gets left by the wayside.


----------



## jasper (Jun 18, 2018)

Sounds like a but of cheating losers  who want to be heroes of the article.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 18, 2018)

I don't cheat, and I found the article's claims to be absurd.  Not everyone cheats, and when someone cheats in a cooperative game like D&D it still harms the experience.


----------



## generic (Jun 18, 2018)

I have to say, this article seems a bit ridiculous.  I don't cheat as a player, and only rarely fudge rolls as a DM.  If everyone cheats, then the game becomes completely meaningless.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 18, 2018)

I don't cheat, and I don't fudge, period.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 18, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Cyrinishad (Jun 18, 2018)

... Clearly, Mike "Talien" Tresca & Gary Alan Fine, have lost their privileges to bring their own dice to the table, and should be required to make dice rolls into a rolling box in the center of the table... Sad.

This article sounded like a child trying to justify a behavior they know to be wrong by using the age-old b.s. rationale of: "...What's the big deal? _Everybody's_ doing it..."

Stunning...


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 18, 2018)

The claims are sweeping.

Lets go through them:

*Char gen:* This was discussed recently in another thread, but in the roll 3d6 days, players would refuse to play badly rolled characters. They would also make and play more characters, and keep the good ones in play longer. I have never heard of computer generation used, and that would have been tough to do in, say, 1979. 4d6 and so forth was introduced to deal with this, though some re-rolling still happened, and players would still sometimes churn characters until they got an especially good set of rolls. 

*Behind the screen:* DMs have lots of way to tip a situation one way or another, and one of the more blunt ones is to lie about die rolls. In the old days, when characters could have single digit HP up to 3rd level, this was mostly done to keep low level players alive. But yes, key monster and (pet) NPC attacks and saves have certainly been fudged over the years. 

*Player cheating:* This on the other hand is usually a big no-no. At least when it comes to rolls in play. BUT, fumbles (1s) or other disastrous low results are not always reported, hp and gold may not always be tracked accurately, nor may the usage of spells and other special abilities, and there is a strong tendency to interpret rules in their favor. These are all problems for any DM

* Legal fudging:* These predate 5e by a long ways, to help games more closely match how people actually play and match genre fiction (I think both Top Secret and Victoria Games James Bond had fudging mechanics, which makes sense if you have seen the relevant movies). In 3e I had a "fudge" house-rule that was used for a reroll about once a level, and that was enough.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jun 18, 2018)

I have one player who tries to cheat like this, and let me tell you, it ruins the game for everyone else. 

I roll in the open as a DM and recently have been playing online a lot using a chat bot dice roller, and it's great. Everything is in the open and you have to describe what the roll is for. You don't just say "dicebot roll 1d20", you say "dicebot roll 1d20+2 Saving throw vs burning hands", and dicebot comes back with a roll that everyone can see. 

The game is much better this way. Also, everyone gets inventive about finding ways to avoid rolls. Good roleplaying and careful planning can often set up situations where a roll isn't required to achieve victory. 

Also, when victory is depending on a throw of the dice, and dice come back in your favor, there's nothing like that feeling. Cheaters rob the whole table of that.

I agree though that the pressure to cheat is highest when generating stats and hit points. That's why I like point buy, or the standard array, or any other system where generating 10,000 characters cannot convey advantage. I also have a house rule for Hit Points to reduce the pressure to cheat: when you level up, you roll your entire HD pool (not just 1 HD), and either take the new total (if higher) or 1+CON HP for that level.


----------



## neobolts (Jun 18, 2018)

I have truely never cheated as a player. I simply don't understand the appeal. 

As a DM, I have made adjustments on the fly to encounters that were way too easy or hard. But that was correcting an error in my preparation,  not something done to out a desire to "win".


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jun 18, 2018)

I played in an AL game where one player was obviously cheating all the time - he never rolled below a 16 on anything, ever. But I like the way the people running the game put it: if your life is such a mess that you need to cheat at freaking D&D to feel empowered, cheat. You have bigger problems than I can solve.

As a DM, it's impossible to cheat. You make the rules and control the game. From the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide, page 4:

". . . as a referee, the DM decides when to abide by the rules and when to change them."

Sorry, Charlie.


----------



## talien (Jun 18, 2018)

Well I WAS going to write an article titled "Nobody Cheats" but unfortunately we have data points (both research and surveys) to the contrary.


----------



## Larrin (Jun 18, 2018)

Hi, My name is Larrin, and I'm a cheater. It's been 10 years since I've kept track of ammunition on a character sheet.  Even when the DM tells me I should.  I just can't.  I pay for 140 arrows and assume that should cover it until the cost of arrows is trivial, and then I don't worry about it.


----------



## SharnDM (Jun 18, 2018)

I "cheat" behind the screen, rarely though. Every now and then a GM fudge is a paramount tool in our arsenal to make the shared story even better. I will caveat this to say that my behind screen fudging is typically a positive boon to the players. It needs to be something special to grant my villains a gift or two.

As a player there was a time when I'd fudge a To-Hit roll or two, I mean I was a silly teen once too, but these days I'd never do so. Failure can lead to interesting developments!


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 18, 2018)

There is one rule that I have that guides me when it comes to "cheating".

Does the outcome of whatever action is taken harm the ability of others at the table to have fun?

If answer = yes - Then you talk to the player about it.
If answer = no - Then you let it go until the answer equals yes.

Most people who have been playing for a long while know the difference between being a bother and being a good friend.  I've found that the amount of time I've been dealing with this sort of thing has gone way down over the years as the folks I've played with have aged.

KB


----------



## smiteworks (Jun 18, 2018)

I "cheat" in old school CRPGs by re-rolling stats until I get a heroic character. It's a single player game so doing that doesn't impact anyone else's fun. I also cheat by saving often. 


For cooperative games, I never cheat rolls as a DM or a player. As a DM, I'll often grant a free reroll in dire circumstances if the player roleplays well or the whole party is begging for one. This fits in with the game IMO because they often make a verbal prayer to the in-game Gods that the characters follow. 


I've had players at the table that I was pretty sure were cheating. They would roll multiple times and report the highest (the other rolls were just practice) or they would report a different result or different "math". If I am sure of it, I'll bust them out in front of the party. In the end, if they feel that they really have to cheat in a game of fun around a table then I don't sweat it too much. I would encourage them by example to have fun with however the dice roll.


Thanks to how it works in Fantasy Grounds and other VTTs, that is mostly a thing that only happens around a physical table with physical dice. We still get the occasional report of impossible die roll sequences from users though where someone thinks something is wrong if they roll too well or not well enough multiple times in a row.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2018)

I am unsurprised at such a result.  Not that I know the methodology used in the research, but just in general.  Statements of some folks in this thread notwithstanding, I wouldn't bat an eye if told that the number of folks who *NEVER* cheat is statistically insignificant.

It isn't just dice rolls - ever not jot down a hit point lost here or there?  Conveniently forget whether you've used a spell slot?  Forget to track your rations or ammunition?  

As a GM, ever have an impromptu NPC start with just a name, then have to decide what they have for stats piecemeal as you go?  That's probably cheating.

But, I don't care.  I'm not playing for money.  I'm not doing tournament play.  You want to have an extra arrow or two, I'm not going to sweat it.  When it comes down to brass tacks in a big boss fight, I'd really prefer to stick to the rules, but most of the time I'm just not that concerned.  In the long run, it just doesn't matter.  Anything that will come out in the wash is not worth the trouble of policing.

And as to the idea that if you cheat a bit, now and again, the whole thing becomes "meaningless".  Two things:  1) There is a spectrum - from never cheats, through small things nobody really cares about, to more major stuff, to being a bald faced liar claiming you rolled a 20 when everyone can see there's a 3 on the die.  You might have an argument that cheating erodes the meaning, but if you're going to go to the absolute end on a small matter, I'm going to call hyperbole and melodrama.

2) We are talking about pretending to be elves, in a social entertainment.  It starts out as pretty meaningless, in the scale of things.  Nobody is going to suffer real-world physical harm. My game does not feed orphans in Nigeria.  "Meaning" is probably not the proper word to attach to it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 18, 2018)

talien said:


> Well I WAS going to write an article titled "Nobody Cheats" but unfortunately we have data points (both research and surveys) to the contrary.




I'm not sure why some are giving you hassle. A few posters almost seem to be taking this as a personal attack, or an attack on their beloved hobby. "Are you calling me a cheater Tresca?"

Your article is on point, cheating is rampant in our hobby . . . so much so that some folks criticizing your points literally describe themselves cheating. It's somewhat normalized in our hobby culture, as you point out in the article.

I think cheating was more common back in the day and that as game design has advanced to take some of the randomness out, and some of the strict prereqs out (high scores to play a paladin), cheating has become less common. However, I can't remember playing a session when someone didn't appear to be cheating in some way.

Of course, how you define "cheating" and how serious of a problem it is varies with individuals and groups. DM "fudging" is a time-honored tradition that can serve good storytelling. I love how you mention newer game mechanics that essentially bake in "cheating" right into the game . . . of course, at that point, it's no longer "cheating", sorta, kinda . . .

Player cheating is irritating, to me at least. There's less need for it now to play the character concept you want, and the only reason to do so now (in my view) is to "win" more and feel powerful. And I can understand why some would be tempted to do so if they feel powerless or depressed about real life . . . but ultimately it makes the game less fun for the group and isn't a very healthy way to deal with feelings of depression. But I feel the same way about min-maxing and character optimization too.


----------



## dwayne (Jun 18, 2018)

If you have to cheat to succeed at something to win then you never really have won. Because the victory of a well-deserved accomplishment is far better than a quick cheat. It also cheapens the game and makes the game very unfun for most. also if you cheat you are less likly to care about the game its self because nothing matters you can do anything, no sence of real lose or accomplishment character. This is why I as a gm do not fudge die rolls and let them roll how the roll, it is the randomness and unpredictabily that keeps things even. When you suspend this to let something slide or to help further the story it become much more easy to do it again and again. After a while the players see this and figure out well does not matter we can try anything the GM will help us out as he does not want us to kill the story or die. I had to learn this the hard way as a GM over the years and lost many good players because of bad ones so think before you fudge the roll. Because some of the best adventures can come from unexspected mistakes and failures as well as memories and adventures.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 18, 2018)

Umbran said:


> We are talking about pretending to be elves, in a social entertainment.  It starts out as pretty meaningless, in the scale of things.  Nobody is going to suffer real-world physical harm.




Well, not until the game table is flipped and the six-guns come out . . . .

"Hey, hombre has a loaded die up his sleeve! Draw cheater!" *bang*


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 18, 2018)

I fudge as a DM whenever I get too lucky or unlucky, but only if it really doesn't fit my statistic or would risk killing my players (i.e. 3 confirmed nat 20s in a row). 

I also "fudge" at NPC gen in PF as I let them have the stats I want them to. If my players have high stats, then I'd like to have memorable adversaries with similarly high stats.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 18, 2018)

I have fudged as a DM, though less often in the modern game. In the old days you could have a tpk every session if the dice fell as the may.


Not accurately keeping track of spell slots, ammo and so fort, not deliberately but I am pretty sure it happened. I did have a dice that cheated for me for a few years until some bastard stole it from me. Never used it all the time. I did not even know it was bent until  I had used it for some time. It was a standard commercial D20 and after a number of sessions I wondered, ran about 600 rolls on it and as, at the time I remembered my stats, ran the tests for a normal distribution. 


It was skewed, favoured the range 13 to 17 as I remember.


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 18, 2018)

It seems that a player "cheating" to directly benefit their own PC and a DM "cheating" to increase the fun for the whole group are so different that they seem to me that they shouldn't even fall under the same label.

Just because a player's cheating to benefit their own PC might indirectly benefit other PCs, it also may directly harm the other players by making it less fun. A DM fudging may directly benefit or harm the PCs when it's as likely to make a fight that could have anti-climatically ended early take longer as it is shortening a slog of a fight that is no longer fun, but which also directly benefits the players by making it more fun. 

So leaving aside the PCs and focusing on the real world players: player cheating usually only benefits one and harms the others, whereas DM fudging usually benefits everyone.

It's apples and oranges.


----------



## Inchoroi (Jun 18, 2018)

I'd actually love to get a d20 that's weighted to more likely roll a 1. Just for one player who, no matter what dice he uses, has obscene luck. Its crazy. We even have a dice tray that we roll on, and he's straight up rolling it, no sleight of hand involved. I just want to see what would happen with his luck if he had a weighted d20.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 18, 2018)

Inchoroi said:


> I'd actually love to get a d20 that's weighted to more likely roll a 1. Just for one player who, no matter what dice he uses, has obscene luck. Its crazy. We even have a dice tray that we roll on, and he's straight up rolling it, no sleight of hand involved. I just want to see what would happen with his luck if he had a weighted d20.




Well for what it is worth I never got another like it. I do remember that in the early days of spreadsheets I set up an excel sheet to do the stats and rolled samples from about 6 or so of my d20 collection but as far as I remember they were all fair or close enough given the sample sizes. 

and I know your frustration. I know 2 players like that. it is not too bad in an rpg but try wargaming against them.


----------



## Nada (Jun 18, 2018)

The "everybody cheats" contingency sounds far more verbally rationalizing their own actions than the belief that others cheat. Feeling the need to cheat displays an incredible lack of imagination or desire to actually _play_ a role. If known and allowed, it shows the gamemaster places more value on number sets than interactive gameplay.

The best rpg memories I have are a result of rolls and role-play caused by the defects and failings of the characters: a 9 DEX, a critical fumble while handling dynamite, etc. al. Characters who never fail because of cheating create banal and boring games.
And if I want banal and boring, there's always another Hollywood blockbuster to watch.

Some of us hear all the reasons why it's okay for one person to cheat because everybody cheats, right? Right...?
ahhhh... no.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 18, 2018)

Nada said:


> The "everybody cheats" contingency sounds far more verbally rationalizing their own actions than the belief that others cheat. Feeling the need to cheat displays an incredible lack of imagination or desire to actually _play_ a role. If known and allowed, it shows the gamemaster places more value on number sets than interactive gameplay.
> 
> The best rpg memories I have are a result of rolls and role-play caused by the defects and failings of the characters: a 9 DEX, a critical fumble while handling dynamite, etc. al. Characters who never fail because of cheating create banal and boring games.
> And if I want banal and boring, there's always another Hollywood blockbuster to watch.
> ...




Only read the title, eh?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2018)

dwayne said:


> If you have to cheat to succeed at something to win then you never really have won. Because the victory of a well-deserved accomplishment is far better than a quick cheat. It also cheapens the game and makes the game very unfun for most.




"Cheapens"?  It still costs $27.98 on Amazon, whether the player "misreads" a hit roll or not.  This is not some noble endeavor or something.  It is 14 year-olds with chips and soda and a good time.  I think the Cheeto dust rather puts us past the idea that we have to worry about the game being cheap.

And, when faced with an article that has at least some surveying backing it, claiming that you know what it does for "most" is perhaps not the best rhetorical direction.  Let's have you lay out yoru data next to theirs, and then we can talk, hm?



> also if you cheat you are less likly to care about the game its self because nothing matters you can do anything, no sence of real lose or accomplishment character.




Oh, good grief, another with the absolutism and extremes!

Here's a rhetorical question for anyone who wants to go down this road - Do you, or anyone you know, ever exceed the speed limit while driving a car?  Has this led your communities to being a permanent reasonable facsimile of the movie, "The Purge"?  Are you now typing from your safe-room/bunker, because breaking the rules has led to total societal breakdown?  If not, then maybe you should walk it back a bit, because that's what your argument amounts to.

I know it doesn't make for astounding or melodramatic rhetoric, but in the real world, people often do things in moderation.  They don't always drink alcohol until they are blind drunk, they don't eat entire cheesecakes in one sitting when they go off their diets, and they don't break every single rule all the time.  Folks are perfectly capable of cheating in moderation too - when the rule is a small thing, it doesn't matter a whole lot, but it would be irksome or annoying to follow the rules strictly, they might deviate; but when it is important, they realize that not sticking to them isn't as much fun, and play by the book.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2018)

Dire Bare said:


> Well, not until the game table is flipped and the six-guns come out . . . .
> 
> "Hey, hombre has a loaded die up his sleeve! Draw cheater!" *bang*




"Dangit, Simon!  We're playing Classic Deadlands, where there's an explicit rule in the initiative mechanic about keeping a card up his sleeve.  This is the third player you've shot this month!  Lighten up!"


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 18, 2018)

I love that there are at least two posts that start out saying "I never cheat!" and then proceed to explain "except sometimes when I DM."


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 18, 2018)

Ever since I stopped fudging rolls as a DM (several years ago), my group has experienced so many close calls. Just last session an anti-paladin reduced a character to -9 hp in a third edition campaign, thanks to rolling a crit on a smite. And another foe almost killed a character, if it weren't for his poorly timed fumble.  My players never tell me how many hitpoints they have left, so that I don't go easy on them. And it makes those critical successes and misses all the more enjoyable. This makes my players feel like every victory was earned with blood, sweat and tears.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 18, 2018)

I make my players roll out in the open in front of everybody, and I do the same.  My DM screen usually lays flat on the table (unless I have a very large dungeon map I need to conceal).  And at character generation, you'd better believe that everybody rolls 3d6 in order and has to keep the set of stats they roll unless (in keeping with the letter of the Rules Cyclopedia) they get a set with multiple scores lower than 6 or no one score better than 12.

. . . So I guess not everybody cheats.


----------



## sketchingjohn (Jun 18, 2018)

I used to roll behind a screen and occassionally fudge a bad roll.  Now I roll right out in the open 100% of the time and find it hasn't broken anything.

It may also make us more thoughtful when designing encounters, since you can't just fix it on the fly during gameplay.

Not judging GM's who fudge a little behind the screen, or especially when introducing the game to younger players.  I just don't do it with my fellow long time roleplaying buddies.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 19, 2018)

One time at a Convention when I was having a particularly bad day for die rolls, I pulled a special set of 2d6 out of my bag.  I have never opened this pair of "Las Vegas Dice" which could only roll 7 or 11.*  I handed them to the DM and asked "Do you mind if I use these dice for the rest of the afternoon?"  
They are still unopened.  Everybody at the table got a laugh out of it - and the other players contributed a mixed set of dice so I could finish the session.

* One die is all 5's; the other is half 2's and half 6's.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 19, 2018)

I wonder if cheating was more prevalent in the early days of roleplaying because the system wasn't doing what players wanted it to do in terms of the likelihood of PC survival.

The most prevalent approach to OSR play on r/rpg on reddit seems to be to use the principle of 'Rulings not Rules' to make any PC actions not directly covered by the rules much more likely to succeed. So frex throwing your cloak over an orc's head and trying to trip him is a much better tactic than stabbing him with your sword.

Another approach, I think one favoured in early Forgotten Realms materials, was to use powerful NPCs as The Cavalry - rescuing the PCs whenever they seem likely to die.

All three of these approaches:
1) Cheating.
2) Actions outside the rules are more likely to succeed.
3) Powerful NPCs save the PCs.

are the same in the sense that all work without changing the game rules, and all make the PCs more likely to survive.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 19, 2018)

Doug McCrae said:


> The most prevalent approach to OSR play on r/rpg on reddit seems to be to use the principle of 'Rulings not Rules'




Those exact words are the publicised 5E doctrine.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 19, 2018)

Doug McCrae said:


> I wonder if cheating was more prevalent in the early days of roleplaying because the system wasn't doing what players wanted it to do in terms of the likelihood of PC survival.
> 
> The most prevalent approach to OSR play on r/rpg on reddit seems to be to use the principle of 'Rulings not Rules' to make any PC actions not directly covered by the rules much more likely to succeed. So frex throwing your cloak over an orc's head and trying to trip him is a much better tactic than stabbing him with your sword.
> 
> ...




Oh! I would say very much so. Characters are more robust nowadays. The wizard loosing a melee combat with a cat was not just a joke.


----------



## Shiroiken (Jun 19, 2018)

I've found cheating to be tied to a couple of aspects, most of which I don't care for. Immaturity is a common cause, because players (or worse, DMs) feel they need to "win" the game, and sometimes a critical roll can be "fudged" in their favor. Earlier editions also had various effects that would kill/maim/cripple/ruin a character with a single failed die roll, but fortunately 5E has generally moved away from this concept (reducing the temptation). DMs might "fudge" because they're unhappy with the results of random die rolls, which begs the question of why bother with the rolls, if you already have a result in mind.

I like using a VTT (Roll20 in specific), because the RNG and public display prevents most dice cheating (DMs can still fudge by using DM rolls). As a DM, I set up my macros to roll the attack and damage publicly, but keep vital information hidden (such as Escape DCs). Unfortunately, there are other easy ways to cheat, both for players and DMs, mostly "forgetting" to mark off resources (spell slots, ammunition, HP, etc.).


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 19, 2018)

I cheat with my current DM because he is very much a "Today the ruling is one thing, tomorrow it's different, because I said so." So since he clearly doesn't feel obligated to maintain any sense of order or reason on his side of the table, neither do I.

I don't cheat in the game I run, because my players are cool, and it's a lot harder to cheater digitally.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 19, 2018)

I categorically do not cheat.

On a completely unrelated topic, does anyone know where I can buy a set of those Character Builder dice pictured in the OP?


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 19, 2018)

I seldom cheat as a GM, and only when it's a matter of degree.

I bounce players for fudging their dice at the table.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2018)

Umbran said:


> It isn't just dice rolls - ever not jot down a hit point lost here or there?  Conveniently forget whether you've used a spell slot?  Forget to track your rations or ammunition?




Not intentionally.



> As a GM, ever have an impromptu NPC start with just a name, then have to decide what they have for stats piecemeal as you go?  That's probably cheating.




The DM can't cheat, at least not in D&D.  For other RPGs I'm sure there are some where the DM doesn't have as much control over the rules and a rule that states rules are guidelines.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> I bounce players for fudging their dice at the table.




So, at my table, everyone is my friend.  There is nobody at my table that I do not or would not otherwise have over to dinner, go catch a movie with, play in larps with, and so on.  In order to get bounced from my table, you have to violate not just the rules of the game, but friendship.  And to me friendship is worth a heck of a lot more than the result on a d20.

There has only been one case of this in my entire hobby career.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jun 19, 2018)

delericho said:


> In answer to the last question: yes, it's still cheating. When you're the guy following the dice results and you're watching your team mates hogging all the glory with their dice that just 'happen' to always roll well, that does indeed suck.
> 
> As for the question of whether everybody cheats...
> 
> ...




I disagree. I think it depends on the rules that are in play. The 1e DMG explicitly instructs the DM to not be bound by the dice. Yes, you should generally follow up them, but if they didn’t make sense, then ignore them or use them as a guideline.

If the rules explicitly allow something, then it’s not cheating.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 19, 2018)

Umbran said:


> So, at my table, everyone is my friend.  There is nobody at my table that I do not or would not otherwise have over to dinner, go catch a movie with, play in larps with, and so on.  In order to get bounced from my table, you have to violate not just the rules of the game, but friendship.  And to me friendship is worth a heck of a lot more than the result on a d20.
> 
> There has only been one case of this in my entire hobby career.




For the last 4 years, at least half of my games have been public space open table. Last year, 2/3rds of them. Most of the players are half my age, and some are young enough that hanging out with them outside of game might be considered creepy and/or inappropriate. Some are friends of my daughter. 

Then again, I made a 1500 mile relocation, and the few close friends I've made have left the new area due to financial considerations.

I've bounced two friends from my groups for cheating. It was consistent, it was intentional, and it was annoying (quite literally) everyone else in the group. Two of a group of 9. Everyone else expected "read them as they land"...

A third, we noticed a pattern of extremifying results - he was critting (both success and failure) about 4x what he should (Edit to add: but his overall success rate was correct for his skills). We bought him a 3" d20, and that ended; we didn't let him read his dice again for years; we always did. Group decision. One he abided by, as he was the host for the game....

Public play, I've had one clear cheater. Pulled him aside, talked to him about it, he switched tables the next week, and got himself banned by the store. 
I've another, who, while prone to misreads, is actually quite visually impaired (far more than he lets on), but his odious habits are not limited to dice misreads. I solved the "mystery sourced XP" by keeping character sheets (I'm running _public_ and _open-table_, but not _organized play_).


----------



## Ricochet (Jun 19, 2018)

Inchoroi said:


> I'd actually love to get a d20 that's weighted to more likely roll a 1. Just for one player who, no matter what dice he uses, has obscene luck. Its crazy. We even have a dice tray that we roll on, and he's straight up rolling it, no sleight of hand involved. I just want to see what would happen with his luck if he had a weighted d20.




Tons of dice are faulty. You can do salt water tests to see if they are weighted wrong. Many skew to either 1 or 20. He likely has a few "lucky dice", which are lucky because they are basically defective inside.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> The 1e DMG explicitly instructs the DM to not be bound by the dice. Yes, you should generally follow up them, but if they didn’t make sense, then ignore them or use them as a guideline.



Those same sections also indicate that the GM should not violate the major precepts of the game by allowing unearned victories. In effect, Gygax is fairly relaxed about ignoring dice rolls for introducing new content (wandering monsters, discovering a new part of the dungeon behind a secret door) and is prepared to allow alternatives to death if a skilled player's PC nevertheless gets unlucky in combat (although he stresses that the alternative to death should still respect the monster's victory, so it has to be some sort of disabling condition that puts the PC out of the combat); but he is opposed to fudging to hit and damage rolls so as to allow monsters to be "defeated" without really being defeated.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 19, 2018)

Umbran said:


> "Cheapens"?  It still costs $27.98 on Amazon, whether the player "misreads" a hit roll or not.  This is not some noble endeavor or something.  It is 14 year-olds with chips and soda and a good time.  I think the Cheeto dust rather puts us past the idea that we have to worry about the game being cheap.



Cheapens in spirit, not in actual dollars-pounds-yen price...



> Oh, good grief, another with the absolutism and extremes!



Given that the thread title is itself an absolutism (and false, too), what do you expect?

I have low to no tolerance for cheaters.  

That said, honest mistakes happen without intent - someone adds up a PC's xp wrong, it's easy to see it's not an attempt to cheat when the mistakes break about 50-50 too high and too low - and it's intent that matters; often fairly easy to determine once a pattern develops.

Lanefan


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 19, 2018)

Jack Daniel said:


> I make my players roll out in the open in front of everybody, and I do the same.




My group does the same. Those moments when I roll a 1 for one of my villains, never fail to entertain my players.... or myself.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 19, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> It seems that a player "cheating" to directly benefit their own PC and a DM "cheating" to increase the fun for the whole group are so different that they seem to me that they shouldn't even fall under the same label.
> 
> Just because a player's cheating to benefit their own PC might indirectly benefit other PCs, it also may directly harm the other players by making it less fun. A DM fudging may directly benefit or harm the PCs when it's as likely to make a fight that could have anti-climatically ended early take longer as it is shortening a slog of a fight that is no longer fun, but which also directly benefits the players by making it more fun.
> 
> ...




This is exactly my take on it.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 19, 2018)

Well, there's cheating and there's cheating, right? There's a reason the common practice of DMs ignoring the results of die rolls at times is called 'fudging' and not cheating.


> But given that we're all working together to have a good time, is it really cheating?



And that's the crucial thing you need to ask yourself: "Will we have a better time if I'm cheating now, or not?"
When I'm DMing, I make all of my die rolls in the open. My reputation as a fair DM would clearly suffer if I started fudging. But there are more subtle ways to cheat, of course. E.g. I can simply decide not to roll at all when the rules would have called for a roll. Also, as a DM I need to make judgement calls all the time. Not everything is decided by the rolling of dice. Who's going to be attacked next by the nasty monster? That's a decision I'm making based on all kinds of criteria. What's important is to not lose the players trust in your judgement.
E.g. I've found it helps tremendously to point out potential consequences of actions _before_ they're being attempted. Often, a simple "Are you sure that's what you want to do?" will be sufficient to warn a player (unless I'm just trying to mess with him ;-)). But if the decision is confirmed and the dice are rolled, there can be no cheating.

I've gladly adopted point-buy as soon as it was available as a method of creating a character (and I was doubly glad when D&D 4e finally eliminated rolling for hit points, too). Because that's one area where trying to prevent players from cheating simply isn't effective. Nobody wins if a DM forces a player to play a character she doesn't want to play because she thinks the character sucks. All you'll achieve is to make everyone in your group miserable. I've had to learn that lesson the hard way.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Cheapens in spirit, not in actual dollars-pounds-yen price...




In spirit?  It is a spirit of Cheetos and Mountain Dew.  It is a spirit of pretending to be elves and dwarves with funny voices, a spirit of pop-culture references and puns stuffed in among cliches, stereotypes, and plots shamelessly stolen from pulp adventure novels.

Our games sometimes provide emotionally deep moments, and sometimes we tell stories with some amount of Truth in them, or have some decent High Concept, but let's not kid ourselves that in general our hobby is a lofty pursuit that can be lessened by the fact that Whumdinger the Wizard really shouldn't have made that saving throw.



> Given that the thread title is itself an absolutism (and false, too), what do you expect?




Um... dude?  The thread title _is a QUESTION_.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jun 19, 2018)

With apologies to REM...

Well, everybody cheats sometimes
Everybody lies
And everybody cheats sometimes
And everybody cheats sometimes
So, roll on, roll on

And now, you shall have that song stuck in your head for the rest of the day.

My work here is done...


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2018)

Umbran said:


> So, at my table, everyone is my friend.  There is nobody at my table that I do not or would not otherwise have over to dinner, go catch a movie with, play in larps with, and so on.  In order to get bounced from my table, you have to violate not just the rules of the game, but friendship.  And to me friendship is worth a heck of a lot more than the result on a d20.




I also play with good friends.  My group has been gaming in part for 30+ years, and as a whole for about 10 years.  If I caught one of them cheating that person would be given the option to stop cheating, or I would stop DMing.  We'd still be friends, and there are plenty of board games we love to play, but I wouldn't DM for someone who would affect the integrity of the game like that.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I also play with good friends.  My group has been gaming in part for 30+ years, and as a whole for about 10 years.  *If I caught one of them cheating that person would be given the option to stop cheating, or I would stop DMing. * We'd still be friends, and there are plenty of board games we love to play, but I wouldn't DM for someone who would affect the integrity of the game like that.



You are making this sound far more disproportionately serious than it actually is.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You are making this sound far more disproportionately serious than it actually is.




Where do you draw the line on DMing for a cheating player?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Our games sometimes provide emotionally deep moments, and sometimes we tell stories with some amount of Truth in them, or have some decent High Concept, but let's not kid ourselves that in general our hobby is a lofty pursuit that can be lessened by the fact that Whumdinger the Wizard really shouldn't have made that saving throw.




It's not about being lofty.  It's about meaning.  Players love to talk about the grand, close fights where they scraped out the win over the BBEG with the lucky crit or fantstically timed save.  If they found out that the "crit" was actually a miss and the player of the barbarian cheated, or that Whumdinger shouldn't have made that save, that epic win is now meaningless.  The cheater robbed the players of the epic win and they will never know if they would have or should have really won that fight.  And that's just one example of how cheaters rob the other players of the genuine game experience.


----------



## jasper (Jun 19, 2018)

Ricochet said:


> Tons of dice are faulty. You can do salt water tests to see if they are weighted wrong. Many skew to either 1 or 20. He likely has a few "lucky dice", which are lucky because they are basically defective inside.



I had a couple of dice sink but still roll well. And some of my dice I bought in Reagan era.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You are making this sound far more disproportionately serious than it actually is.




Cheating takes away the genuineness of the game experience and I'm not going to put work and effort into DMing for a person who would do that to the rest of the players(including me).


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Cheating takes away the genuineness of the game experience and I'm not going to put work and effort into DMing for a person who would do that to the rest of the players(including me).




I think we are discussing multiple degrees of severity in cheating here. Umbran seems to argue that getting a saving throw wrong every now and then, should not mean the ending of a friendship. It's simply not that important. And he's not wrong.

But I think Maxperson is talking about people who deliberately and consistently cheat, thus ruining other people's fun. I've played with someone like that, and it really undermines the game. Someone who constantly rolls his dice hidden from everyone's view (and wouldn't you know it, he rolled a crit again!), or uses personal dice that have a suspiciously high success rate. After a while you just don't want to play with that person any more.

Because it not only ruins the fun of the DM, but it also makes the other players feel less heroic. You'll have this one player who never rolls a 1, and never fails a check. As if failing an athletics check or perception check every now and then is the end of the world. I just don't get players like that. When you see the DM and your fellow players all be completely fine with their mishaps, and for some reason you still feel the need to cheat. Like you have to be the very best of the group at everything. So as you can probably tell, I have definitely kicked a player like that from my group once.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 19, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I think we are discussing multiple degrees of severity in cheating here. Umbran seems to argue that getting a saving throw wrong every now and then, should not mean the ending of a friendship. It's simply not that important. And he's not wrong.




There's a difference between getting it wrong, which is an accident, and cheating, which is intentional.  Cheating, however small, violates the integrity of the game.  Yes there are degrees, but every last one is a violation that robs the game of its genuineness. People don't cheat when it doesn't matter, unless it's a compulsive problem or something. 



> But I think Maxperson is talking about people who deliberately and consistently cheat, thus ruining other people's fun. I've played with someone like that, and it really undermines the game. Someone who constantly rolls his dice hidden from everyone's view (and wouldn't you know it, he rolled a crit again!), or uses personal dice that have a suspiciously high success rate. After a while you just don't want to play with that person any more.




Deliberate is the key.  If the player cheats once I will talk to the player and explain the seriousness.  If the player cheats a second time, that's as consistently as I need to stop DMing.  If he cheats a second time after the talk, he's not going to stop at two.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jun 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Those same sections also indicate that the GM should not violate the major precepts of the game by allowing unearned victories. In effect, Gygax is fairly relaxed about ignoring dice rolls for introducing new content (wandering monsters, discovering a new part of the dungeon behind a secret door) and is prepared to allow alternatives to death if a skilled player's PC nevertheless gets unlucky in combat (although he stresses that the alternative to death should still respect the monster's victory, so it has to be some sort of disabling condition that puts the PC out of the combat); but he is opposed to fudging to hit and damage rolls so as to allow monsters to be "defeated" without really being defeated.




Yes, but he’s still modifying the results.

But I’m not debating exactly what the DM or players are allowed to do. The specifics are only relevant in relation to what the table agrees to.

The point is simply that if the rules (published, house, table) allow something, such as fudging dice, then by definition it cannot be cheating because it’s playing within the rules.


----------



## Ricochet (Jun 19, 2018)

jasper said:


> I had a couple of dice sink but still roll well. And some of my dice I bought in Reagan era.




It's not whether or not they sink (enough salt and they all float, theoretically), but whether or not - when prodded- they always float into the same number on top. Then you have badly-weighted dice.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There's a difference between getting it wrong, which is an accident, and cheating, which is intentional.  Cheating, however small, violates the integrity of the game.  Yes there are degrees, but every last one is a violation that robs the game of its genuineness. People don't cheat when it doesn't matter, unless it's a compulsive problem or something.




If a player cheats in regards to tracking their ammo and/or rations, that is far less severe in my opinion than cheating on their dice rolls (hiding their rolls, using weighted dice, etc).


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 19, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Where do you draw the line on DMing for a cheating player?



Any notions of the game's "integrity" strikes me as farcical levels of over seriousness here. If these are the sort of things that makes a person stop DMing, then maybe they should not be in the business of DMing to begin with. Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule, especially if they are your "friends." If I ever did that, I would think that my priorities in life were wildly out of whack. There are ways to deal with a serial cheater. If they cheat with dice, then you put them in situations where dice can't save them. Give them other dice to use. You don't call for a roll. You provide greater incentives for those who aren't cheating. DMs should not be in the business of playing lawful stupid gnome paladins with their players. No one likes paladins. Just ask [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]. 

So for me this is less about the "cheating," and more about when the person's playing becomes unreasonably disruptive for the group. I don't know where that arbitrary line in the sand is either, because this line tends to vary person to person and group to group. But if I am given the choice between a periodic cheater who gels well with the group and brings a lot of fun to the table and a Grade-A  who never cheats and admonishes others when they cheat, then I will pick the serial cheater every time. If this serial cheater is being disruptive to the group, then I suspect that there are other issues apart from from the cheating that are at play here, with the cheating simply being a pretext. 



Maxperson said:


> Cheating takes away the genuineness of the game experience and I'm not going to put work and effort into DMing for a person who would do that to the rest of the players(including me).


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You are making this sound far more disproportionately serious than it actually is.




I tend to agree.  In a tournament or competition, it'd be another matter.  But in my home?  It just isn't that serious.



Maxperson said:


> ... I wouldn't DM for someone who would affect the integrity of the game like that.




I find I categorize "integrity of the game" with the "cheapens" comment.  The integrity of Cheetos and Mt. Dew and "I attack the darkness!"?  The game's integrity, in and of itself, is of no import.  It is not a goal or priority.  The game's integrity is only relevant insofar as it supports the player's enjoyment, and no farther.  The game serves the people, not the other way around.



Sadras said:


> Where do you draw the line on DMing for a cheating player?




Lines are absolutes, and I'm not so big on those in my hobby gaming.  It is a "justice is law tempered by mercy" kind of thing.  Hard lines do not allow for consideration of context.  Hard lines do not reliably tell you the right thing to do.

I don't know about you, but I don't play so often, with so many people, that I cannot replace hard lines with analysis of each individual case.  I can look at the people involved, the overall impact, and choose an individual course of action for the particular case, rather than "you cheated, you are *gone*".


----------



## cmad1977 (Jun 19, 2018)

Raunalyn said:


> With apologies to REM...
> 
> Well, everybody cheats sometimes
> Everybody lies
> ...




Unfortunately the song stuck in my head is ‘what does the fox say’


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 19, 2018)

Agreed. It really does drain the fun out of the room. 

The thing about cheaters is that they’re never as discreet as they think. We all know how dice probability works; no matter how high our plusses are, eventually the dice roll in the low single digits. Someone that always succeeds/hits, that’s just not how probability works.

As for cheating at stats, I think AL’s mandate of the Standard Array or Point-Buy is glorious – at my home table, I even mandate Standard Array at my home table as well. Because otherwise, yeah, there will always be that one person that has an 18 in their prime ability and nothing lower than a 12.

Gary Alan Fine’s work is worth reading, absolutely. It’s, as far as I know, the first academic study of gaming. 

For my part, yes, cheating was rampant at our table when we started gaming. But we were also all very young. I was nine years old when I picked up the red box. At that age, it was certainly too tempting to put success above simulation. While I’ve certainly grown up enough in the decades since not to cheat these days, to abide by the rolls of the dice, I’m sad to say that there are still plenty of people that haven’t.



Irda Ranger said:


> I have one player who tries to cheat like this, and let me tell you, it ruins the game for everyone else.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 19, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You are making this sound far more disproportionately serious than it actually is.




may not be serious to you, but for many others, it's quite serious. I won't even boardgame with people I know to be cheaters in RPGs.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> I won't even boardgame with people I know to be cheaters in RPGs.




Most boardgames are competitive, which makes it a bit different case.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 19, 2018)

You know what bothers me more than cheating?

People who bail on games.  

I'll be far faster to boot someone who consistently cancels, no-shows or arrives late (like half-way through) than I will to boot someone who may be fudging their dice rolls.  At least the cheater shows up and contributes!  

"Beating the players" isn't hard.  If I want to, Cheatin' John will die horribly.  No amount of Nat 20's will save his butt.  

But the game isn't about me winning or them winning.  It's not about me trying to kill their characters. Shoot, when I ran Ravenloft (however briefly) I just rolled the dice behind the screen for sound effects and then narrated what happened as was cinematically appropriate.  Sometimes the bad-guys crit.  Sometimes they fumbled.  Usually when it would be most "awesome" to make them look scary or to give the players a fighting chance.  

"The Game" is about everyone getting together and having a good time.  If Cheatin' John is preventing us from having THAT, then I'll boot him.  Otherwise, Cheatin' John is likely to learn real quick that there's more to my games than "winning".


----------



## jasper (Jun 19, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Where do you draw the line on DMing for a cheating player?



1.Between the 4 and 5th vertebrate.
2. Just above the joint of the off hand thumb.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Any notions of the game's "integrity" strikes me as farcical levels of over seriousness here.




Games where _anything goes_ strike me as farcical. 

Simon says anything goes, all the time, every time. 
Yay, I'm having such fun!



> Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule




Really? I do not think it is that miniscule.



> There are ways to deal with a serial cheater.




Agree, there are ways but this debate is coming from where all options have already been exhausted.



> So for me this is less about the "cheating," and more about when the person's playing becomes unreasonably disruptive for the group.




Cheating has been called out as being unreasonably disruptive by many posters here.



Umbran said:


> The game's integrity is only relevant insofar as it supports the player's enjoyment, and no farther.  The game serves the people, not the other way around.




As others have mentioned players' enjoyment may be drained by a player that cheats at the table.  



> Lines are absolutes, and I'm not so big on those in my hobby gaming.




I like playing games with rules otherwise why bother? 
However, having said all that, I'm more forgiving playing pictionary, 30 seconds, charades or other such games at a Saturday braai (South African equivalent of a barbecue) with the drinks flowing. It is generally a different crowd, it is a competitive game with perhaps a different social contract in place. 



> I can look at the people involved, the overall impact, and choose an individual course of action for the particular case, rather than "you cheated, you are *gone*".




It doesn't escalate to 11 immediately. It is like me using an example of a cheater and saying he rolled 20's all session. No one cheats that much and no one dismisses a friend from a game that easily.

EDIT: And just to bring it down to reality - the chance that your friend does not change his/her cheating ways after you and/or the table have taken him/her to task maybe even more than once (if necessary) for cheating is assuredly zero.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 19, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Games where _anything goes_ strike me as farcical.



Did defeating that strawman feel satisfying? Good. 



> *Really?* I do not think it is that miniscule.



Yes. 



> Agree, there are ways but this debate is coming from where all options have already been exhausted.



That position seems far more moderate than a number of other voices in this debate. 



> Cheating has been called out as being unreasonably disruptive by many posters here.



And? I don't have to agree with those many posters or find their positions reasonable.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Did defeating that strawman feel satisfying? Good.




The word farcical was yours. I merely played up to it. 



> That position seems far more moderate than a number of other voices in this debate.




Maybe. As I said - I find cheating a problem, but is is not a problem that would not be solved through this or that method. Clashing personalities between players (not necessarily friends) which threaten to divide the playgroup is of course a much larger problem and unlikely to be solved in my experience.    



> And? I don't have to agree with those many posters or find their positions reasonable.




True. And here we are.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> If a player cheats in regards to tracking their ammo and/or rations, that is far less severe in my opinion than cheating on their dice rolls (hiding their rolls, using weighted dice, etc).




Sure, it's definitely less severe.  It still take away from the genuineness of the game, though.  In a game where ammunition and/or ration tracking is required, cheating on it alters outcomes.  I've been in games where we ran low or out of rations and we had to worry about where we were going to find food.  It affected game play.  I've run out of arrows and had to go melee and been unable to shoot at creatures across ravines and the like.  It affected game play.  Running out of important resources adds to the drama of the game and gives it a kind of depth that unlimited ammo and food doesn't have.  A player who cheats is robbing the other players of those experiences.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2018)

Umbran said:


> I find I categorize "integrity of the game" with the "cheapens" comment.  The integrity of Cheetos and Mt. Dew and "I attack the darkness!"?  The game's integrity, in and of itself, is of no import.  It is not a goal or priority.  The game's integrity is only relevant insofar as it supports the player's enjoyment, and no farther.  The game serves the people, not the other way around.




And that's just it.  Cheating saps enjoyment from the game.  If I'm playing a game and I know that there is a cheater in the group, I can no longer trust any encounter that he is a part of unless I can see all of his rolls and what he's doing on his sheet, and that level of watching players isn't fun, either.  I can't enjoy the success we had at persuading the king to do something we want, because I don't know if his "20" was real or not.  I can't enjoy defeating an encounter, especially close ones, because we might have won only due to the player cheating.  

I'm not going to play in a game with, or DM for cheaters.  It ruins my fun and take away from the fun of my other players.  If one of my friends was a cheater, I wouldn't kick him out of the group.  I'd simply start playing things like Catan or Ascension, which are harder to cheat at and are still lots of fun, or just hang out.  If you don't care about cheating, more power to you.  I don't personally know anyone who is okay with it.   I also question why even bother to have rules if you don't care if they are broken or not by cheaters.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Any notions of the game's "integrity" strikes me as farcical levels of over seriousness here. If these are the sort of things that makes a person stop DMing, then maybe they should not be in the business of DMing to begin with. Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule, especially if they are your "friends." If I ever did that, I would think that my priorities in life were wildly out of whack. There are ways to deal with a serial cheater. If they cheat with dice, then you put them in situations where dice can't save them. Give them other dice to use. You don't call for a roll. You provide greater incentives for those who aren't cheating.



All of which are things I-as-DM shouldn't have to do, and wouldn't be in the position of having to bother with were I just to punt the cheater and have done with it. 



> So for me this is less about the "cheating," and more about when the person's playing becomes unreasonably disruptive for the group. I don't know where that arbitrary line in the sand is either, because this line tends to vary person to person and group to group. But if I am given the choice between a periodic cheater who gels well with the group and brings a lot of fun to the table and a Grade-A  who never cheats and admonishes others when they cheat, then I will pick the serial cheater every time.



Where I will pick the other, as asshat or not at least I know it's someone I can trust.

Yes it's just a game, but if I can't even trust you to roll dice without cheating what else can't I trust you on in other aspects of life?



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I find I categorize "integrity of the game" with the "cheapens" comment. The integrity of Cheetos and Mt. Dew and "I attack the darkness!"? The game's integrity, in and of itself, is of no import. It is not a goal or priority. The game's integrity is only relevant insofar as it supports the player's enjoyment, and no farther. The game serves the people, not the other way around.



Where I see the game and its integrity as being - to a point - bigger than any single person who might be involved in it, just like a sports team is bigger than any of its players. 

Without integrity - unless you're playing completely rules-less, which though uncommon I suppose is possible - what's the point of having rules?



			
				Ralif Redhammer said:
			
		

> As for cheating at stats, I think AL’s mandate of the Standard Array or Point-Buy is glorious ... Because otherwise, yeah, there will always be that one person that has an 18 in their prime ability and nothing lower than a 12.



Can't happen* if all rolls are done at the table where others can see 'em.

* - unless someone in fact legitimately does roll really well.  Random chance can be funny that way.

Lanefan


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 20, 2018)

Seems to me, if you're going to cheat, you cost yourself a lot of time and money in the process. You could find a 
five year old kid, and beat him at checkers. You'd get the same satisfaction from "winning", and save yourself the 
cost of dice, books, etc, and the time it took to set up an elaborate game with multiple players which  you rendered 
meaningless.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> The word farcical was yours. I merely played up to it.



But "anything goes" was your own unique contribution. 



Lanefan said:


> Where I will pick the other, as asshat or not at least I know it's someone I can trust.



But said asshat is disruptive to the group and does not gel with the rest of your group which was the point. 



> Yes it's just a game, but if I can't even trust you to roll dice without cheating what else can't I trust you on in other aspects of life?



I don't know. Why don't you list them all out? And perhaps then consider whether or not you have trust issues. 



> Where I see the game and its integrity as being - to a point - bigger than any single person who might be involved in it, just like a sports team is bigger than any of its players.



Which is why I won't sink a person for cheating. The game survives and continues swimmingly. 



> Without integrity - unless you're playing completely rules-less, which though uncommon I suppose is possible - what's the point of having rules?



It's "rulings not rules," no?


----------



## Sadras (Jun 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> But "anything goes" was your own unique contribution.




Yes it was - and according to you it does _within the realms of cheating_. 



> I don't know. Why don't you list them all out? And perhaps then consider whether or not you have trust issues.




This wasn't necessary.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Yes it was - *and according to you* it does _within the realms of cheating_.



Say what?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> But said asshat is disruptive to the group and does not gel with the rest of your group which was the point.




Cheating also disrupts the group.  It just does so in an underhanded way.  At least the asshat is out in the open about it.



> I don't know. Why don't you list them all out? And perhaps then consider whether or not you have trust issues.




Trust issues are when someone mistrusts without reason.  Cheating is a very good reason not to trust someone, so mistrusting a cheater doesn't involve trust issues.



> Which is why I won't sink a person for cheating. The game survives and continues swimmingly.




I wouldn't call lessening the enjoyment of everyone involved other than the cheater to be "continuing swimmingly." 



> It's "rulings not rules," no?




Which is one reason why the DM cannot be cheating when he fudges things.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Which is one reason why the DM cannot be cheating when he fudges things.




I can certainly think of situations where fudging by the DM can be considered cheating as well. I've been in a campaign where it seemed the DM went to great lengths to 'win'. He would throw impossible skill checks at our players, and often outright declare our attempts a failure, even when we rolled really high. Then he would throw in an npc that would not have this problem, to steal our thunder. 

When a DM asks for a check, I would have to assume the DM has a difficulty for the check in mind that is some what reasonable. If the DC is impossible, he shouldn't be asking for a check. And if I make the check, he should not alter the DC afterwards so that I still fail it. That in my opinion, would be cheating.

This is why I tend to be very open about the difficulty of checks to my players. I'll state up front to my players that they must succeed at a 20 for example, _"or else this will happen"_, and then give them the option to reconsider their action. This means that when they beat the DC that I stated up front, I'm obligated to give them their success. It also means that the players are better informed about how I will rule the result of their roll, before they take their action. It makes it more fair for everybody.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Cheating also disrupts the group.  It just does so in an underhanded way.  At least the asshat is out in the open about it.



Cheating _can_ disrupt the group, but it is not that simple of a causal relation. Again, the language you adopt here is far too absolute for my liking or experience. 



> I wouldn't call *lessening the enjoyment of everyone involved other than the cheater* to be "continuing swimmingly."



And that assumption is a fairly major crux of the disagreement. Whether that is true for your table or not, that is not inherently true nor should we regard it as true. 



> Which is one reason why the DM cannot be cheating when he fudges things.



Ah yes, that whole "it is impossible for the GM to cheat" debate.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I can certainly think of situations where fudging by the DM can be considered cheating as well. I've been in a campaign where it seemed the DM went to great lengths to 'win'. He would throw impossible skill checks at our players, and often outright declare our attempts a failure, even when we rolled really high. Then he would throw in an npc that would not have this problem, to steal our thunder.




Me, too.  The DM is not cheating, though.  He can't.  Instead, he's being an asshat and bad DM.  You respond to that by letting him know that you have better things to do and going elsewhere. The fact that the DM is given the authority to add, subtract or alter rules as he sees fit means that he literally cannot cheat.  There's no rule for him to break.  Rulings over rules and all that. 



> When a DM asks for a check, I would have to assume the DM has a difficulty for the check in mind that is some what reasonable. If the DC is impossible, he shouldn't be asking for a check. And if I make the check, he should not alter the DC afterwards so that I still fail it. That in my opinion, would be cheating.




It's messed up, but it's not cheating since he isn't breaking a rule.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Cheating _can_ disrupt the group, but it is not that simple of a causal relation. Again, the language you adopt here is far too absolute for my liking or experience.
> 
> And that assumption is a fairly major crux of the disagreement. Whether that is true for your table or not, that is not inherently true nor should we regard it as true.




I'll take your word for it that you can [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] are just fine with cheaters cheating in your games.  I know I'm not.  I also know that none of my players are.  And further, nobody that I've ever talked to in person has said that they were fine with it.  I'm reasonably sure that you guys are in a small minority of people.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It's messed up, but it's not cheating since he isn't breaking a rule.




This seems odd to me. The game rules are pretty well established. The DM can of course decide when he uses the rules and when not. But once a DM commits to an established rule (such as a skill check), and ask for a roll from a player, he should not be ignoring the result of the roll that he asked for. That is cheating.

Or imagine a scenario where a player makes an attack, and the DM simply decides that the monster's armor class is suddenly higher, just so that the attack misses. Once a DM starts to arbitrarily ignore the rules without the consent of his players, I would definitely consider that cheating.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Say what?




Your position about cheating is clear as is mine. You seem to be more tolerant than most and that is fine for your table. To me that gives off the impression that _anything goes _at your table (again within the realms of cheating) just because there are worse things a player can do and because the game still continues_ swimmingly_ by your account.

I'm not tolerant of it at all, however as I have mentioned already I do not think it would be a long term issue after it was found out and the person cheating was called on it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 20, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> This seems odd to me. The game rules are pretty well established. The DM can of course decide when he uses the rules and when not. But once a DM commits to an established rule (such as a skill check), and ask for a roll from a player, he should not be ignoring the result of the roll that he asked for. That is cheating.
> 
> Or imagine a scenario where a player makes an attack, and the DM simply decides that the monster's armor class is suddenly higher, just so that the attack misses. Once a DM starts to arbitrarily ignore the rules without the consent of his players, I would definitely consider that cheating.




Except that there are no requirements that the DM be consistent or that he consult the players before changing/ignoring a rule.  Those are good qualities in a DM, but there are no requirements that he be that way.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Your position about cheating is clear as is mine. You seem to be more tolerant than most and that is fine for your table. *To me that gives off the impression *that _anything goes _at your tablejust because there are worse things a player can do and because the game still continues_ swimmingly_ by your account.
> 
> I'm not tolerant of it at all, however as I have mentioned already I do not think it would be a long term issue after it was found out and the person cheating was called on it.



As the saying goes, "When you assume..." 



Maxperson said:


> I'll take your word for it that you can [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] are just fine with cheaters cheating in your games.  I know I'm not.  I also know that none of my players are.  And further, nobody that I've ever talked to in person has said that they were fine with it.  I'm reasonably sure that you guys are in a small minority of people.



That's fine. I have a negative anthropology which engenders a more a pragmatist approach in this matter. Cheating happens. The game goes on. 



Maxperson said:


> Except that *there are no requirements* that the DM be consistent or that he consult the players before changing/ignoring a rule.  Those are good qualities in a DM, but there are no requirements that he be that way.



So you are making a legal appeal to the rules as written to suggest that "rulings not rules" means that the GM is inherently incapable of cheating?


----------



## Sadras (Jun 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The DM is not cheating, though.  He can't.  Instead, he's being an asshat and bad DM.  You respond to that by letting him know that you have better things to do and going elsewhere. The fact that the DM is given the authority to add, subtract or alter rules as he sees fit means that he literally cannot cheat.  There's no rule for him to break.  Rulings over rules and all that.
> 
> It's messed up, but it's not cheating since he isn't breaking a rule.




This would make an interesting poll. Officially can a DM cheat?

The online definition of cheating:
1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
2. avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill.

In (1), one might ask what advantage might the DM gain. Well DM's that act as the one described by @_*Imaculata*_ tend to enjoy a DM-vs-player style and so there is room to say that _cheating_ or _fudging_ (whichever you prefer) provides an advantage to the DM in that roleplaying style. 

In (2), many DM's technically _cheat_ or _fudge_ to avoid undesirable outcomes for the table (whether it be to spare a PC or prolong an epic combat...etc).

However having said all that, the DM has the power to change/amend any rule of the game AND at any time. So can he really cheat?

I'm not really asking you Max, just musing and upping my post count. 

EDIT: Wait, I got it,

*CAN GOD CHEAT?*


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'm reasonably sure that you guys are in a small minority of people.




So, how does that fly in the face of the surveying behind the OP?

Did they lie about their survey results?  Did they somehow just happen to choose a population in which lots of cheating happens, but that population is not representative?  Have times changed, so that the results are no longer relevant?  Are people hypocrites, and everyone cheats, but nobody is okay with anyone *else* cheating?  Or, do you simply choose to believe what you believe, despite contrary evidence?  Something else?

Any statement of what "the real majority" thinks has to deal with the survey results.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

I have a message for all y'all kicking out these irredemable cheaters from your table: 
_“Give me your unwant'd, your poor,
Your muddled cheaters yearning to play free,
The wretched refuse of your gaming store.
Send these, the groupless, table-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the dungeon door!”_


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> You seem to be more tolerant than most and that is fine for your table. To me that gives off the impression that _anything goes _...




Okay, just to demonstrate how wrong this is in terms of its logic.

"You are more tolerant than me, there fore ANYTHING GOES.."

Is logically equivalent to

"If a mother is willing to look the other way when you sneak a cookie when you think she's not looking, she's okay with you hitting your sister with a baseball bat"

or

"The cop didn't stop you from speeding, therefore, he'll let you murder people too."

Being more tolerant than you DOES NOT imply tolerance of _everything_.  How about you back off on the strawman, hm?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 20, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Okay, just to demonstrate how wrong this is in terms of its logic.
> 
> "You are more tolerant than me, there fore ANYTHING GOES.."
> 
> ...




I hear what you're saying Umbran - but I think it's fair to say that there was the context of "pertaining to your DMing a game" that Sadras was operating within.

It's also logical to not push context to life and death situations when debating your position.  Too many other threads do this and it takes them far afield from the rails.

Not defending Sadras's position but I usually reply like this when things seem too escalated.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> This would make an interesting poll. Officially can a DM cheat?
> 
> The online definition of cheating:
> 1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
> ...





There's no poll to be had out of this.  Rule 0 makes the DM arbiter of all things above the rules themselves.  Therefore no, they can't cheat.

What they can do is create an environment where people can have fun, or not.

If the former, they'll have a long run.  If the latter, it'll be over soon.  It self moderates.

KB


----------



## Sadras (Jun 20, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Okay, just to demonstrate how wrong this is in terms of its logic.
> 
> "You are more tolerant than me, there fore ANYTHING GOES.."
> 
> ...




How about you quote the rest of my sentence or does it not work for your strawman?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> How about you quote the rest of my sentence or does it not work for your strawman?




It isn't a strawman.  It is a _reductio ad absurdum_ to demonstrate the point of logic.

Now, not everything is about logic.  But, here it does apply - saying "if you are more tolerant than me, then ANYTHING GOES" is simply not logically sound.

If you don't like how I put it, fine.  Ignore the previous post.  Consider it retracted.  

But you should address this: how does "more tolerant than me" imply "anything goes"?  If you don't address that, you are in the situation of complaining about what I did to your point, right after you did something very similar to his point.  And that's not a good look for you.

(Edited a bit for clarity of the issue)


----------



## Sadras (Jun 20, 2018)

Umbran said:


> It isn't a strawman.  It is a _reductio ad absurdum_ to demonstrate the point of logic.
> 
> Now, not everything is about logic.  But, here it does apply - saying "if you are more tolerant than me, then ANYTHING GOES" is simply not logically sound.
> 
> ...




Perhaps in other situations I would agree with you but in this instance the poster has also said:

_Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule_ and despite cheating the _game continues swimmingly_

This implies to me a poster who does not place any value on cheating, ANY CHEATING during a game. .i.e. anything goes within the REALMS OF CHEATING (I did mention this is my original post).

You cannot compare stealing cookies (mom forgiving theft/DM forgiving cheating) and a baseball bat to sister's face (mom forgiving violence/DM forgiving violence). I do not see how you can possibly equate the two.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

Umbran said:


> So, how does that fly in the face of the surveying behind the OP?
> 
> Did they lie about their survey results?  Did they somehow just happen to choose a population in which lots of cheating happens, but that population is not representative?  Have times changed, so that the results are no longer relevant?  Are people hypocrites, and everyone cheats, but nobody is okay with anyone *else* cheating?  Or, do you simply choose to believe what you believe, despite contrary evidence?  Something else?
> 
> Any statement of what "the real majority" thinks has to deal with the survey results.



Several points. 

1) The book in question - Shared Fantasy - was first published in 1982. (2002 is the year of the paperback reprinted edition.) So the results are not necessarily reflective of the contemporaneous gaming but of the time of the book's publication. Am I therefore suggesting that people cheat less nowadays? Hell no. But the survey results should be appropriately contextualized in the gaming climate in which it was produced. So I would be curious to see how this has changed, and ideally throughout multiple editions of D&D but that may be a pipedream. 

2) It is worth considering cheating in the context of D&D's gaming culture. Reading through the book the OP linked on Google Books has been fascinating due to rationalization of normalized cheating. There are presumed sets of behaviors around cheating, honesty, and dice rolls. When is it acceptable? When is it not? Regardless of how anyone in this thread feels about it, the author's interviewees give the impression that cheating is sometimes regarded as necessary and that there are implicit limits of acceptable cheating. Any notion of the game's "integrity" is a minor footnote here. Instead, there is a recurring motif in this section of cheating for the necessity of PC survival or mitigating terrible effects that pertain to the player character. This picques my interest. Does the nature of the game encourage cheating? Does the nature and frequency of cheating vary in other games? I find it too dismissive or easy of an explanation that cheating is only done by immoral people. I suspect that D&D fosters an attitude of "winning the game." A first person miniature wargame. My character must survive. My character must succeed. Play to win. Survive to win. Defeat the stuff and take their stuff. 

I for one have experienced consistently lower rates of cheating, for example, when playing indie games such as Fate, Dungeon World, and Cypher System than I do with D&D. And it almost seems obvious why, at least when it comes to Fate. There are mechanisms for the player to not only positively influence the story in their favor but also to mitigate harmful circumstances produced by botched rolls or the GM's narrative framing. You can reroll. You can improve the dice results. There are ways to succeed when you fail the roll. You can potentially reject the GM's proposed narrative that affects an aspect of your character.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Perhaps in other situations I would agree with you but in this instance the poster has also said:
> 
> _Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule_ and despite cheating the _game continues swimmingly_
> 
> ...



I would strongly encourage that you reconsider stating what you think is implied about this poster's values based upon your own assumptions before I explicitly tell the mods what I think about what yours.


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 20, 2018)

The DM's role, of and by itself, is arbitrary, to begin with. 

Case in point, I ask a Rogue with a high DEX to do a skill check to scale a steep hillside in the dark in the rain. I don't 
tell him the minimum roll I will accept, because I'm looking at it as a pass/fail situation, which he has a better than even
chance of, at succeeding. He doesn't know I'm looking for at least a 10 on a roll of a D20. If he rolls a 9, and I say 
"you made it", is that cheating? If he rolls an 8, and I say "you made it, but lost your dagger, and split open your boot
during the climb", is that cheating? 

There is a special D&D game, for folks who want to stick to RAW, with no compromises.

It's called Chess...


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 20, 2018)

Yes, of course GMs can cheat.

There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).

Other games that skirt the issue or are ambivalent it milquetoast leave it up to social contract (though in their text they may have some commentary on the implications of cheating). And divining that is pretty simple:

If players expect to have autonomy over their decision-points and expect the formula of their action declarations + application of resolution mechanics = unmediated outcomes (therefore play/story trajectory)...and their decision-points suddenly aren’t autonomous (because of the covert application of one kind of Force or another like a classic post-hoc “block”) and the outcomes of their declared actions are covertly GM-mediated (eg applying Force in the way of shifting target numbers)...

That is cheating as a GM.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 20, 2018)

If a game gives a GM explicit authority to apply Force to mediate outcomes and change the trajectory of play, then of course the GM can’t cheat by applying Force to do so.

If players give their consent to the GM to apply Force to shape the play experience to the GM’s discretion, then of course the GM can’t cheat by applying Force.

But this idea that all games provide for that GM latitude/authority and/or all players (or even most) consent to it...it needs to stop. It’s not s hobby truism and continuously treating it like it is still doesn’t make it so.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would strongly encourage that you reconsider what you think is implied about this poster's character based upon your own assumptions before I explicitly tell the mods what I think about what yours.




 [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] I have no issue with you or how you play the game at your table. You have had more than enough opportunities to correct my perspective of your opinion on cheating, instead you chose to thought police me using an intimidation tactic. Strange route to go when you're concerned about people's perspectives of you.
Keep in mind the only reason I responded was because of a new discussion with Umbran otherwise I considered our debate about cheaters closed. But that is the nature of forums. 

If you clearly remember I asked where does one draw the line for cheating....and no line was given. 
I apologise if you feel slighted (which you should not) but I stand by my assessment. Do what you feel is right.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2018)

Sadras said:


> [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] I have no issue with you or how you play the game at your table. You have had more than enough opportunities to correct my perspective of your opinion on cheating, instead you chose to thought police me using an intimidation tactic. Strange route to go when you're concerned about people's perspectives of you.
> Keep in mind the only reason I responded was because of a new discussion with Umbran otherwise I considered our debate about cheaters closed. But that is the nature of forums.
> 
> If you clearly remember I asked where does one draw the line for cheating....and no line was given.
> I apologise if you feel slighted (which you should not) but I stand by my assessment. Do what you feel is right.



You may not have issue with me or how I play at my table, but I have an issue with you  [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] making continued assumptions. Yes, you asked me to draw the line. If _you_ remember correctly I said that the line was contextual. That does not give you license to insert false words or positions into my mouth. Nor does that equate to "anything goes within the realm of cheating." When I call you out on making this assumption, you kept pressing and repeating it. You think that I had opportunities to correct your perspective? I did call out these assumptions. I thought that was clear. But, no. That's not how this works from any place of etiquette. You had opportunities to back off from your assumptions when they were repeatedly called out as assumptions. But you didn't and instead continued with "To me that gives off the impression that anything goes at your tablejust because there are worse things a player can do and because the game still continues swimmingly by your account." To which I responded: 


Aldarc said:


> As the saying goes, "When you assume..."



I didn't finish this statement, as I thought that the rest was obvious, but I will complete it now: "When you assume, you make an ass of you and me." Let me spell out the message here: you should not falsely assume things. But then when you reply to Umbran... 


> *This implies to me a poster who does not place any value on cheating,* ANY CHEATING during a game. .i.e. anything goes within the REALMS OF CHEATING (I did mention this is my original post).



So to answer your earlier question: your statement here is where we draw the line, Sadras.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 20, 2018)

It seems like 'house wins all ties' falls within the realm of cheating for this discussion, which for me as GM, I tend to give it over to the players to win ties, as I find it's easier to find challenge in success than failure. If the character dies, then their story is over, and that's boring.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Does the nature of the game encourage cheating?



Even if it does encourage cheating, that still doesn't give license to cheat.



> I suspect that D&D fosters an attitude of "winning the game." A first person miniature wargame. My character must survive. My character must succeed. Play to win. Survive to win. Defeat the stuff and take their stuff.



Sure it does; and a player (usually) wants to survive, to defeat the stuff, to take the stuff, to 'win'.  With this there is no problem.

But cheating in order to achieve these goals does present a problem, in that it reduces or even negates any sense of achievement on success.



> I for one have experienced consistently lower rates of cheating, for example, when playing indie games such as Fate, Dungeon World, and Cypher System than I do with D&D. And it almost seems obvious why, at least when it comes to Fate. There are mechanisms for the player to not only positively influence the story in their favor but also to mitigate harmful circumstances produced by botched rolls or the GM's narrative framing. You can reroll. You can improve the dice results. There are ways to succeed when you fail the roll. You can potentially reject the GM's proposed narrative that affects an aspect of your character.



In other words, you can do all sorts of things to avoid the obvious: suck it up, take the hit; then get up, dust yourself off, and try again.

Sigh.

The game involves dice, and therefore luck; and someone who can't accept and-or deal with the bad luck that will inevitably happen - about as often as good luck, if random chance is allowed to have its way - is probably playing the wrong game.

It all comes down to a question of playing in good faith.  A player who knowingly cheats in order to gain an undeserved advantage over the game or the other players/PCs is not playing in good faith, pure and simple.  A DM who cheats in order to undermine good play and-or good luck on the players' side is also not playing in good faith.  Neither of these are acceptable.

Simple mistakes, on the other hand, happen.  A DM might mistakenly leave out some crucial detail of the scene narration.  A player might misread her character sheet and think her wand has 10 charges when it only has 1.  I can't count the number of times I've seen people (including me) glance at a d20 roll without looking closely and mix up '1' and '7' (both ways!) until someone looks closer and gets it right.  These are all simple mistakes, easily correctable on the fly, and not a problem until and unless they start becoming an ongoing trend or pattern e.g. someone reads 1 as 7 every time...at which point unintentional error has probably veered into intentional cheating.

Lanefan


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 20, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> This seems odd to me. The game rules are pretty well established. The DM can of course decide when he uses the rules and when not. But once a DM commits to an established rule (such as a skill check), and ask for a roll from a player, he should not be ignoring the result of the roll that he asked for. That is cheating.
> 
> Or imagine a scenario where a player makes an attack, and the DM simply decides that the monster's armor class is suddenly higher, just so that the attack misses. Once a DM starts to arbitrarily ignore the rules without the consent of his players, I would definitely consider that cheating.




This.  While I think it is _fair_ that a DM may "fudge" the dice from time to time, my _general_ experience on both sides of the table is that this is usually done for the player's benefit.  To _avoid_ seemingly arbitrary "bad things".  I agree it is is _unfair_ for the DM to get to decide when he does or when he does not follow the rules.  The DM may claim some authority over when a rule _applies_, but choosing to ignore the rules after they have already enforced them (or the reverse, enforcing them after choosing not to) without some kind of earnest heads up like "Hey I'm testing out how this rule works." or "Hey I'm not quite sure when this rule applies." is very much cheating.

These are the sort of approaches we see in broken political systems: the people in power get to choose when rules do or don't apply to them and everyone else, but the people not in power are always subject to the rules.  It doesn't work in a microcosm from GM-to-Player as much as it doesn't work in macro from Noble-to-Serf.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 21, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You may not have issue with me or how I play at my table, but I have an issue with you  @_*Sadras*_ making continued assumptions. Yes, you asked me to draw the line. If _you_ remember correctly I said that the line was contextual. That does not give you license to insert false words or positions into my mouth. Nor does that equate to "anything goes within the realm of cheating." When I call you out on making this assumption, you kept pressing and repeating it. You think that I had opportunities to correct your perspective? I did call out these assumptions. I thought that was clear. But, no. That's not how this works from any place of etiquette. You had opportunities to back off from your assumptions when they were repeatedly called out as assumptions. But you didn't and instead continued with "To me that gives off the impression that anything goes at your tablejust because there are worse things a player can do and because the game still continues swimmingly by your account." To which I responded:
> I didn't finish this statement, as I thought that the rest was obvious, but I will complete it now: "When you assume, you make an ass of you and me." Let me spell out the message here: you should not falsely assume things. But then when you reply to Umbran...
> So to answer your earlier question: your statement here is where we draw the line, Sadras.




On a completely superficial level my comment and this below reply to you by Max



> I'll take your word for it that you and Umbran are just fine with cheaters cheating in your games.




are very similar and yet, the _just fine_ gets completely glossed over. In fact you reply _That's fine_.
Seriously! 

Colour me confused on your online frustration with my comment. 

But I will leave it at that as I have no interest in this dark hole of a conversation.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 21, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).



 Sure, some games do work without GM Force (or Illusionism or 'Good DMing' or whatever you want to call executive-vetoeing the results of applying the rules).

Other games don't, and come right out and call for Rulings when the Rules aren't working.

There's nothing inherently /wrong/ with the second sort.  I mean, 'not working' is something wrong, obviously, in the technical sense of functionality, but not /wrong/ like "dude, eating that guy's liver with fava beans was just /wrong/."



Manbearcat said:


> If a game gives a GM explicit authority to apply Force to mediate outcomes and change the trajectory of play, then of course the GM can’t cheat by applying Force to do so.



 Oh, never mind, I should have just kept reading. Carry on then.



> But this idea that all games provide for that GM latitude/authority and/or all players (or even most) consent to it...it needs to stop. It’s not s hobby truism and continuously treating it like it is still doesn’t make it so.



 The GM typically picks the game he wants to run, that could certainly include deciding to run a modified version of it, and it's not much of a stretch to modify it on the fly.  So, yeah, the GM has the lattitude.  The GM also decides who to invite to his game, and players whether to attend or not.  

More practically, it's a lot easier for a Rat Bastard DM to find more victimsplayers than for a dejected lonely player fed up with same to find an honest GM, pulling a group together or fill an opening in an established one, with whom play that lovely game which works without GM Force that he's been wanting to play.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> So you are making a legal appeal to the rules as written to suggest that "rulings not rules" means that the GM is inherently incapable of cheating?



Since all rules are guidelines and the DM has full power to alter them at will, it's not cheating if he does.  He's just using his given ability as DM.  Rulings over rules is just a part of that authority.



Sadras said:


> This would make an interesting poll. Officially can a DM cheat?
> 
> The online definition of cheating:
> 1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
> ...




A few things.  First, the DM is given an unfair advantage by the rules by virtue of being DM.  He has the given ability to drop 10,000 monsters on a first level party if he wants.  It's the DM's responsibility, though, to use that power wisely as bad DMs lose players fast.  Second, I don't view what [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] is describing as a playstyle.  Bad DMing is bad DMing, not a style of play.  If a game devolves into DM vs. Player, the players lose.



> In (2), many DM's technically _cheat_ or _fudge_ to avoid undesirable outcomes for the table (whether it be to spare a PC or prolong an epic combat...etc).




By that definition, everything you avoid that you don't like is cheating.  Avoid eating a cheese sandwich that you dislike while at a party?  Cheater!!  Intercept a football headed for the end zone?  Cheater!!  Work hard to avoid being fired?  Cheater!!  It's a crappy definition of cheating.



> However having said all that, the DM has the power to change/amend any rule of the game AND at any time. So can he really cheat?
> 
> 
> *CAN GOD CHEAT?*




The answer to those is no.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 21, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> The DM's role, of and by itself, is arbitrary, to begin with.
> 
> Case in point, I ask a Rogue with a high DEX to do a skill check to scale a steep hillside in the dark in the rain. I don't
> tell him the minimum roll I will accept, because I'm looking at it as a pass/fail situation, which he has a better than even
> ...




This example is useless for anything in the context of DMing.  DM fairness is not established in the individual situation.  It's established in the consistency of the application of rules or rulings to similar situations.

Determining the DC for a skill check, and the results of success and failure, is 100% within the realm of the DM.  But _that_ the rule.  There isn't a rule that says "This cliff much have a DC of 15 or higher."  Determining the difficulty of that cliff _is_ the rule and that rule says the DM gets to make the call on what that cliff's DC is.

Lets say the DM decides the cliff is "hard", DC 15.  Billy the Rogue rolls 15, and climbs the wall.  Joey the Fighter rolls a 15 but this time the DM declares that he fails.  

There's also a game for people who don't feel the rules matter at all: it's called Calvinball.

The rules are there for a reason: because we've discovered that there is a certain degree of "rules" and "fair application of the rules" that makes for good gaming, and that Calvinball, while fun in the short-term, is not a terribly great system for RPGs.  It _can_ be, with sufficient buy in, with players agreeing to general "rules of decorum" aka: no god-moding.  But D&D printing rules bypasses that, instead of having to hold a forum to discuss what rules we're going to use this week, we all say "Hey I think this D&D thing has a good set of rules!"

Sticking to the rules _consistently_ is necessary for a healthy game.  We may not all apply the same rules, we may not all read the rules the same way, but what matters to make a DM not an arbitrary thing is consistent application of the rules we're applying, and consistent reading of them.

If Joe and Jim are constantly trying to figure out if they're playing D&D or Calvinball, they're going to have reduced enjoyment.  PICK ONE.  Apply the rules or don't.  I don't really care which any DM decides to do, but don't apply the rules one day, not apply the rules another day, and then apply them differently the next.  The rules are there for a reason.  Just because they _can_ be ignored, doesn't mean they should, but if you do, be consistent in ignoring them.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2018)

Umbran said:


> So, how does that fly in the face of the surveying behind the OP?




The only survey I saw in there was the one about DMs fudging, and since DMs can't cheat...



> Did they lie about their survey results?




I don't think they lied, but the survey I saw was informal and didn't really involve cheating.



> Did they somehow just happen to choose a population in which lots of cheating happens, but that population is not representative?  Have times changed, so that the results are no longer relevant?  Are people hypocrites, and everyone cheats, but nobody is okay with anyone *else* cheating?




First, everyone doesn't cheat.  Second, I think that many people are hypocrites about cheating.  Lots of people are okay with them doing something, but not other people doing the same thing to them back.  



> Any statement of what "the real majority" thinks has to deal with the survey results.




As I said above, the only survey I saw didn't even involve cheating.  I also read the first 10 or so pages of the article(it's very long).  It mentioned a study of pre-adolescents, which being so young have control issues, so of course cheating is prevalent.  And it made a ton of claims of cheating without providing any real proof.  One claim even involved an example of the DM allowing a player to re-roll a die, and called that cheating.  As the DM can make that ruling within the rules of the game, that wasn't cheating, either.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 21, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).




Hm.  I wonder if anyone can find me a quote reference of that from a game.

In any event, as we all know, what the designers claim is always absolutely true!  Wait... no... that's not right.    

Given the number of times I see threads where people berate, insult, and vilify game designers for getting things wrong, I don't think we can rely on what the game tells us.

Specifically, "working" is context dependent.  I would take the word of a GM considering their own group about what works for them a whole lot more than I take the word of a designer who has never seen the group.  

Should the GM tell players before the start of the campaign that they reserve the right to fudge, or any other major rules changes, so that players who cannot stand playing a game that isn't strict can avoid it?  Sure.  But that's not the real question at hand.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> Yes, of course GMs can cheat.
> 
> There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).
> 
> ...




Which is why I specified D&D.  I also said other games might be different if they constrain the DM.  Whether or not the DM can cheat depends entirely on the game being played.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> This implies to me a poster who does not place any value on cheating, ANY CHEATING during a game.




Okay, here's the thing.  You say it implies to you.  I say you inferred it improperly.  But that's neither here nor there..

The author told you you got the wrong idea.  And you continue to defend your getting that idea.  That's not useful.  




> You cannot compare stealing cookies (mom forgiving theft/DM forgiving cheating) and a baseball bat to sister's face (mom forgiving violence/DM forgiving violence). I do not see how you can possibly equate the two.




I am comparing "small rules violation implies any other rules violation is okay," to "small rules violation implies any other rules violation is okay".   In terms of pure Vulcan-level logic, the analogy holds.  The moral element is to bring out your reaction to get this point:  If you say, "Wait, I didn't mean *that big* a rules violation was okay, clearly that's nonsense!" that indicates that the "anything" was not appropriate.  This displays how the small violation does not reasonably imply *anything* goes.  It only implies small, roughly equivalent things should be okay.

And with that, we should be done.


----------



## Ricah (Jun 21, 2018)

As a GM/ DM, I have always asked that players roll 4d6, re-rolling 1's and 2's, because, really, a minimum of 9 in a stat is average. A character would not be adventuring otherwise.
Also, I may fudge a roll simply for the reason, I don't want the party or a party member to be killed off by a war party of kobolds on their first or subsequent adventures, just starting out. After, 10th level, no pulling punches. That's just me. Not sure about other DM's.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 21, 2018)

Seems like there's some pretty fine hair splitting going on.  Oh, it's not cheating, it's fudging, which, in any other context, would be called cheating.    If the DM is deliberately changing results, in gaming terms, we say it's fudging, mostly because that carries less connotation than flat out calling it cheating.

But, let's be honest here, a rose by any other name...


----------



## Dioltach (Jun 21, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Can't happen* if all rolls are done at the table where others can see 'em.
> 
> * - unless someone in fact legitimately does roll really well.  Random chance can be funny that way.
> 
> Lanefan




I remember one session where four of my players (in full view) all rolled up characters with 2-3 scores of 18, and most of the other scores were around the 15-17 mark. I recently also had five sessions in a row, as a player, where I never once rolled above 12 on a d20, and most of my rolls were 4s and 5s. Random chance indeed.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> By that definition, everything you avoid that you don't like is cheating.  Avoid eating a cheese sandwich that you dislike while at a party?  Cheater!!  Intercept a football headed for the end zone?  Cheater!!  Work hard to avoid being fired?  Cheater!!  It's a crappy definition of cheating.




But the 2nd definition specifically states _avoid (something undesirable) *by luck or skill*_.  
i.e. To all who witnessed the accident, many were of the opinion that James cheated death
I don't see how it could be used in your example for someone to avoid eating a cheese sandwich, although I don't know why anyone would want to do that.

EDIT: Perhaps the synonyms provided will be clear by what I mean by the other use of the word cheat.

synonyms:avoid, escape, evade, elude, steer clear of, dodge, duck, miss, sidestep, bypass, skirt, shun, eschew


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> But the 2nd definition specifically states _avoid (something undesirable) *by luck or skill*_.
> i.e. To all who witnessed the accident, many were of the opinion that James cheated death
> I don't see how it could be used in your example for someone to avoid eating a cheese sandwich, although I don't know why anyone would want to do that.



"Tilly saw the waiter approaching, ready to make yet _another_ insistent offer of a cheese sandwich. But once again she cheated culinary fate - a stray olive on the rug sent the waiter stumbling and the sandwiches tumbling."


----------



## delericho (Jun 21, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Can't happen* if all rolls are done at the table where others can see 'em.
> 
> * - unless someone in fact legitimately does roll really well.  Random chance can be funny that way.




I was at a table once where a player 'rolled' 14, 17, 18, 18, 18, 10. It was all done out in the open where others could see them quite clearly - those really were the numbers that came up on the dice. (The DM then allowed the player to apply the old BD&D rule whereby he dropped the '14' to a '12' to boost the '17' to yet another '18'.)

The trick, however, was that the player in question, after that '17' came up, picked up the dice and dropped them again from a very low height, thus imparting minimal energy to the dice, significantly reducing the randomness.

To this day, the player swears blind that there was no intent to cheat - that it was just a very lucky set of rolls.

(This, incidentally, was the same infamous "semi-serious Ravenloft campaign" where a different player immediately destroyed the mood by calling her Rogue 'Jigglypuff'. It lasted all of one session.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2018)

Ricah said:


> I don't want the party or a party member to be killed off by a war party of kobolds on their first or subsequent adventures, just starting out.



From Gygax's DMG, p 9:

T]he rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well-thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest,
and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game.​
I'm not saying that Gygax's advice is the only way to do it, but I think it's noteworthy that he draws such a strong contrast between the GM making decisions that regulate the introduction of new challenges into play (eg by ignoring wandering monster dice) and the GM fudging action resolution results.



Umbran said:


> Manbearcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Suggesting that certain GMing choices would _go contrary to the major precepts of the game_, and for that reason should not be done, comes well within cooee of what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] described.

Here's another example, from Burning Wheel (Gold edition, p 30), which is directly relevant to the sort of example [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] gave:

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal—he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​
Slightly less portentously, the Marvel Heroic RP rulebook (p OM8) says:

In some games, the person who runs the game rolls the dice in secret - but there are no secrets in the Bullpen. Roll those bones in full view, Watchers!​


----------



## Sadras (Jun 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> But the 2nd definition specifically states _avoid (something undesirable) *by luck or skill*_.
> i.e. To all who witnessed the accident, many were of the opinion that James cheated death
> I don't see how it could be used in your example for someone to avoid eating a cheese sandwich, although I don't know why anyone would want to do that.
> 
> ...






pemerton said:


> "Tilly saw the waiter approaching, ready to make yet _another_ insistent offer of a cheese sandwich. But once again she cheated culinary fate - a stray olive on the rug sent the waiter stumbling and the sandwiches tumbling."




Yes correct.
 @_*Maxperson*_ I see where the complication lies - the definitions I used for cheating refer to the use of the verb cheat. You were then using examples of avoidance (_verb_) to imply someone is a cheater (noun), which of course sounded ridiculous, it was never meant to be used that way. Apologies for the confusion.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Yes correct.



I was more angling for a Laugh click!

(And at least on my part was never confused by your post about the word "cheat".)


----------



## Sadras (Jun 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I was more angling for a Laugh click!
> 
> (And at least on my part was never confused by your post about the word "cheat".)




To be honest I thought you were and almost did click laugh, but was trying to avoid another mix-up in this thread - so I second guessed myself.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2018)

Sadras said:


> But the 2nd definition specifically states _avoid (something undesirable) *by luck or skill*_.
> i.e. To all who witnessed the accident, many were of the opinion that James cheated death
> I don't see how it could be used in your example for someone to avoid eating a cheese sandwich, although I don't know why anyone would want to do that.
> 
> ...




Because it says "or skill."  A deliberate avoidance is using skill, so avoiding a cheese sandwich, intercepting a football, and working hard are all uses of skill to avoid something.  Granted it doesn't take a lot of skill to avoid the sandwich.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> "Tilly saw the waiter approaching, ready to make yet _another_ insistent offer of a cheese sandwich. But once again she cheated culinary fate - a stray olive on the rug sent the waiter stumbling and the sandwiches tumbling."




You joke, but there is skill involved with avoiding a food.  I'm very allergic to chicken.  I've learned over the years to always ask what's in hot dogs, because some have chicken in them.  The same with meatballs.  I always check fast food labels, because companies like to use chicken stock for flavor.  The same at restaurants.  They sometimes use chicken stock for things as simple as cooking vegetables.  Chinese food is a big culprit with the use of chicken stock.  When eating at a taco place that chops of chicken and beef I always pay attention and look for the color of chicken as I eat, because sometimes pieces of chicken get mixed in with the beef.  And so on.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 21, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> Yes, of course GMs can cheat.
> 
> There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).
> 
> ...




The anchor of your argument is "If players expect".

If there are no rules to back up that expectation or a social contract through session 0 conversation that gives them reason to expect that; and they are simply assuming - then the GM isn't cheating.  It's a matter of bad communication.

Of course, if there are rules or a social contract in place, you're correct.  However, in most cases were there such things the players that don't want to play that way wouldn't be there and the chance of such cheating is minimized.

2c
KB


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 21, 2018)

Wow, so many people who nobly never, ever cheat!  

And they never masturbate, either!


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 21, 2018)

Ricah said:


> I don't want the party or a party member to be killed off by a war party of kobolds on their first or subsequent adventures, just starting out.



While we as DMs might not necessarily want PCs to die early, the fact of the matter is it's going to happen, particularly in an older-edition (3e and earlier) game.  It's a hazard known by all.

Killing an entire party, even at very low levels, is much less common; there's always a few survivors.  Parties as a whole are light-years more resilient than the individual characters which comprise them.



> After, 10th level, no pulling punches. That's just me. Not sure about other DM's.



I stop pulling punches right around the point where session 0 becomes session 1. 

Lanefan


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 21, 2018)

TerraDave said:


> I have never heard of computer generation used, and that would have been tough to do in, say, 1979.




Actually, an Apple II or TRS 80 could probably handle a complete AD&D PHB 1st level character generator sans equipment and spells, and would have no problem rolling dice as many times as needed.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 21, 2018)

prosfilaes said:


> Actually, an Apple II or TRS 80 could probably handle a complete AD&D PHB 1st level character generator sans equipment and spells, and would have no problem rolling dice as many times as needed.




There was a character generator, written in basic, in one of the magazines back then, maybe the Dragon. I remember programming it in and saving it on a floppy.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Hm.  I wonder if anyone can find me a quote reference of that from a game.




I guess you're looking for evidence of design explicitly calling out the use of GM Force as problematic or anathema to playing that game?  Alright.  pemerton named a few.  Here are a few more.

Dogs in the Vineyard 
How to GM p137-138, 143

"Don't play _the story_..."

"You can't have plot points in mind beforehand...what if the PCs reconcile Brother Ezekiel and Sister Abigail?  You've wasted your time.  Worse, what if, because you've invested your time, you_ don't let _the PCs reconcile them?

You've robbed the players of the game.

Leave 'what's going to happen' to what happens."

"If you have a solution in mind, the game rules are going to mess you up bad.

I hope I've made that clear enough.  If you're GMing by the rules, you have absolutely no power to nudge things toward your desired outcome.  Its best for everybody, I mean especially its best for you too, if you just don't prefer one outcome to another."

Beyond the Wall
How to GM p 42

Avoid Illusionism - A section about not obviating player decision-points and choice by using covert GM Force to funnel them along a prescripted course.

Every Powered By the Apocalypse Game ever

1)  All dice rolled by GM 

2)  Some iteration of the same axiom the is set out in Dogs above;  "Play to find out what happens."   You can find it on page 82 in AW, 187 in Blades, 126 in Masks,  I can't find my copy of DW presently but the section in the SRD is here (and supported heavily in the rest of the text and design).

I hope that is enough.  There is plenty more, but those are what I have right next to me.



Umbran said:


> In any event, as we all know, what the designers claim is always absolutely true!  Wait... no... that's not right.




I don't know who "the designers" are.  There are lots of different designers.  Some make better games than others.  Some games are very well systemitized and when you follow the rules and the GMing ethos, its crazy, but stuff just works.



Umbran said:


> Given the number of times I see threads where people berate, insult, and vilify game designers for getting things wrong, I don't think we can rely on what the game tells us.




Or.  We either (a) can't rely on those people decrying those designers or (b) can't rely on those designs.  It can be both of those things and what I've written directly above.



Umbran said:


> Specifically, "working" is context dependent.  I would take the word of a GM considering their own group about what works for them a whole lot more than I take the word of a designer who has never seen the group.




My context is pretty simple.  If a game, say Dogs above, says "follow the rules...you'll be much better off for it and the game will fight you if you don't" and it turns out to be true...well, that game is working.  If a game says "you're the lead storyteller and you know what is best for each moment of play and play collectively so change rules/outcomes as you see fit"...and the players understand that play paradigm and are good with it and everyone has a great time...well, that game is also working.



Umbran said:


> Should the GM tell players before the start of the campaign that they reserve the right to fudge, or any other major rules changes, so that players who cannot stand playing a game that isn't strict can avoid it?  Sure.  But that's not the real question at hand.




Well that is what I was talking about with respect to the social contract.  So I would definitely beg to differ.  System + integrity of social contract/trust + enjoyment by the collective are definitely the component parts of "the real question at hand" when it comes to cheating (by anyone at the table, GM included).


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 22, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> The anchor of your argument is "If players expect".
> 
> If there are no rules to back up that expectation or a social contract through session 0 conversation that gives them reason to expect that; and they are simply assuming - then the GM isn't cheating.  It's a matter of bad communication.
> 
> ...




I don't think I disagree with anything here except I would change your first sentence to:

The anchor of [the] argument is "If the system designs around/makes explicit or the players expect".


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 22, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> This example is useless for anything in the context of DMing.  DM fairness is not established in the individual situation.  It's established in the consistency of the application of rules or rulings to similar situations.
> 
> Determining the DC for a skill check, and the results of success and failure, is 100% within the realm of the DM.  But _that_ the rule.  There isn't a rule that says "This cliff much have a DC of 15 or higher."  Determining the difficulty of that cliff _is_ the rule and that rule says the DM gets to make the call on what that cliff's DC is.
> 
> ...




Dostoevsky once wrote:"If God did not exist, everything would be permitted." By extension, play 
WITHOUT a DM would be your "Calvinball". I can't imagine a game where even the most scrupulous 
DM applies the rules with perfect uniformity. I'd wager it would either be either the very best or worst gaming
experience. More than likely, the latter.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 22, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> Dostoevsky once wrote:"If God did not exist, everything would be permitted." By extension, play
> WITHOUT a DM would be your "Calvinball". I can't imagine a game where even the most scrupulous
> DM applies the rules with perfect uniformity. I'd wager it would either be either the very best or worst gaming
> experience. More than likely, the latter.




Uniform application of the rules applies to _intent_ not action.  Understanding that DMs are humans and sometimes make mistakes is necessary.  It is the desire and _consistency_ of that desire in applying the rules evenly.

Playing with a DM whose every ruling could be different is tantamount to playing with no rules at all.  Why?  Because rules establish a shared set of expectations.  If one minute a player can do A, and the next minute they cannot, for no discernible reason other than DM whim, it leads to an inability to develop a set of expectations.  The human brain _likes_ expectations, it's what allows us to judge once situation against another and make an informed decision.  Imagine if Tuesday gravity was only 7.4 m/s and then Friday there was no gravity at all, but next Tuesday gravity was 18 m/s you'd never be able to establish a set of expectations about gravity.  But if every Tuesday gravity got weaker, and every Friday there was no gravity it would allow players to establish a set of expectations about how the game-world operates.  This set of expectations is what allows the players to make decisions within the context of the game-world.

Without those expectations, the players _literally_ can't make decisions.  They might as well flip a taco and if it lands on Tuesday then it's a baby.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The only survey I saw in there was the one about DMs fudging, and since DMs can't cheat...




The very first sentence of the OP is, "Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games found that everybody cheated. "  It then goes on to discuss and take some quotes from Fine's work, Shared Fantasy.

Yes, you have to actually go get the book (300 pages of it) to see the details.  Fine did research on the early days of RPGs, the first to look at the people who play as a community.

So, if Fine came to the conclusion that cheating is common - how do you wish to counter his statement?  Or do you wish to say, "I haven't read the book, so I will take my own personal experience over these research results."?  Or what?


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 22, 2018)

Honestly I don't understand why people are so surprised, or upset.

Has anyone ever seen those surveys on cheating in high-school?  Or in college?  The answer is the same: everyone cheats.

Why?  Because humans cheat.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> I can't imagine a game where even the most scrupulous
> DM applies the rules with perfect uniformity. I'd wager it would either be either the very best or worst gaming
> experience. More than likely, the latter.




Yeah.  Online conversations have this tendency to have the topic drive to polar extremes.  The game with strict and absolute adherence to the rules is chess! The game with no adherence to the rules is Calvinball!

Well guess what folks - we live between those extremes, not at them, so that those statements aren't actually relevant to us.  There's this thing called the "middle ground", which is what we should probably focus on.


----------



## AkaKageWarrior (Jun 22, 2018)

Really? No way. Why should I cheat as a player? It ruins the fun.

The only time I cheat is as a DM, and then in both ways, for and against the players - but surely not to kill them.
Either to challenge them more (monster was too weak, so let's tweak it "online" or send some help), or to save them from some undeserved super bad luck (bad luck and / or stupidity still can kill a PC!).


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> I don't know who "the designers" are.




I am sorry, but that comes across as a little obtuse.

YOU were the one who said games had statements not to cheat.  Those games popped into existence from the quantum vacuum, or were they designed by somebody?  Come on.

However, I was speaking in general - that the words written by a designer who has never met your players cannot be just trusted.  Designers have implicit assumptions about play.  Is that set of assumptions going to fit *ALL* players?  Unlikely.  It then follows that their statements about the system working, as written, is apt to be incorrect for some.  Designers are (to date) human beings.  Since when do human beings make flawless things?



> Some games are very well systemitized and when you follow the rules and the GMing ethos, its crazy, but stuff just works.




For some.  "Works" is subjective, as already noted earlier in the thread.

Dogs in the Vineyard, for example - I have played one session, and watched several others.   Not a one of the "worked" in any meaningful sense.  The players took so much time with dice and bidding that one conversation took 3 hours to resolve.  I know some folks swear by the game, but I know others swear at it.  And that's really the point I'm making here.

One size does not fit all.  




> Well that is what I was talking about with respect to the social contract.  So I would definitely beg to differ.




When there are folks in the discussion saying that a technique has bad results, irrespective of the social contract, then the social contract isn't really the question of the moment.

I daresay, when someone is telling me that a game just works if played as written, all the time, for everyone, again, I don't think social contracts are the main question at hand.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> The very first sentence of the OP is, "Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games found that everybody cheated. "  It then goes on to discuss and take some quotes from Fine's work, Shared Fantasy.
> 
> Yes, you have to actually go get the book (300 pages of it) to see the details.  Fine did research on the early days of RPGs, the first to look at the people who play as a community.
> 
> So, if Fine came to the conclusion that cheating is common - how do you wish to counter his statement?  Or do you wish to say, "I haven't read the book, so I will take my own personal experience over these research results."?  Or what?




I don't know anything other than the article made a claim of research, which I will take at face value.  However, I do not know what sort of methods were used, or the demographic(s) involved in the research.  Without knowing those things(and the numbers), I really can't give the research a whole lot of weight.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 22, 2018)

As a DM I fudge rolls all the time.  It isn't cheating as my job is to make play fun and exciting.  I fudge rolls to both help and hinder the players as necessary, depending on the needs of the situation.  If my dice are hell bent on a total party kill then unless that really, really suits the story line, there's no way I'm going with those rolls.  If combat it totally going the players' way when it should be close and tense, e.g. against a key enemy as opposed to a random encounter situation, then I fudge a few rolls the other way to up the ante.
Similarly I DM Cheat by fudging the rules too!  To my mind DMs cannot cheat, i.e. what they do for the sake of fun is not cheating.  That having been said, I think that if you are basically ignoring the random element all the time then your probably pushing, or rather forcing, the game in the direction _*you *_want it to go in which can be aparent to the players and restricts their freedom of choice.   It's not about you, it's about your players.

Players can cheat and a very rare fudging of the dice roll on occasion isn't going to have a negative effect on the game, especially if you have been incapable of rolling over 6 (D20) the entire game.  On that point though, I usually find abject failure is a greater source of fun and laughter than huge success.  You just have to go with it and roleplay it.  Why is your character so crap today?  Make something up that helps explain it.  It gives you, the DM and perhaps the whole party something to work with and it can become something that the party them have to work to help.  Do they, in addition to fighting the bad guys, trekking across the desert, also need to get you to a hospital whilst in enemy territory?  That's just me and they way my group tends to play though.
If your game is very combat focused then I can see that a player might feel hugely frustrated and feel that they are not contributing.  There are also times when you are in that heroic situation that you just want to pull that rabbit out of the hat.  As a DM I wouldn't mind if a player fudged their roll, because again, it is contributing to the story.  It does however have to be very rare and under special circumstances.  Cheating in all things just spoils it for everyone including yourself.  What's the point in playing a game with a large random element if you are just going to cheat all the time?
Cheating on creating a character are definite no-nos to my mind.  As a DM I let players re-roll characters if they are clearly terrible, especially if the system means that certain classes are not then open to them.  I want my players to come up with fun character concepts of their design, with backgrounds etc, not be forced down a particular route by the dice.   That's one reason I quite like character point pools rather than random.  I have one frankly over-powered character in a campaign but I work hard as a player not dominate.  My character is aloof, does what he has to do and doesn't step in all the time.  I'd just end running roughshod over all the other players otherwise.  Simiarly I have characters who aren'y that great, and that it great fun to work with too.  To overcome that ball and chain can be very funny and rewarding.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 22, 2018)

Gibili said:


> As a DM I fudge rolls all the time.  It isn't cheating as my job is to make play fun and exciting.  I fudge rolls to both help and hinder the players as necessary, depending on the needs of the situation.




Does that mean that you'll let a monster hit a player, when he actually missed?

Does that mean that you'll turn a normal attack into a crit, and vice versa?

Does that mean that if a player succeeds at a save or check, you'll change it so they fail?

Does that mean that if a player fails at a save or check, you'll change it so they succeed?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Dogs in the Vineyard, for example - I have played one session, and watched several others.   Not a one of the "worked" in any meaningful sense.  The players took so much time with dice and bidding that one conversation took 3 hours to resolve.  I know some folks swear by the game, but I know others swear at it.  And that's really the point I'm making here.



I don't understand your point. I don't really enjoy poker. Does that mean the rules for poker don't work? And it needs a "referee" to fudge the game so I _will_ enjoy it? Or does that just mean I should't play poker?

In the RPG sphere, as I've often posted I'm not very good at classic D&D, and don't really enjoy it that much (either as player or referee). My solution: use different RPG systems that I do enjoy! It seems weird to me to say the solution is to keep using Gygax's rules (for some value of "use"), but fudge/nudge/ignore them so it's more fun.


----------



## bluesguy (Jun 22, 2018)

One of the reasons I prefer to play using Hero Games is that I can create the character I want within the boundaries of a set of points.  The GM has to approve the character build.  I also prefer it as a GM.

When it comes to the actual play and dice rolling I believe a good story (which generally means everyone is having more fun) is more important than dice rolls.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 22, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Does that mean that you'll let a monster hit a player, when he actually missed?




Yes, if it helps the fun of the game to have the monster hit when the dice say that it missed, then I say the monster hit.  If the monster is missing all the time and so is no threat to the players, then I might well ignore the dice and say that it hit.  If one small hit on the player will say, knock him into the cauldron of hair remover, then yeah, I might well bias the outcome     Let's face it, the rest of the players will be braying for it anyway.



Imaculata said:


> Does that mean that you'll turn a normal attack into a crit, and vice versa?



I very, very rarely convert an ordinary DM dice roll into a crit.  Sometimes it can be done to great effect though. If you actually tell the players that your NPC has crited then it usually gets a sharp intake of breath from the players, which is great.  Use this with suitable care I would say.  Less is more effective.  If you fudge a crit, and then roll a real one on the next turn, make a judgement about whether to convert back the other way.  Maybe two crits in a row would be very effective.  It might mean a sudden and exciting shift of power in the encounter for example.
If a crit on the part of the NPC and the subsequent damage or effect is going to have a detrimental effect on the play, then I might well back it down to an ordinary hit.
If a fumble on the part of the NPC would be funny, appropriate, help the story, then I might well make that happen.
If a fumble on the part of the NPC would spoil a tense situation or be contrary to the nature or skill of the NPC, then I might well ignore it.

With all these things, using it sparingly is the key.  The randomness of dice rolling on NPCs can be just as much fun and throw up new and unexpected situations as it can for the player characters.



Imaculata said:


> Does that mean that if a player succeeds at a save or check, you'll change it so they fail?
> Does that mean that if a player fails at a save or check, you'll change it so they succeed?




No, never, ever!  What the players do and roll is entirely up to them.  As the DM you are there to create a fun environment for your players to mess around and have adventures in.  You should never be a film director working to your own script and storyboards and forcing your players to adhere to them or changing what they do or roll to suit your own preconceptions about how things should go.  That is absolute death for a fun game.
As a DM though you do have some influence on events before you get to the player's dice roll, so you don't have to back your players into a corner, and similarly, if you want them to go a certain direction in the story, there are subtle ways you can do it.  Carrot is always better than stick! 
If the game system has it, you can always make the DC (target difficulty of the action) a little less or more.  If you think the players roll is close enough, then go with it, either as a success on their part or as a failure on their part.  Players of course have a pretty good feel for what makes sense though so don't push it.


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 22, 2018)

One thing I've observed, during my time on this rock, is that statisticians and survey takers are some of the worst cheaters of all.
They create statistics or take surveys only to the point where it will prop up a stance, supposition, or opinion.

Sunseeker, I wholly agree, a DM who changes their position on rulings or parameters, 180 degrees, would be difficult to work with. But DMs aren't always going to 
resolve a given problem in a manner with which you completely agree, and that isn't necessarily cheating, un-uniform, or in any way wrong.

But let's look at that fighter trying to climb that hill, again. The Rogue succeeds, but on a equal roll, generally the fighter should fail. He succeeds.
And when he does, maybe patience is the key, and it needs to be discussed out of game. Perhaps the DM is taking into account 5 other attempts
where the fighter missed out by a whisker, and the percentages are in his favor, for success, on this attempt.  Or maybe there is a reason he 
came out on top, which will come to light, shortly down the road.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 22, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> One thing I've observed, during my time on this rock, is that statisticians and survey takers are some of the worst cheaters of all.
> They create statistics or take surveys only to the point where it will prop up a stance, supposition, or opinion.




What percentage of them make up statistics based on your informal survey?


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 22, 2018)

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what cheating fundamentally is.

There's "feeling cheated" which happens when cheating may or may not have occurred.  Perhaps you just rolled low on something that should have been simple, or at the worst possible moment.  This can make a player, regardless of the "fairness" of the situation, feel cheated.  It's one of the faults of a random dice-based system, which is why, as DM, I often "cheat" on my side of the screen to smooth over the flow of events.  IMO, it's terribly unfair and unfun to leave _too much_ up to a die roll.  

Then there's "cheating", which is breaking some established rule in order to, _usually_, gain advantage.  The thing about this kind of cheating is that it _may not_ leave anyone feel cheated.  You may not even know it happened.  It may actually _improve_ the overall perception of play, depending on how the cheating plays out for everyone at the table.  Perhaps the cheater killed the bad-guy about to kill the downed player.  How does the DM feel about this?  How do the other players feel about this?  Do they feel cheated, in the sense above?

Cheating is, and always has been, party about actual rules violations and partly about _perception_.  You can't do much about the _perception_ of cheating, as this thread clearly demonstrates that some people have much stronger views on cheating than others.  

Personally, the _perception_ is the only thing that matters to me.  If the players feel cheated, I'm going to avoid doing things that make them feel cheated, even things that aren't cheating!  If the players don't feel cheated, I'm going to keep doing things that may even include cheating!  Because "fun" is not defined by adherence to the rules, "fun" is defined by a positive collective experience.  If the players have that, who cares?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 23, 2018)

Morrus said:


> What percentage of them make up statistics based on your informal survey?




There are lots of good statistics quotes.

98% of all statistics are made up.  ~Author Unknown

Statistics are like bikinis.  What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.  ~Aaron Levenstein (I like this one)

Statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth.  ~Author Unknown

Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.  ~William W. Watt


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 23, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Yes, if it helps the fun of the game to have the monster hit when the dice say that it missed, then I say the monster hit.  If the monster is missing all the time and so is no threat to the players, then I might well ignore the dice and say that it hit.




There's another way to look at this. Some players will try to boost their armor class, so that they can tank monsters. Your armor class provide a rough estimate of the likelyhood of getting hit by monsters. By declaring misses as hits, you are undermining the armor class system, by skewing the statistics in favor of the monsters. I have a player in my group who is able to boost his armor class to ludicrous amounts, but what I will not do is have monsters hit him, when in fact they missed. Instead, I'll occasionally throw opponents at my players that undermine some of their most popular strategies and attack their weaknesses. I'll have spellcasters dispell their armor-class boosting spells, or I'll use monsters with abilities that ignore armor class, or can grapple. I'll have the occasional foe ignore their tank, and deliberately attack their squishy backline. This means that I'm challenging my players, without completely undermining their character builds.



Gibili said:


> I very, very rarely convert an ordinary DM dice roll into a crit.  Sometimes it can be done to great effect though. If you actually tell the players that your NPC has crited then it usually gets a sharp intake of breath from the players, which is great.  Use this with suitable care I would say.  Less is more effective.  If you fudge a crit, and then roll a real one on the next turn, make a judgement about whether to convert back the other way.




So you effectively solve a problem that you've created for yourself. This is the problem with fudging; players and monsters will always have lucky and unlucky streaks from time to time. By fudging the dice, you can make these streaks much worse. During my last session, one of my monsters scored a crit twice in a row, which was bad. But at least those two crits didn't get stacked on top of a crit that I already fudged.

And sometimes monsters will just be rolling like garbage throughout the fight. That's okay. If the monsters are doing bad, maybe they flee, or maybe they try a different strategy? Your players will not mind having an easy fight every now and then. Not every fight has to result in severe or moderate injuries to their characters. It is okay if their solid strategies and character builds are rewarding for them. If you want to challenge them, there are other ways to do it without a need to fudge.

I'm saying this as a DM who used to fudge in the past, and has since learned that the game is a lot more fun when you don't.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 23, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> There's another way to look at this. Some players will try to boost their armor class, so that they can tank monsters. Your armor class provide a rough estimate of the likelyhood of getting hit by monsters. By declaring misses as hits, you are undermining the armor class system, by skewing the statistics in favor of the monsters. I have a player in my group who is able to boost his armor class to ludicrous amounts, but what I will not do is have monsters hit him, when in fact they missed. Instead, I'll occasionally throw opponents at my players that undermine some of their most popular strategies and attack their weaknesses. I'll have spellcasters dispell their armor-class boosting spells, or I'll use monsters with abilities that ignore armor class, or can grapple. I'll have the occasional foe ignore their tank, and deliberately attack their squishy backline. This means that I'm challenging my players, without completely undermining their character builds.




He isn't, though.  If a player can expect his PC to be hit 20% of the time, but the luck gods have the DM rolling at a 5% hit rate, fudging the numbers up so that you hit that 20% mark does't really skew the statistics in favor of the monsters.  Especially if you do the reverse when the luck gods have you rolling crit after crit.  It's reeeaaaaally easy for the DM to see and modify things so that the players are having more fun.



> So you effectively solve a problem that you've created for yourself. This is the problem with fudging; players and monsters will always have lucky and unlucky streaks from time to time. By fudging the dice, you can make these streaks much worse. During my last session, one of my monsters scored a crit twice in a row, which was bad. But at least those two crits didn't get stacked on top of a crit that I already fudged.




There is no such problem with fudging.  As he said, if you fudge a crit and someone luck provides one or two more, it takes less than half a second to make one of the following crits a hit or a miss.  No problem at all.



> And sometimes monsters will just be rolling like garbage throughout the fight. That's okay. If the monsters are doing bad, maybe they flee, or maybe they try a different strategy? Your players will not mind having an easy fight every now and then. Not every fight has to result in severe or moderate injuries to their characters. It is okay if their solid strategies and character builds are rewarding for them. If you want to challenge them, there are other ways to do it without a need to fudge.




I agree with this.  However, it's a letdown for the players if this happens during a BBEG fight.  I will fudge things to keep the BBEG fight from being a let down, and I will fudge things during those very, very rare times when the luck gods have the players rolling like crap, and my dice rolling crit after crit.  I'm not going to TPK the group over bad luck during some piddly encounter.  In the latter instance, I will fudge a few rolls in favor of the PCs to even things up. They might still lose or even TPK, but it won't be just due to some bad luck.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 23, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> There's another way to look at this. Some players will try to boost their armor class, so that they can tank monsters. Your armor class provide a rough estimate of the likelyhood of getting hit by monsters. By declaring misses as hits, you are undermining the armor class system, by skewing the statistics in favor of the monsters. I have a player in my group who is able to boost his armor class to ludicrous amounts, but what I will not do is have monsters hit him, when in fact they missed. Instead, I'll occasionally throw opponents at my players that undermine some of their most popular strategies and attack their weaknesses. I'll have spellcasters dispell their armor-class boosting spells, or I'll use monsters with abilities that ignore armor class, or can grapple. I'll have the occasional foe ignore their tank, and deliberately attack their squishy backline. This means that I'm challenging my players, without completely undermining their character builds.



Yep, totally agree.  There are many ways to balance and adjust, and they are almost always better than fudging dice.   The thread was about cheating, primarily on dice rolls in my mind, so I only really focused on that but I also do everything you write above.  At the end of the day we just want to make sure it is exciting.   The dice adjustment is something I only do rarely.  Personally I also like the random element the DMs dice create in a fight, or any other situation.  It makes it more interesting for me as a DM, which probably means it wil be more interesting to the players too.



Imaculata said:


> So you effectively solve a problem that you've created for yourself. This is the problem with fudging; players and monsters will always have lucky and unlucky streaks from time to time. By fudging the dice, you can make these streaks much worse. During my last session, one of my monsters scored a crit twice in a row, which was bad. But at least those two crits didn't get stacked on top of a crit that I already fudged.



Yep, it is a slippery slope, which is why I rarely do it.  If you are constantly adjusting DM dice rolls you are like a driver swerving from kerb to kerb across a road, constantly over compensating.  Not good and not fun.  If I fudge a crit, it is for effect a crit has on the players rather than say simply damage output of the NPC.  I'm engendering a sense of extra risk or impact.



Imaculata said:


> And sometimes monsters will just be rolling like garbage throughout the fight. That's okay. If the monsters are doing bad, maybe they flee, or maybe they try a different strategy? Your players will not mind having an easy fight every now and then. Not every fight has to result in severe or moderate injuries to their characters. It is okay if their solid strategies and character builds are rewarding for them. If you want to challenge them, there are other ways to do it without a need to fudge.
> I'm saying this as a DM who used to fudge in the past, and has since learned that the game is a lot more fun when you don't.



Again, I agree.  If you as a DM can come up with a plausible reason for the choices the NPCs make then it is a much better sell, it is better story building. much more interesting for the players, and the likely responses you get from them as a result.  It can lead to them coming up with ideas or why the monster ran, it can lead to you the DM coming up with ideas for why the monster might have run and whole side quests and more can come to fruition.  I think some of our most fun moments have come from bits of the game that came about spontaneously.  Just "the monster hits, the monster misses, the monster hits" adds very little to anything.  If you as a DM can be more creative then it tends to engender the same in the players.  I've always found players a great source of storylines with the things they say sometime even just in jest.  I remember one situation where someone jokingly said, "It would be really funny right now if these rocks turned out to be living".  No sooner said than done sir. And it was! 

So ignoring dice, is the DM cheating when he changes the story, capabilities and action of the NPCs? 

Every fight shouldn't be a toughie.  It's like a piece of music where you need the quiet bits to throw the louder bits into sharper relief and visa versa.  Hmm, I think I'm badly mixing art forms here  
So similarly. you need the troughs in action to make the peaks work.  Combat itself needs breaking up with travel, investigation, NPC interaction (that doesn't involving hitting them), intra-party discussion...or bickering, shopping, or whatever.
I remember the first time I saw Peter Jackson's The Hobbit.  It just felt to me like constant, unrelenting action, which got boring quite frankly.  Don't these people ever talk to each other?

Anyway, this is a fun discussion.  I hope there are budding DMs out there taking notes.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I agree with this.  However, it's a letdown for the players if this happens during a BBEG fight.  I will fudge things to keep the BBEG fight from being a let down, and I will fudge things during those very, very rare times when the luck gods have the players rolling like crap, and my dice rolling crit after crit.  I'm not going to TPK the group over bad luck during some piddly encounter.  In the latter instance, I will fudge a few rolls in favor of the PCs to even things up. They might still lose or even TPK, but it won't be just due to some bad luck.



Yes, exactly.  Of course sometimes as a DM there is nothing you can do.  We were playing many years ago and the players, of which I was one, could not roll dice for toffee.  I have never seen an entire party roll like that in 30+ years of playing.  Individuals certainly but not everyone!  Poor DM didn't stand a chance.  There wasn't even something subtle he could do.  Something extreme on the DM's part wouldn't have helped because even if mysteriously the enemy were suddenly replaced by school kids, they still would have kicked sand in our faces.  We really were that bad.  Of course it has become legendary in the group and still makes us laugh to this day, but it also led to some interesting twists in the overall plot as we then had to work out how to continue to pursue the quest in the light of the abject failure.  A silver lining.


----------



## pogre (Jun 23, 2018)

Now, that it is clear you all are cheaters or lie about your cheating - can I interest you in some finely crafted dice towers?



Only had one player in 40+ years of gaming who was a habitual cheater. Asked everyone to roll in the middle of the table in a custom dice bowl and it took care of that problem. I probably would not have done anything, but it was really bothering another couple of players. I'm in the camp - if it is so important to you to cheat so your PC can succeed - let it go.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 24, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Yes, exactly.  Of course sometimes as a DM there is nothing you can do.  We were playing many years ago and the players, of which I was one, could not roll dice for toffee.  I have never seen an entire party roll like that in 30+ years of playing.  Individuals certainly but not everyone!  Poor DM didn't stand a chance.  There wasn't even something subtle he could do.  Something extreme on the DM's part wouldn't have helped because even if mysteriously the enemy were suddenly replaced by school kids, they still would have kicked sand in our faces.  We really were that bad.  Of course it has become legendary in the group and still makes us laugh to this day, but it also led to some interesting twists in the overall plot as we then had to work out how to continue to pursue the quest in the light of the abject failure.  A silver lining.




Yeah.  Sometimes there's nothing you can do.  I will also address something I missed in [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION]'s post.  Solid strategies.  If the players come up with a great plan and turn a challenging encounter into an easy, or even trivial one, so be it.  I'm not going to negate player effort and planning.


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 24, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what cheating fundamentally is.
> 
> Personally, the _perception_ is the only thing that matters to me.  If the players feel cheated, I'm going to avoid doing things that make them feel cheated, even things that aren't cheating!  If the players don't feel cheated, I'm going to keep doing things that may even include cheating!  Because "fun" is not defined by adherence to the rules, "fun" is defined by a positive collective experience.  If the players have that, who cares?




IMO, one of the most difficult aspects of the game, for a DM,  is to do something which the players don't like(which, basically, is what you are there to do, with the tacit agreement they will accept it) and NOT give them the perception they have been cheated.

Imaculata, as to unlucky streaks, one thing you can do for a player suffering from one-itis is to offer to allow them to roll
3D6 instead of a D20. This will reduce their lowest roll to a three, and generally produce results at or slightly ahead of the 
bell curve.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 24, 2018)

Sorry Maxperson but this is just rubbish.  "Solid strategies"?   "players come up with a great plan"?   Who are these mythical beasts of which you speak   
I can definitely say that when we play, we check our brains in at the door.   Some of the plans we've come up with over the years have been just truly, madly, deeply insane, but hugely funny   

Being serious for a second, I agree.  I would never do anything negative because the players are out thinking the DM...albeit that it isn't that hard to do.

In a similar vein, if a player comes up with a great idea, something brilliantly spectacular or some wonderful dialogue/bull with an NPC, I won't even ask them to roll for it.  I'll just tell them they succeed.  Hell, I want it to happen, let alone the player!
Again, it's about making the game fun, not about slavishly following the rules and mechanics.  It would be a terrible thing, as you say, to reward their ingenuity, sense of fun and attempts to be more creative by slapping them down.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 24, 2018)

pogre said:


> Now, that it is clear you all are cheaters or lie about your cheating - can I interest you in some finely crafted dice towers?





As a player, on big, important rolls, I like rolling very conspicuously in the middle of the table so everyone can see.  It does add a sense of drama and tension to the result, especially for me if I turn away as I roll so the other players have to tell me the outcome.



pogre said:


> Only had one player in 40+ years of gaming who was a habitual cheater. Asked everyone to roll in the middle of the table in a custom dice bowl and it took care of that problem. I probably would not have done anything, but it was really bothering another couple of players. I'm in the camp - if it is so important to you to cheat so your PC can succeed - let it go.




Yeah, that's a real shame. There's fudging things a bit on a rare occasion, which I have no problem with, and then there is habitual cheating, which just spoils it for everyone.  There is something painfully desperate about someone who does that.


So here's a question for everyone...has anyone ever cheated their dice roll to make the result worse?   I've done that on a couple of occasions, when I've known that a fumble will just throw everything into chaos and make an encounter that even more fun, so I've "cheated" and declared that I fumbled.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 24, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> IMO, one of the most difficult aspects of the game, for a DM,  is to do something which the players don't like(which, basically, is what you are there to do, with the tacit agreement they will accept it) and NOT give them the perception they have been cheated.




Sure, and there are times when it's obviously on the DMs side to adjust for a perceived cheat, and there are times when the player needs to adjust their perspective.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 24, 2018)

How many people did this guy interview and survey? This claim seems pretty dubious to me based on experience.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 24, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Sorry Maxperson but this is just rubbish.  "Solid strategies"?   "players come up with a great plan"?   Who are these mythical beasts of which you speak
> I can definitely say that when we play, we check our brains in at the door.   Some of the plans we've come up with over the years have been just truly, madly, deeply insane, but hugely funny




I did say "if!!!"  I've also seen some plans that, let's just say failed to make the "solid strategies/great plan" plateau. 



> In a similar vein, if a player comes up with a great idea, something brilliantly spectacular or some wonderful dialogue/bull with an NPC, I won't even ask them to roll for it.  I'll just tell them they succeed.  Hell, I want it to happen, let alone the player!
> Again, it's about making the game fun, not about slavishly following the rules and mechanics.  It would be a terrible thing, as you say, to reward their ingenuity, sense of fun and attempts to be more creative by slapping them down.




Same here.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 25, 2018)

Gibili said:


> So ignoring dice, is the DM cheating when he changes the story, capabilities and action of the NPCs?




This is an interesting question. Since the DM is the storyteller, I don't feel he's breaking any rules by making up some kind of ability for an npc on the spot, as long as it isn't too much of a stretch. But I feel there's a gray area where the DM can start to intrude on the game's mechanics. I'm not sure where that line is exactly.

In a recent battle, I had a situation where a shapeshifting Druid PC had a Frostwind Virago in a grapple, and there wasn't really much of a chance of her escaping that grapple. The fight already took up two sessions, and I felt something needed to be added to make the fight more interesting. So I came up with the idea that the fey could shift herself (and anyone touching her) into the fey realm, similar to the way Druids can in my campaign setting. 
Now obviously the Frostwind Virago did not actually have this ability as per the rules, and I made it up while preparing the next session. But I felt it didn't stretch the imagination too much (since Druid's shifting into their own realm was already a thing), and in fact deepened the lore of fey in my campaign. It also didn't negate the player's grapple entirely, but instead set up an interesting choice. Do you let go, or hold on? And if the Virago dies, can you get back to your own world?

So, I'm not against a DM making up an ability on the spot for an npc. I did it very recently. But I do feel there are some limits, and that a DM should not abuse this too often.


----------



## Caliburn101 (Jun 25, 2018)

I used to cheat as a kid, but saw how negative an impact it had on games after I matured. I know people who cheat really badly though even though they are in their 40's...

As a GM (which I most often am) four decades of trial and error have taught me to almost never fudge, and to make character death a real possibility, and if it happens, not to fudge to prevent it in nearly every case.

The only time I fudge is when a character death is so meaningless and trivial story-wise, that it takes the fun out of the game. Then I will fudge.

I never do this for NPCs and monsters though - if they are defeated easily by the party - great - heroes should feel like heroes yes? I don't build or run my NPCs or BBEGs without contingencies ready to go however - they want to WIN, so this rarely happens.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 25, 2018)

Bedrockgames said:


> How many people did this guy interview and survey? This claim seems pretty dubious to me based on experience.



Read the book that's on Google Books to find out? Again, your experience may vary, in part, because this book was published in 1983.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Read the book that's on Google Books to find out? Again, your experience may vary, in part, because this book was published in 1983.




Lol. I am not going to read every book that comes up in a thread like this. I am not terribly interested in reading the book to be honest. I am just saying the claim sounds a bit suspect. My question about his methods still stands though if someone has an answer.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2018)

Bedrockgames said:


> Lol. I am not going to read every book that comes up in a thread like this. I am not terribly interested in reading the book to be honest. I am just saying the claim sounds a bit suspect. My question about his methods still stands though if someone has an answer.




As I often say when somebody posits that their personal anecdote is more compelling than data, I can confirm from my experience of playing D&D for 30 years that no Americans play D&D.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 25, 2018)

Morrus said:


> As I often say when somebody posits that their personal anecdote is more compelling than data, I can confirm from my experience of playing D&D for 30 years that no Americans play D&D.




Data that isn't available unless you spend money to purchase it and then read it isn't any better than anecdotal evidence.  Most of the readers aren't going to know if it's true or not.  It's on the person making a claim to prove the claim, not on the rest of us to prove it false.  The author of this article is making a claim using data than isn't shown in the article and that the people reading the article can't see.  Small wonder that those of us who haven't encountered this cheating issue are having doubts about it.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 25, 2018)

Bedrockgames said:


> Lol. I am not going to read every book that comes up in a thread like this. I am not terribly interested in reading the book to be honest. I am just saying the claim sounds a bit suspect. My question about his methods still stands though if someone has an answer.



Okay. A big part of the initial claim in the article comes from this comment: 


> The large majority of interviewees admitted to cheating, and in the games I played, I cheated as well.



So now we need to know something about the methodology here. And so I did a search in the Google book document for "interview." I cannot see the full excerpt, but there is a small snippet that reads "_In addition to participant observation, I conducted lengthy interviews (one to three hours) with two dozen gamers. Although the interview subjects are neither a random sampling nor systematic sampling of gamers..._" and then it cuts off. So it's possible that the "large majority of interviewees" then reflects the "large majority" of the two dozen sampled. The whole "everybody cheats" comes directly from the words of one of the interviewees. And the nature of the cheating takes on numerous forms (e.g., character creation, reported rolls in play, metagaming, etc.). But the issue of cheating only receives a small sliver of attention in this book (pp. 99-102). 

Mind you, even if one succesfully criticizes his methodology, this does not mean that the inverse results are therefore true: i.e., _the majority of gamers don't cheat_. (I do worry that some people will leap to that conclusion.) It means that the results are inaccurate for representing the gaming hobby, however we define those constituents.


----------



## jasper (Jun 25, 2018)

Morrus said:


> As I often say when somebody posits that their personal anecdote is more compelling than data, I can confirm from my experience of playing D&D for 30 years that no Americans play D&D.



And In all my years of gaming only one Brit plays D&D. And since you not him you must be a sock puppet or one of the voices in my head.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 25, 2018)

Morrus said:


> I can confirm from my experience of playing D&D for 30 years that no Americans play D&D.




Yeah, and that's because you chose a useless sampling method Morrus.  I can confirm that I know of one American who does play D&D.  She lives around the corner from me here in the UK.  Thus with *my *extensive research, I can confidently state that your frankly unhelpful and misleading statement should have read
"I can confirm from my experience of playing D&D for 30 years that no Americans play D&D, *within the bounds of the United States*."

Try and check your facts before posting


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 25, 2018)

Bedrockgames said:


> Lol. I am not going to read every book that comes up in a thread like this. I am not terribly interested in reading the book to be honest. I am just saying the claim sounds a bit suspect. My question about his methods still stands though if someone has an answer.




So... you think the claim and methods behind it are suspect but even after someone pointed you to the source, you're not interested and want someone else to figure it out for you? 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess that might have to stay one of life's mysteries for ya then! Sometimes if you want to know something, you have to do your own homework.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 25, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> So... you think the claim and methods behind it are suspect but even after someone pointed you to the source, you're not interested and want someone else to figure it out for you?
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> I guess that might have to stay one of life's mysteries for ya then! Sometimes if you want to know something, you have to do your own homework.





Not every discussion where someone raises a point you disagree with has to result in you reading an entire book. I do not have the time, interest or energy to read it simply because it came up in a thread. I thought the claim sounded dubious, and was inviting more information about the study. Based on the follow-up, it seems being skeptical about the claim is warranted.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Data that isn't available unless you spend money to purchase it and then read it isn't any better than anecdotal evidence.  Most of the readers aren't going to know if it's true or not.  It's on the person making a claim to prove the claim, not on the rest of us to prove it false.  The author of this article is making a claim using data than isn't shown in the article and that the people reading the article can't see.  Small wonder that those of us who haven't encountered this cheating issue are having doubts about it.




But, as I recall in this thread, you talk about booting players for cheating.  So, you must have encountered it at least once in your gaming experience.

And, let's not forget, there is a very fine line between "fudging" and "cheating".  It's a pretty rare DM who has never, ever, fudged anything in any game at any time.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, as I recall in this thread, you talk about booting players for cheating.  So, you must have encountered it at least once in your gaming experience.
> 
> And, let's not forget, there is a very fine line between "fudging" and "cheating".  It's a pretty rare DM who has never, ever, fudged anything in any game at any time.




1. With Rule 0 in play it is impossible for a DM to "cheat".
2. While it is possible for players to "cheat" if the DM allows it and Rule 0 is in play, the players are not "cheating".

This thread is a logic bomb.  

KB


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, as I recall in this thread, you talk about booting players for cheating.  So, you must have encountered it at least once in your gaming experience.



I've encountered a few, yes.  The large majority of them have been trustworthy.  What does that have to do with the author of this thread's article who claims numbers that he doesn't produce, and which, given this quote by @_*Aldarc*_ *"So now we need to know something about the methodology here. And so I did a search in the Google book document for "interview." I cannot see the full excerpt, but there is a small snippet that reads "In addition to participant observation, I conducted lengthy interviews (one to three hours) with two dozen gamers. Although the interview subjects are neither a random sampling nor systematic sampling of gamers...""* shows that the survey in being used is highly questionable.  It's not a proper sample size and was gathered under questionable methods. Further, since I remember seeing someone earlier say that the survey was from 1983, I'd bet that most of those two dozen gamer were 25 or younger.  The young cheat more.  http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/29/local/me-dishonest29.  



> And, let's not forget, there is a very fine line between "fudging" and "cheating".  It's a pretty rare DM who has never, ever, fudged anything in any game at any time.



The line may be fine(and I don't agree that it is), but it is there.  Fudging is not cheating.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. With Rule 0 in play it is impossible for a DM to "cheat".
> 2. While it is possible for players to "cheat" if the DM allows it and Rule 0 is in play, the players are not "cheating".
> 
> This thread is a logic bomb.
> ...




That's convenient.  We'll add in a rule to allow a specific person at the table to change the rules at will.  So, we're not "cheating", we're using "rule 0".  Note, that Rule 0 has changed a LOT over the years.  Rule 0 in AD&D was never "Change the rules whenever you feel like it".  It was "Whenever there is a conflict between interpretations of the rules, the DM's interpretation wins".  The whole "you can ignore the rules" thing is something that has been added in along the way to salve people's egos.



Maxperson said:


> /snip
> 
> The line may be fine(and I don't agree that it is), but it is there.  Fudging is not cheating.




A rose by any other name.  In any other game, this would be called cheating.  But, because we deliberately change the definition of cheating in RPG's, then it's suddenly not cheating.  It's the ultimate form of rules lawyering.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 26, 2018)

Yeah, this survey is horse manure. I mean people object to using Enworlders' opinions as a base because of the small population size of gamers, yet this guy gets away with using two dozen interviews.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> A rose by any other name.  In any other game, this would be called cheating.  But, because we deliberately change the definition of cheating in RPG's, then it's suddenly not cheating.  It's the ultimate form of rules lawyering.




You keep saying that phrase, but it simply does not apply. First, there is no rose involved with fudging.  Cheating is cheating, and fudging absolutely, 100% is not.  Second, you don't know whether the first person to call it fudging did so because he thought it was cheating, or whether he just loved fudge.  He may have even altered a roll that landed IN some fudge.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You keep saying that phrase, but it simply does not apply. First, there is no rose involved with fudging.  Cheating is cheating, and fudging absolutely, 100% is not.  Second, you don't know whether the first person to call it fudging did so because he thought it was cheating, or whether he just loved fudge.  He may have even altered a roll that landed IN some fudge.




What do you think is the difference between cheating and fudging then?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 26, 2018)

It would probably help if people bother reading the article rather than knee-jerk reacting. I read the article, followed the links in the OP, and I looked into the quoted statements and methodology. 

In the OP, people should probably understand the word "survey" in the opening statement "Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games" as "review" or "overview." This is the only use of the term "survey" in the original post. 



Maxperson said:


> What does that have to do with the author of this thread's article *who claims numbers that he doesn't produce,*



No, he doesn't. He reports the findings of another author's book and explores the implications of those findings. 



Sadras said:


> Yeah, this survey is horse manure. I mean people object to using Enworlders' opinions as a base because of the small population size of gamers, yet this guy gets away with using two dozen interviews.



"This guy gets away with using two dozen interviews" probably because it's not a survey, or at least not a quantitative survey. It is _qualitative research_ conducted via interviews. This is a common sample size for this method. Some will recommend 5-25, others 20-30, but rarely above 50 people. Quantitative results would not necessarily produce better results as people could and possibly would more easily lie about whether they cheat if presented with a survey question. The benefit of qualitative analysis methods like interviews is that the interviewers can loosen up the tongues of the subject and engage in more open discussion or potential results and explanations. 

I have attempted looking via Google scholar whether or not there has been any follow-up research on the issue of cheating in FRP, but it does not appear that interesting of a subject matter for people. Less the cheating part but the FRP part. There are far more initial documents on cheating in MMORPGs and virtual environments than in FRPs as a tabletop hobby. I may look again, but it's far from being a high priority for me. 



Maxperson said:


> You keep saying that phrase, but it simply does not apply. First, there is no rose involved with fudging.  Cheating is cheating, and fudging absolutely, 100% is not.  Second, you don't know whether the first person to call it fudging did so because he thought it was cheating, or whether he just loved fudge.  He may have even altered a roll that landed IN some fudge.



"Fudging" is a term that predates gaming deriving from an original sense of "to contrive clumsily," and so I don't think that it comes from the edible "fudge," though the edible does likely derive from this sense due to how it's made. But it's more modern sense of meaning has changed. In a non-gaming context, it essentially means speaking dishonestly, cheating, exaggerating to provide leeway for error or falsehood, or avoiding an issue, etc. It's fairly clear that "fudging" does not have a positive context here and it is associated with cheating even outside of gaming. For example, politicians may fudging with vague statements so as to intentionally mislead or obscure falsehood.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Further, since I remember seeing someone earlier say that the survey was from 1983, I'd bet that most of those two dozen gamer were 25 or younger.  The young cheat more.  http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/29/local/me-dishonest29.



I suspect this might be the most important element of all here.

Even in this thread numerous people have posted words to the effect of "I used to cheat but I don't any more".

Were someone to drop by, say, GenCon this summer and pull 40 random D&D players of varying ages aside for a brief interview I think the results would be quite different.  I also suspect there'd be a pretty decent correlation between increasing age and decreasing cheat amounts.

Lan-"cheater - the only class in which you lose levels as a direct result of aging"-efan


----------



## wcpfish (Jun 26, 2018)

"One of Fifth Edition's innovations was adopting a common form of cheating -- the reroll -- by creating advantage"

This statement is simply ludicrous.  "Adopting a form of cheating", how about "representing a situation where one opponent has a tactical advantage over another and the game needs a mechanic to represent that".  Is getting a +2 bonus to a die roll "cheating"?  After all the number has now been "doctored" to be two points higher than before.  SMH.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 26, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> What do you think is the difference between cheating and fudging then?




Interesting question.  I suspect that they are points along a continuum, based on frequency, severity and intent to gain advantage over another player(s) or the DM.  There is therefore always going to be a grey area between, but where the extremes are quite clear.

For me, if doing it makes the game more fun and enjoyable, without fundementally changing the way it is being played, then it is fudging.  That's why DMs cannot cheat, unless there is clear intent on the DM's part to make the player's lives unpleasent, and not in a fun way. 

Cheating on the other hand is an attempt to gain advantage over another player or players, or to change the way the game plays i.e. in a game where succuss is based on skill + random element, cheating is an attempt to remove that random element.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 26, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> What do you think is the difference between cheating and fudging then?




One is cheating and the other is not.  Cheating involves breaking a rule for advantage in game play.  The DM can't break rules and has an overwhelming advantage built in to his role by said "rules"(guidelines to him really), so no amount of fudging can grant an advantage to him as he already has it.  The DM can abuse his power, but he cannot cheat.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> That's convenient.  We'll add in a rule to allow a specific person at the table to change the rules at will.  So, we're not "cheating", we're using "rule 0".  Note, that Rule 0 has changed a LOT over the years.  Rule 0 in AD&D was never "Change the rules whenever you feel like it".  It was "Whenever there is a conflict between interpretations of the rules, the DM's interpretation wins".  The whole "you can ignore the rules" thing is something that has been added in along the way to salve people's egos.




The rule is what it is.  How you interpret it has a lot to do with whether you're a half full or half empty kind of person.

If you're half-empty then it's an ego salve
If you're half-full it's the enabler of all the kit bashing done on the forums and in the hobby.

Which one any particular person is seems to have a lot to do with whether or not a pet peeve has been enabled.  Either way, DMs can't cheat.  They either have fun with their group or they drive them away.  That's the flexibility of the rules set.

Be well
KB


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 26, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> What do you think is the difference between cheating and fudging then?




I don't know about labels but there is a massive difference between a player lying about a dice roll or number to personally benefit themselves and a DM lying about a dice roll or number (either in or against the PC's favor) to keep the game interesting and benefit everyone's fun. 

*More simply, what would be the opinion of everyone else in the group if they found out?*

How many players who "cheat" would have no problem telling the group they do it? Conversely, how many DMs who "fudge" would have no problem telling the rest of the group or likely already have told them and/or asked if it was ok to do on occasion?


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> "This guy gets away with using two dozen interviews" probably because it's not a survey, or at least not a quantitative survey. It is _qualitative research_ conducted via interviews. This is a common sample size for this method. Some will recommend 5-25, others 20-30, but rarely above 50 people. Quantitative results would not necessarily produce better results as people could and possibly would more easily lie about whether they cheat if presented with a survey question. The benefit of qualitative analysis methods like interviews is that the interviewers can loosen up the tongues of the subject and engage in more open discussion or potential results and explanations.




Thanks for this explanation! That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 26, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> I don't know about labels but there is a massive difference between a player lying about a dice roll or number to personally benefit themselves and a DM lying about a dice roll or number (either in or against the PC's favor) to keep the game interesting and benefit everyone's fun.
> 
> *More simply, what would be the opinion of everyone else in the group if they found out?*
> 
> How many players who "cheat" would have no problem telling the group they do it? Conversely, how many DMs who "fudge" would have no problem telling the rest of the group or likely already have told them and/or asked if it was ok to do on occasion?




Kudos here because I think you nailed it insofar as the cheat vs. fudge.  In games where this is possible.

1. Cheat - No shared outcome - individual gain only or there is some group of players that's on the losing end.
2. Fudge - Shared outcome - entire table benefits.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 26, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Kudos here because I think you nailed it insofar as the cheat vs. fudge.  In games where this is possible.
> 
> 1. Cheat - No shared outcome - individual gain only or there is some group of players that's on the losing end.
> 2. Fudge - Shared outcome - entire table benefits.



Yet fudging can also entail "entire table suffers." Fudging is not always positive for the players. And players are not always fudging their rolls for the sake of the player character. This even gets discussed in the quotes from the OP's book. 

Also as an aside, I don't buy into this whole "good DM" vs. "bad DM" meta-narrative that seeks to excrete a set of XYZ behaviors, trends, and methods onto a fictional and nebulous class of DM for the sake of uplifting the class of DMs dubbed "good" who coincidentally happen to align with the practices of the speaker.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Yet fudging can also entail "entire table suffers." Fudging is not always positive for the players. And players are not always fudging their rolls for the sake of the player character. This even gets discussed in the quotes from the OP's book.
> 
> Also as an aside, I don't buy into this whole "good DM" vs. "bad DM" meta-narrative that seeks to excrete a set of XYZ behaviors, trends, and methods onto a fictional and nebulous class of DM for the sake of uplifting the class of DMs dubbed "good" who coincidentally happen to align with the practices of the speaker.




That's all well and good, just know that I only indulged myself within the cheating and fudging discussion for the sake of putting down my opinion on the matter if I were to have one.

I'm already on record as stating that DM's can't cheat due to Rule 0 and any cheating or fudging that DM's allow the players is under the same mandate.  By the extension of logic that means that any fudging done by players that the DM doesn't know about, or doesn't allow is "cheating".

Personally, I just have a good social contract with my players before a game starts that if I were to paraphrase the page of text would boil down to "don't be a dink."  Seems to work out just fine when everyone enjoys themselves and comes back next week.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Interesting question.  I suspect that they are points along a continuum, based on frequency, severity and intent to gain advantage over another player(s) or the DM.  There is therefore always going to be a grey area between, but where the extremes are quite clear.
> 
> For me, if doing it makes the game more fun and enjoyable, without fundementally changing the way it is being played, then it is fudging.  That's why DMs cannot cheat, unless there is clear intent on the DM's part to make the player's lives unpleasent, and not in a fun way.
> 
> Cheating on the other hand is an attempt to gain advantage over another player or players, or to change the way the game plays i.e. in a game where succuss is based on skill + random element, cheating is an attempt to remove that random element.




Whereas I think that’s just sophistry and silly buggers semantics. 

Try this. Change a die roll in any dice game other than an rpg and see what happens.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> The rule is what it is.  How you interpret it has a lot to do with whether you're a half full or half empty kind of person.
> 
> If you're half-empty then it's an ego salve
> If you're half-full it's the enabler of all the kit bashing done on the forums and in the hobby.
> ...




It’s not cheating if it’s fun?  Fun for who?  And how do we measure that?  Since fudging is generally secret, the players can’t judge. 

Note, kit bashing is another kettle of fish. That’s above board and tacitly agreed upon by all participants. 

If fudging isn’t cheating then why do dms keep it secret?


----------



## Caliburn101 (Jun 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, as I recall in this thread, you talk about booting players for cheating.  So, you must have encountered it at least once in your gaming experience.
> 
> And, let's not forget, there is a very fine line between "fudging" and "cheating".  It's a pretty rare DM who has never, ever, fudged anything in any game at any time.




They have encountered cheating, they just never made their perception check when it happened...


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Whereas I think that’s just sophistry and silly buggers semantics.
> 
> Try this. Change a die roll in any dice game other than an rpg and see what happens.



Well, if it's a co-operative dice game, chances are, the other players will be okay with it...
Also, some dice games like Roll-Player are all about changing die rolls. Naturally, there are rules that dictate exactly how and when you may change die rolls, but still.


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> It’s not cheating if it’s fun?  Fun for who?  And how do we measure that?  Since fudging is generally secret, the players can’t judge.
> 
> Note, kit bashing is another kettle of fish. That’s above board and tacitly agreed upon by all participants.
> 
> If fudging isn’t cheating then why do dms keep it secret?




Simple - the DMs I play with do NOT keep it secret. If you don’t want it at your games, that’s fine. But if a group agrees amongst ourselves that it is acceptable we’re not suddenly having badwrongfun. Play the game how you like and let other groups play how they like.

Edit to add: In my games, DM fudging is also tacitly agreed upon by all participants. So why is it a different kettle of fish?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Yet fudging can also entail "entire table suffers." Fudging is not always positive for the players. And players are not always fudging their rolls for the sake of the player character. This even gets discussed in the quotes from the OP's book.




Fudging is always positive for the players, or at least intended to be so.  If it wasn't, it wouldn't be fudging.  It would be DM abuse of power.  Players cannot fudge by the way.  They have no authority to do so unless the DM gives it to them.  They are cheating if they alter a die roll outside of some PC ability/feat/spell to do so.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Whereas I think that’s just sophistry and silly buggers semantics.
> 
> Try this. Change a die roll in any dice game other than an rpg and see what happens.




Really?  That's your counter?  You do realize that it amounts to this.

Man 1: Killing in self-defense is allowed if your life is being threatened.

You: Sophistry and semantics!  Try just walking up to a random stranger and shooting them in the head and see what happens.

Yes Hussar, if you play a game where you are not allowed to change die rolls and you change a die roll, it's cheating.  That has no bearing on D&D, though.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Fudging is always positive for the players, or at least intended to be so.  If it wasn't, it wouldn't be fudging.  It would be DM abuse of power.




But surely the DM can also fudge in a way that is negative to the players? What if I want a boss to be extra tough, so I tell a player they missed, when in fact they hit?

And how do you determine whether this type of fudging is positive or negative to the players?


----------



## Sadras (Jun 27, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> Play the game how you like and let other groups play how they like.




This is not what the discussion is about.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 27, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> But surely the DM can also fudge in a way that is negative to the players? What if I want a boss to be extra tough, so I tell a player they missed, when in fact they hit?




That's not a negative.  When the DM is doing that, he's doing it to make the fight more exciting for them, not to kill them off.  More excitement is good for the players, even if it's slightly worse for the PC in question.



> And how do you determine whether this type of fudging is positive or negative to the players?



Motive is a big one.  If you're turning a yawn fight into one that is more fun for them, it's a positive.  If you're just making them miss because you want the bad guy to win, it's a negative.  It's pretty easy for the DM to know which is which in the moment.  He can see his players reactions to how the fight is going and easily adjust things to make it better for them.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Fudging is always positive for the players, or at least intended to be so.  If it wasn't, it wouldn't be fudging.  It would be DM abuse of power.



This post is sophist double-speak. This is what I meant earlier about the meaning of "fudging" outside of the context of gaming. It's finangling the GM off-the-hook for cheating by determining acceptable parameters to lie or report falsehoods. 

And the position that fudging is always intended to be positive for the players is laughable. But thankfully you fudge that implication by retreating back to the usual "bad DM" scapegoat. 



> Players cannot fudge by the way.  *They have no authority to do so unless the DM gives it to them.* They are cheating if they alter a die roll outside of some PC ability/feat/spell to do so.



Find me that rule.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 27, 2018)

I'll also add that I don't fudge PC hits into misses.  If I'm going to fudge something, it will be my die rolls or I occasionally will add hit points to the BBEG to make it more exciting.  My response above was a general response about fudging using your example.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> This post is sophist double-speak. This is what I meant earlier about the meaning of "fudging" outside of the context of gaming. It's finangling the GM off-the-hook for cheating by determining acceptable parameters to lie or report falsehoods.
> 
> And the position that fudging is always intended to be positive for the players is laughable. But thankfully you fudge that implication by retreating back to the usual "bad DM" scapegoat.
> 
> Find me that rule.




Nah.  You just called me a liar and a cheater.  I don't think I'm going to do the work to help you out.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Nah.  You just called me a liar and a cheater.  I don't think I'm going to do the work to help you out.




I don't think he did. I think what he's saying, is that you are describing the rules in such a way that you set up situations in which DM-cheating is allowed to fit your own position, which the rules do not.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Nah.  You just called me a liar and a cheater.  I don't think I'm going to do the work to help you out.



I said that you were fudging your words, and you have already admitted to fudging in your games. It seems then that you are tacitly agreeing here that the term "fudging" describes negative actions and behaviors. 

I am confused though how you would be helping me out if you found this rule. Wouldn't you be helping yourself out and your case by finding it?


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 27, 2018)

Sadras said:


> This is not what the discussion is about.




A lot of it is starting to sound pretty accusatory that those who are fine with DM fudging are bad and wrong.

However, I've also found it amusing to see more accusations of "sophistry" in this thread than in my philosophy classes.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 27, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I don't think he did. I think what he's saying, is that you are describing the rules in such a way that you set up situations in which DM-cheating is allowed to fit your own position, which the rules do not.




The rules absolutely do and they've been pointed out.  Rule 0, which is a rule, gives the DM(not the players) the ability to add, subtract or change rules as he sees fit.  There are sections in the DMG about player(not DM) cheating.  It's crystal clear who has the power to alter rules, and outside of some sort of ability or spell, the players don't have any authority to alter dice without it being cheating.  The DM, though, cannot cheat since he does have the power to alter anything at any time.  

 @_*Aldarc *_was absolutely calling me a liar and a cheat with that wording.  If he meant anything else, it's on him to change those words and apologize.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> It’s not cheating if it’s fun?  Fun for who?  And how do we measure that?  Since fudging is generally secret, the players can’t judge.
> 
> Note, kit bashing is another kettle of fish. That’s above board and tacitly agreed upon by all participants.
> 
> If fudging isn’t cheating then why do dms keep it secret?




Hi Hussar - 

Seems to me like you're over thinking this.

How do we measure if something is fun = The same people keep coming back to your table because you like having them there and they like being with you.

Since fudging is generally secret, the players can't judge = see above point.  People won't spend time with you if they're not having fun.  That's how they judge.

If fudging isn't cheating then why do DMs keep it secret = because they need the game to adapt to what they perceive the players at their table will find to be worth their time.  Some players want the feeling of achievement and attribute that achievement to outcomes that are influenced by luck as well as skill.  Sometimes luck goes the wrong way and it's a real downer for everyone at the table in certain circumstances but not all.  

The first responsibility of any DM is to entertain the people that are giving him or her their time.  Half of that is managing expectations and the other half is performance skill with the rules providing a framework.  

You made a good point about rule 0 changing from edition to edition, but I can say from experience that regardless of what edition I've played or run at any point in time from the 80s on, that any game that didn't both entertain people and manage their expectations didn't last long.  Ultimately that's what rule 0 allows and why DM's can't cheat.  If what they're doing doesn't suit their group the game won't run.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 27, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> But surely the DM can also fudge in a way that is negative to the players? What if I want a boss to be extra tough, so I tell a player they missed, when in fact they hit?
> 
> And how do you determine whether this type of fudging is positive or negative to the players?




For one thing, I think there is an important distinction between what's good for the *characters* versus what's good for the *players*. Things that are very bad for the characters can make it fun for the players.  

When DMs fudge in games I play in, it may be beneficial or harmful to the characters, but it should always (at least intended) be beneficial to the players in the sense of maximizing the fun. (And if it's just used by a DM to defeat the players in an adversarial sort of way, I'd lump that in with player cheating because it's looking to benefit the fun of only the one person and not the group as a whole.) Of course, it's a massively subjective judgement call when to use it and not use it, but DMing is full of massively subjective judgement calls to try and maximize everybody's fun. So that's nothing new. It's just another tool for a DM to use to make it more fun for everyone, but, of course, like any tool it can be overused or misused and some groups never want it used at all.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 27, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Since fudging is generally secret, the players can't judge = see above point.




I think the players may still be able to notice when the DM is fudging, despite it being done in secret.



Kobold Boots said:


> If fudging isn't cheating then why do DMs keep it secret = because they need the game to adapt to what they perceive the players at their table will find to be worth their time.  Some players want the feeling of achievement and attribute that achievement to outcomes that are influenced by luck as well as skill.  Sometimes luck goes the wrong way and it's a real downer for everyone at the table in certain circumstances but not all.




If that is the case, again, why do it in secret? I still feel that you didn't answer that crucial element of the question. Is the intention here to lie to the players, and make them feel like they had a stroke of luck, when in fact they didn't?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The rules absolutely do and they've been pointed out.  Rule 0, which is a rule, gives the DM(not the players) the ability to add, subtract or change rules as he sees fit.



Isn't Rule 0 considered a separate, albeit related, issue distinct from "fudging the dice"? 



> There are sections in the DMG about player (not DM) cheating.  It's crystal clear who has the power to alter rules, and outside of some sort of ability or spell, the players don't have any authority to alter dice without it being cheating.  The DM, though, cannot cheat since he does have the power to alter anything at any time.



Where? The word "cheat" only occurs once in the 5E DMG in a villain NPC table (p. 95). The dice-rolling section (p. 235) does not prohibit players from cheating. It just suggests that if a player is engaging in behavior like scooping the dice before anyone can see them, to encourage as the GM that they be less secretive. Do note that this not a rules prohibition against cheating. Hell, right above it, the DMG says "Have Snacks," which makes that more of an explicit rule than "no cheating" for 5E. 



kenmarable said:


> A lot of it is starting to sound pretty accusatory that those who are fine with DM fudging are bad and wrong.
> 
> However, I've also found it amusing to see more accusations of "sophistry" in this thread than in my philosophy classes.



You raise some good points in your later post. My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster. Either GM and players can't fudge _or_ GM and players can fudge (both within reason). I'm not a fan, however, of accusing players of cheating as a negative while also saying that "the GM can't cheat" but that they can fudge because that is intended as a positive. It strikes me as an absurd and somewhat hypocritical double-standard: "It's cool when law enforcement breaks the law when it's done for 'the greater good,' but there will be hell to pay if any other regular citizen breaks the law, no matter the infraction." 

Why can't players "fudge" dice to maximize their fun? 
- _Because then the victory is not earned:_ But then how does it become earned when the GM fudges? 
- _Because it benefits only the player but not the group:_ Is that necessarily true? Can a player not fudge their roll for the sake of the group's fun? Does the GM fudging always benefit the group or is not often meant to benefit particular players? 
- _Because it benefits the character and not the player:_ Yeah, but the player is playing the character and if the player is not having fun because of a bad string of luck regarding said character, then how meaningful is this distinction? And why can't a player have a certain latitude of authority over "fudging" that affects their character and personal fun? And is this not the GM implicitly communicating then that they know what's best for the player's fun? 
- _Because they are not authorized to do so:_ still waiting for this one. 

As I said much earlier, I have experienced less cheating in games when the game system mechanics empower the players to have a degree of personal authority over the narrative situations where cheating often occurs and possess ways to curtail failure at critical points: what we may paradoxically call "authorized cheating." Fate, for example, has fate points with a variety of uses (e.g., re-roll, +2 bonus to roll, declare a story detail, etc.) and succeed-at-a-cost mechanics. These mechanics provide less incentive for cheating, because they essentially accomplish the greater control of agency that often spurs the cheating. I can take the same set of players and see less cheating in Fate than I would in D&D. I am not claiming that this makes Fate a better game than D&D, but I do think that cultural norms do develop around how games are played that is partially rooted in their associated mechanics. 

If the mechanical effectiveness of your character is rooted in rolling for stats, there is a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. If your character concept is dependent on how well you roll your stats, then you have a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. And so on... I imagine that it would be a non-controversial argument if I were to put forth that cheating likely occurs at a lower frequency in D&D games that use standard arrays or point buys than in dice-rolling methods.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> As I said much earlier, I have experienced less cheating in games when the game system mechanics empower the players to have a degree of personal authority over the narrative situations where cheating often occurs and possess ways to curtail failure at critical points:




As a side note, I am working on a board game in which the players can 'save' one of their die results to use it for a later check. This is to (as you say) give the players more control over the outcome of a check, and prevent failure with a game mechanic.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 27, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I think the players may still be able to notice when the DM is fudging, despite it being done in secret.
> 
> If that is the case, again, why do it in secret? I still feel that you didn't answer that crucial element of the question. Is the intention here to lie to the players, and make them feel like they had a stroke of luck, when in fact they didn't?




I feel I answered it rather well and you're simply trying to back me in to an answer that suits a sound or text byte.

Answering this fully and with my personal process and bias so you have context.  (Note, I'm not a big fan of overly personal posts, but in this case I fear it's somewhat necessary)

1. I am a rare mix of psych/history/performance/math background.  It influences my opinion of what makes good DM practice.
2. I have run LARP events and have had to run table RPGs with up to 15 players at a go over the course of a year long campaign.

The above two things force a certain level of organization and planning as well as functions that don't go in to a game with four people that runs infrequently.  That doesn't mean my average game is that large, but it does mean that tools I use to manage insanely large games get used for small ones to allow them to scale, as about half the time the small one off game that I run ends up growing into something crazy.  

So for me: 
a. Players get a campaign abstract when I ask them if they want to play.  IF YES
b. Players get a campaign primer that details at a high level 
- Setting
- House Rules
- Social Contract - where things like dice rolling and general statement  about DM priorities live; as well as where we're playing and any social  stuff to be mindful of (18+, drinking etc.)

c. I ask for and receive feedback prior to game start, if I can make edits to suit the people who want to join, I do.  If I can't, they opt out.


3. For a long running game I'll make sure I have a one on one fireside or coffee house or skype chat with each player at least once a month to make sure things are going well and sort of map out any plot they want to run.  If someone is fine with dying I know this, as well as any likes or dislikes and I manage it appropriately.

Why does this matter at all?  Because my practices flavor the answer to your question regarding intention at my table or virtual table.  My experience is that much of this stuff is hand waved by other DMs I've played with.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.

So now for the answer. - The intention is to provide the players with the level of challenge they are expecting and the type of game they are expecting when they show up.  When I know that a behind the screen fudge is exactly what's needed, I do it.  When I know that a hard interpretation of the rules is what's needed, I do it.  The goal is to keep the group together and happy because my reputation as a DM (and really, my friendships) are affected when I don't do this.

Hopefully this helps, and if I've misinterpreted your intentions, you have my apologies for the length of this post and my assumption.

Thanks,
KB

(edit - so yes, if a player is going to be bothered if a stroke of luck unwinds a well crafted plot point, I will fudge.  If the player is not going to be bothered and will find a plot twist interesting, I won't.)

(second edit - fixing the grammar and location of text so the post makes sense.  Completely fubared one of the points.)


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 27, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> So now for the answer. - The intention is to provide the players with the level of challenge they are expecting and the type of game they are expecting when they show up.  When I know that a behind the screen fudge is exactly what's needed, I do it.  When I know that a hard interpretation of the rules is what's needed, I do it.  The goal is to keep the group together and happy because my reputation as a DM (and really, my friendships) are affected when I don't do this.
> 
> Hopefully this helps, and if I've misinterpreted your intentions, you have my apologies for the length of this post and my assumption.




That was a very wordy response, but I feel it still didn't quite answer my question. You've explained why you sometimes fudge. Fine.

But why _in secret_? Who not do it out in the open?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 27, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> That was a very wordy response, but I feel it still didn't quite answer my question. You've explained why you sometimes fudge. Fine.
> 
> But why _in secret_? Who not do it out in the open?




Because sometimes you don't want to know.  Any time you tell war stories about gaming you always hear.. "Hey remember the time we went up against X in KB's game and it was hard but we overcame it because Joe did something really unexpected and cool and it paid off.. laugh/chuckle.. did you see the look on his face.. "

You never hear.. "Hey remember the time when we went up against X in KB's game good thing he fudged the roll.. "

I find an important rule of DMing to be.  Never, ever, no matter how much you might want to, take the cool factor away from your players and their actions.  At every tier they should be able to do cool things of appropriate scale. (edit - and many times over the years the dice may not allow you the off the cuff epic story that makes everyone feel good.)


----------



## Arilyn (Jun 27, 2018)

GMs, like bards, are not paid to tell the truth.


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You raise some good points in your later post. My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster.
> 
> (snipping some good stuff, but I'm already WAY too wordy, I need to shorten the quote)




The issue of a possible double-standard is good one. 
For me, there seems to be two relevant pieces. *One, it comes down to what I said earlier that it all depends on what the entire group would think if they knew.*

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but in my groups that have DM fudging, we are open about it. We don’t keep it secret. Usually not to the level of announcing every fudged roll, but we have never had a group with a fudging DM where the players weren’t aware that DM fudging might occur, and sometimes when it happens it was even openly announced. A good example would be with character death without easy means of revival (less of an issue more recent editions, but sometimes circumstances prevent even death saves):


I’ve played in groups where character death was no big deal, and the player just sits out and rolls up a new PC and waits until they can get back in. Groups that are more focused towards the challenge side of RPGs are more likely to be like this. Knowing they succeeded at the challenge due to fudged rolls would be disappointing (and therefore not maximizing the fun, so fudging shouldn’t happen). 

I have also played in groups where if a character dies and the player has to sit out the action for a while, that’s the worst possible outcome and should be avoided even if it means ignoring rules or rolls. In my experience this can be everything from making a crit into a non-crit, saying another PC has enough movement/actions to get there in time to rescue even if they don’t, or even once or twice retroactively saying they attacked someone else (although that is very rare). In nearly all of those kinds of cases, we are actually open about the bending of rules to allow it – whether it is ignoring the result of a die roll (“Wow, that should have critted, but I’ll make it a normal hit.”) or allowing something to work that shouldn’t or retroactively changing an action, etc.. Groups with this amount of fudging tend to be ones more interested in the escapism and heroics than the challenge and actually appreciate DM fudging. (“Thanks for not killing me there. That would’ve sucked!”)

So it really depends on the group, and if the DM doesn’t feel comfortably telling the players they might fudge some things to keep it fun, then, yes, that is a problem. If you can’t be open about it (at least in general if not at each instance), then I agree that it shouldn’t be happening. I also disagree that RAW state DM’s can fudge (but they should pretend not to so that the players don’t know). Maybe not at the level of each roll, but the players should definitely be aware if that sort of thing is happening in general.

But even if it is openly acknowledged, why are many groups comfortable with DM “fudging” but not player “cheating”? 

*The second piece is I think the different roles in the game. Players are in control of only their PC in that world. DMs, however, are basically in control of all of the rest of reality.* There is a lot of trust and responsibility put into DMs to make it an interesting game and reality for everyone at the table. So if the bending of rules and rolls is acceptable at all, it makes some sense to leave that responsibility with the DM alone, since so much power over the game reality already rests there and it also avoids conflicting fudging by having only 1 person authorized to do that. 

Even with decades of gaming, honestly, my experience is 95% D&D (and PF), so that’s what I’m most familiar with. Games that allow more player control of reality beyond their character sound interesting, but unfortunately a lot of people I game with don’t really want that control. *shrug* They, in a sense, are looking to be entertained by the DM in an interactive story. They want to be actors playing characters and let the DM be director and writer.

Although there has been some slight open fudging by players on rare occasion in my games. For example, it seems that players “accidentally only dropped the die and didn’t really roll it” only if the number is really bad. That results in a can-I-reroll look to the DM, and then the DM does an eyeroll and says whether to reroll it or not. That doesn’t happen often, but seeing as how it pretty much _never_ happens when the number is good or the roll not important, yeah, I’d say there’s some slight player fudging happening, although again, it’s out in the open (and far, far rarer than DM fudging). This is different from a player we knew when we were young that would have 2 dice of the same color and would roll one but point to the other that he had put sitting there on 20. That seems to me to be a very different sort of thing, especially considering the element of deception and not wanting to be found out.

*But overall, I think the inconsistency is more an issue of practicalness than principle. It's less "by the rules of this game 1 person gets to cheat and no one else can" as much as "some fudging makes the game more fun (for some groups) but it's less effective and can easily become a mess if everyone does it, so let's just leave it up to the DM, they already take care of everything else anyway."* 

If I was in a group where a player felt that inconsistency wasn't fair, that's perfectly valid and I'd be fine with making it consistent (likely by removing DM fudging since I think no-fudging would work FAR better than everyone-fudging in practice). 




Aldarc said:


> If the mechanical effectiveness of your character is rooted in rolling for stats, there is a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. If your character concept is dependent on how well you roll your stats, then you have a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. And so on... I imagine that it would be a non-controversial argument if I were to put forth that cheating likely occurs at a lower frequency in D&D games that use standard arrays or point buys than in dice-rolling methods.




But, it all comes down to what the group is comfortable with. Your comment about stats is a good one. Back when we first started in 1e, trying to get good stats was enough of an issue for us that there certainly was incentive to cheat/fudge rolls. So we instituted rolling in front of others, but also house ruled some things that were previously done secretly like “you can throw away an entire set of 6 stats if they are bad” to codify as acceptable to the group. (And if someone wanted to keep rerolling and throwing out sets over and over to try and get a great one, he had to do it in front of us where we could mock him if he was overdoing it.)  We also even introduced “Reroll 1’s and 2’s” for stats and hit points at the behest of a couple players since we all were fine with everyone using it. Again, for us, it’s been about being open with the entire group about this sort of thing rather than keeping it secret that makes it acceptable.


_(Yikes! Sorry about the wall of text! Added some formatting to help break it up, but I understand if you just scroll by. Although that means you probably didn't read this. Hmm.)_


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 27, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> GMs, like bards, are not paid to tell the truth.




If I could give you a million XP for this post, I would.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Note, kit bashing is another kettle of fish. That’s above board and tacitly agreed upon by all participants.



Actually kitbashing isn't really a comparable here, in that it's something (usually) done before play even begins in a campaign; as opposed to fudging/cheating which can really only occur during the run of play.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 27, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Actually kitbashing isn't really a comparable here, in that it's something (usually) done before play even begins in a campaign; as opposed to fudging/cheating which can really only occur during the run of play.




The reason I brought up kit-bashing: Because Rule 0 has to exist before any kit bashing has the foundation of being considered legal at anyone's table based on RAW.

Why it's relevant, because if Rule 0 has as one of its benefits that the DM is the arbiter of what is legal at his or her table, then it eliminates DM cheating AND enables kit-bashing.  If your opinion is that the DM can cheat, and you choose to ignore Rule 0, then you must if logic is sound - not kit bash.  At all.

The fact that everyone must agree ahead of time about kit bashing does not make it legal.  Rule 0 enables it to be so.

(edit: My motive in pointing this out is not to start some crazy side conversation about legality of kit bashing vs. cheating, but to point out how silly the cheating discussion is when the DM has the finger pointed at them.)


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Isn't Rule 0 considered a separate, albeit related, issue distinct from "fudging the dice"?
> 
> Where? The word "cheat" only occurs once in the 5E DMG in a villain NPC table (p. 95). The dice-rolling section (p. 235) does not prohibit players from cheating. It just suggests that if a player is engaging in behavior like scooping the dice before anyone can see them, to encourage as the GM that they be less secretive. Do note that this not a rules prohibition against cheating. Hell, right above it, the DMG says "Have Snacks," which makes that more of an explicit rule than "no cheating" for 5E.



However, at the root we're not talking about 5e, we're talking about 1e if any specific e at all; in that the original survey was done in 1983 - the heart of the 1e era.

And 1e, in the DMG, does reference DM fudging...though in somewhat typical Gygax style he says "don't do it" in one place and "sometimes it's OK" in another...



> My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster. Either GM and players can't fudge _or_ GM and players can fudge (both within reason).



Where I see the DM as being a somewhat different breed of animal, able to do all kinds of things within the game that players cannot.  She just has to make sure she's always acting in good faith, as part of the responsibility of being a DM in the first place.



> I imagine that it would be a non-controversial argument if I were to put forth that cheating likely occurs at a lower frequency in D&D games that use standard arrays or point buys than in dice-rolling methods.



In the one aspect of stat generation, yes.  In all other aspects e.g. rolls made during the run of play the cheat level would likely be around the same regardless of char-gen method.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 27, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> However, at the root we're not talking about 5e, we're talking about 1e if any specific e at all; in that the original survey was done in 1983 - the heart of the 1e era.
> 
> And 1e, in the DMG, does reference DM fudging...though in somewhat typical Gygax style he says "don't do it" in one place and "sometimes it's OK" in another...
> 
> ...




Agree with this in spirit.

In terms of 1e, and Gygax in particular.. he was ok with fudging rolls when game play but not game balance was affected.  If you look at how he felt about attributes and especially random treasure generation.. that was hard no.  If you look at the occasional "DM just killed the entire party and ended the day early" situations, that was less of a problem.  

However, it's pretty clear that 1e had a high fatality expectation and every table had different tolerances for it.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> As I said much earlier, I have experienced less cheating in games when the game system mechanics empower the players to have a degree of personal authority over the narrative situations




I think we're in danger here is isolating dice fudging/cheating as if it were the only option available to the DM or player to ensure that everyone is having fun and discussing it in that context?   I agree with the point above, and the rest of the excellent post, and I would say that there are many ways that 'having fun' can be ensured for all parties involved without resorting to massaging the dice rolls.  I think I also gather from everyone's posts that we all think dice fudging is not a go-to option, not even close, and for some people never an option.

For me, I pretty much only play with the same bunch of wonderful fools that I have been playing with for over 30 years, so that's an entirely different situation to playing in new groups, or with people you don't really know.  I'd be interested to hear from folks who are in those sorts of scenarios, as players or DMs, about what they have encountered and what the group or the DM felt or did about it.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 27, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> But why _in secret_? Who not do it out in the open?



Because for me as a player, I don't want to know, or even care if the DM is fudging it.  As long as the game is fun and exciting then they're doing a fine job in my book.  Yes, I don't want it to be obvious as it makes it much harder to suspend disbelief in the situation.  If my intrepid team and I are fighting a fire giant, who is giving us a right hiding, which let's face it is usually the case, then I don't want the DM, in an effort to adjust the flow of the battle, to suddenly say that the giant spontaneously combusts, but if said giant misses a hit or does less damage than the DM's dice indicate, then fine.

Dice rolling is just there to create a random element, so the game isn't just an exercise in collaborative story writing.  Stuff can happen that you weren't expecting and have no control over...unless you cheat.   That's one of the things that makes this hobby such fun, for me anyway.  I was going to write "Stuff can happen that you weren't expecting, good or bad" but I didn't because it may be good or bad for the character, but it is always good for me the player.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 28, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Isn't Rule 0 considered a separate, albeit related, issue distinct from "fudging the dice"?




Not really.  Fudging is a property of rules changes.  The DM can change the rules on the fly, which allows him to fudge when he wants to.

Page 4 of the 5e DMG says this, "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

That clearly allows him to alter the rules as he sees fit.  



> The dice-rolling section (p. 235) does not prohibit players from cheating. It just suggests that if a player is engaging in behavior like scooping the dice before anyone can see them, to encourage as the GM that they be less secretive. Do note that this not a rules prohibition against cheating. Hell, right above it, the DMG says "Have Snacks," which makes that more of an explicit rule than "no cheating" for 5E.




If the rules don't say the players can do something, they can't do it.  The die rolling section is a good one to point out, though.  It explicitly allows the DM to fudge rolls, so there's actually a 5e rule for fudging, making it impossible for fudging to be cheating in 5e(not that it was possible before).



> My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster. Either GM and players can't fudge _or_ GM and players can fudge (both within reason). I'm not a fan, however, of accusing players of cheating as a negative while also saying that "the GM can't cheat" but that they can fudge because that is intended as a positive. It strikes me as an absurd and somewhat hypocritical double-standard: "It's cool when law enforcement breaks the law when it's done for 'the greater good,' but there will be hell to pay if any other regular citizen breaks the law, no matter the infraction."




Is it a double standard that the DM can create encounters, but the players can't?  Is it a double standard that the DM awards experience, but the players can't?  Is it a double standard that the DM creates the adventure, not the players?  It seems to me that you are failing to understand that the role of DM comes with abilities that the players don't get.......like fudging dice.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 28, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Is it a double standard that the DM can create encounters, but the players can't?  Is it a double standard that the DM awards experience, but the players can't?  Is it a double standard that the DM creates the adventure, not the players?  It seems to me that you are failing to understand that the role of DM comes with abilities that the players don't get.......like fudging dice.



Though in fairness the players are probably going to expect the DM to create encounters, create adventures, and award experience - but they're not necessarily going to expect her to fudge the dice and may or may not react rather negatively if they find out such has been done.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 28, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I find an important rule of DMing to be.  Never, ever, no matter how much you might want to, take the cool factor away from your players and their actions.  At every tier they should be able to do cool things of appropriate scale. (edit - and many times over the years the dice may not allow you the off the cuff epic story that makes everyone feel good.)




I can understand this position. But I've noticed ever since I stopped fudging as a DM, that such cool moments still occur plenty of times. Knowing that those moments were actually earned, and not a DM's trick, makes them more cool... wouldn't you say?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> However, at the root we're not talking about 5e, we're talking about 1e if any specific e at all; in that the original survey was done in 1983 - the heart of the 1e era.



I am not sure if I agree with this premise, as I suspect that these are separate conversations. This was fairly clear from the reactions and discussions around cheating. Many people in this thread are operating from the perspective of 5e regardless of the date of the interviews was established. The interviews reveal a bit of the player mindset to cheating in 1e, but that certainly does not mean that current reactions to the article pertain strictly to 1e. 



> Where I see the DM as being a somewhat different breed of animal, able to do all kinds of things within the game that players cannot.  She just has to make sure she's always acting in good faith, as part of the responsibility of being a DM in the first place.



"A somewhat different breed of animal" should not equate to "a superior breed of animal," and it is the latter sense that I find more objectionable as a player and GM. And I appreciate games that incorporate more GM-Player checks-and-balances in place. 



> In the one aspect of stat generation, yes.  In all other aspects e.g. rolls made during the run of play the cheat level would likely be around the same regardless of char-gen method.



Of course, but I was only speaking here of character generation. The point being that the dice rolls for how your effective your character may mechanically be or match your character concept create a point where cheating is more likely to occur.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Though in fairness the players are probably going to expect the DM to create encounters, create adventures, and award experience - but they're not necessarily going to expect her to fudge the dice and may or may not react rather negatively if they find out such has been done.




Of course the DM fudges the dice in favour of the players as much as against them.  Sometimes as a DM you just have to keep the damn fools from killing themselves!   

I guess it depends on what sort of game is being run.  If the game is about the players "winning" where the DM is much more the "enemy" of the players, then I can see that fudging is undesirable.  All participants must live and die by the dice, the rules and agreed behaviours so everyone is on a level playing field.  Perhaps in a tournament for example or just a game of that style.  Similarly, if the players are of that nature and preference, and that game has perhaps more of wargaming feel to it rather than a narrative style, then again there is probably a much greater demand for a fixed way of doing things.

On the other hand, if the game is about "having fun" (no pejorative implications in either paragraph!) and thus less concerned about the outcomes as long as it is enjoyable and/or has much more of a narrative style, then it would be more important for the DM to do all the tweaks, including fudging dice, to maintain a high quality narrative, than stick rigidly to the dice rolls and the rules.

There is of course the grey area in between. 

As along as all involved are happy with what is going on it doesn't matter what happens.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 28, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> "A somewhat different breed of animal" should not equate to "a superior breed of animal," and it is the latter sense that I find more objectionable as a player and GM. And I appreciate games that incorporate more GM-Player checks-and-balances in place.




Yes, the DM isn't the player's enemy.  The DM's NPC might well be the player's charater's enemy.  That's a huge distinction.  Things work best when all participants are working together.  It is very much an ensemble piece.  The DM doesn't "win" by killing off the players.  The DM wins if he/she, and the players agree that it was jolly good fun.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 28, 2018)

Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

Is this a form of cheating?  Are players trying to gain an advantage?  Are they stretching the spirit of the game?

In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this.  Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....".  I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 28, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?




I have no problem with it, and that's coming from someone who plays 3.5 (where synergies and prestige classes can easily make a character overpowered and unbalanced).

I know my players care about game balance too, so if a combination is too powerful, they'll often be the first to bring it up. We discuss if it will be a problem, and whether we should disallow it.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 28, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I can understand this position. But I've noticed ever since I stopped fudging as a DM, that such cool moments still occur plenty of times. Knowing that those moments were actually earned, and not a DM's trick, makes them more cool... wouldn't you say?




Yes and no.  
Yes I agree that cool moments do occur naturally.  If they didn't we should stop having a random element to the game.   There is a lot of excitement in rolling them bones in a high pressure situation, terrified of what the result may be.
If not sure I agree that those moments are better if they were earned.  If the DM does what the DM needs to do to put the players in a situation to have cool moments, than that is fine by me.  I think it comes down to how subtly the DM is fudging things and what things the DM is fudging.   If it is obvious, or even suspicious, then yeah, it does cheapen the outcome.  If the DM fudged it to get you into an exciting situation then no.

However as I wrote previously, I think we all feel that fudging, in any form, is not something that the DM should be doing a lot of.  If you are doing this often as a DM then you heavily misjudged your encounters, the players etc and are having to desperately compensate.  Never a good situation.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 28, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I have no problem with it, and that's coming from someone who plays 3.5 (where synergies and prestige classes can easily make a character overpowered and unbalanced).
> 
> I know my players care about game balance too, so if a combination is too powerful, they'll often be the first to bring it up. We discuss if it will be a problem, and whether we should disallow it.




I guess that's the key caveat, if your players care about balance then it doesn't matter.  I have a bit of an OP character in one game because the dice rolls I had to use on the abilities were somewhat high, as opposed to it being a "build".  I discussed it with the DM and he was fine with it.  I was happy to re-roll.  However I did say I would play the character in such a way as to balance out the OPness.  The character is pretty aloof.  He only gets involved when it is of personal interest to him, and thus I don't dominate all situations.  It is actually quite fun to play it this way because the other players know my character is particularly powerful and will sometimes ask him to bail them out of the stupid situations they've got themselves into...but I won't


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 28, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I am not sure if I agree with this premise, as I suspect that these are separate conversations. This was fairly clear from the reactions and discussions around cheating. Many people in this thread are operating from the perspective of 5e regardless of the date of the interviews was established. The interviews reveal a bit of the player mindset to cheating in 1e, but that certainly does not mean that current reactions to the article pertain strictly to 1e.




You are correct that the reactions in this thread are not strictly 1e, but neither are they strictly 5e like some of your responses to me imply.  When it comes to the veracity of the highly flawed survey, that is strictly 1e since that's what the survey had to deal with.  With regard to fudging and cheating in general, though, that spans the entirety of D&D.



> "A somewhat different breed of animal" should not equate to "a superior breed of animal," and it is the latter sense that I find more objectionable as a player and GM. And I appreciate games that incorporate more GM-Player checks-and-balances in place.




Then you have picked a very poor RPG for your needs.  D&D does make the DM a "superior breed of animal."  The power, authority and scope of his role is far greater than all the players combined.  That's why it's so important that he take care to avoid abusing that power.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 28, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Of course the DM fudges the dice in favour of the players as much as against them.  Sometimes as a DM you just have to keep the *damn fools* from killing themselves!




I don't.  If the PCs are in hot water due to foolish acts, I'm going to let them boil to death if that's where the choices and dice take them.  I'll only fudge things to help keep them alive if the dice gods have decreed great fortune to me and ill fortune to them at the same time.  The PCs shouldn't die purely to bad luck with die rolls when the players have done nothing wrong.  In those rare instances, I'll downgrade some crits and miss a bit more to even things up a bit.  The PCs may still lose and die, but they will have had a fighting chance



> On the other hand, if the game is about "having fun" (no pejorative implications in either paragraph!) and thus less concerned about the outcomes as long as it is enjoyable and/or has much more of a narrative style, then it would be more important for the DM to do all the tweaks, including fudging dice, to maintain a high quality narrative, than stick rigidly to the dice rolls and the rules.




This.  Which means that even when the dice are fudged against the PCs, they are still being fudged in favor of the players.  I never fudge things in favor of myself.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 28, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?
> 
> Is this a form of cheating?  Are players trying to gain an advantage?  Are they stretching the spirit of the game?
> 
> In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this.  Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....".  I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?




There's nothing wrong with a player power gaming if the group is into that sort of thing.  Issues arise when 1 or 2 players power game and the others don't.  That mix can(not necessarily will) cause negative feelings among the players.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 28, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I can understand this position. But I've noticed ever since I stopped fudging as a DM, that such cool moments still occur plenty of times. Knowing that those moments were actually earned, and not a DM's trick, makes them more cool... wouldn't you say?




No.

I can understand your position, but since my primary enjoyment of D&D comes from seeing everyone happy after spending a day at my table, I don't care about how that happens personally or find anything better from "random cool" as opposed to "fabricated cool".  

In fact, if I had to choose I'd say fabricated cool is better, simply because it means I'm engaged, know the players well and did a good job.  Dice are important and they should be listened to more than 90 percent of the time, but there's a reason the DM is there.  If dice were meant to be the be all and end all, you could really play the game without one.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 28, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Dice are important and they should be listened to more than 90 percent of the time, but there's a reason the DM is there.  If dice were meant to be the be all and end all, you could really play the game without one.




That's not the only reason we have a DM.


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Though in fairness the players are probably going to expect the DM to create encounters, create adventures, and award experience - but they're not necessarily going to expect her to fudge the dice and may or may not react rather negatively if they find out such has been done.




That's my main point - if the players wouldn't be ok if they knew about it, then _don't do it_. (I'm not talking about every instance. I'm talking about being open about the practice in general.) If anyone at the table is doing anything that they feel they need to hide from everyone else, then they are likely violating the trust of the group and should stop.

Conversely, if the players are ok with it (not _would be_ but actually _are_), then it's a perfectly acceptable part of the game.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 28, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> That's not the only reason we have a DM.




No, it's not.  

But if you can buy an adventure path and state that the dice have to be followed all the time without fudging, I can tell you with certainty that the players don't need one to actually play.

You may say.. well then they'd know all the secrets of the module..

And I'd reply.. that's what the DM is for, keeping secrets until necessary.  Sometimes those secrets remain secrets, and that brings us back to your question about keeping secrets.

Full circle.
KB


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 28, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> That's my main point - if the players wouldn't be ok if they knew about it, then _don't do it_. (I'm not talking about every instance. I'm talking about being open about the practice in general.) If anyone at the table is doing anything that they feel they need to hide from everyone else, then they are likely violating the trust of the group and should stop.
> 
> Conversely, if the players are ok with it (not _would be_ but actually _are_), then it's a perfectly acceptable part of the game.



And all of this constitutes a big part of my philosophy in regards to player fudging. Just include the GM in this tacit consent too.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 28, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> But if you can buy an adventure path and state that the dice have to be followed all the time without fudging, I can tell you with certainty that the players don't need one to actually play.
> 
> ...





Isn't the DM also there to be an independent arbiter and narrator?* Even if the players are playing through a module, don't they also need a DM to describe stuff, play the role of various characters, and make the experience enjoyable?

_(* Narrator in the sense that he describes what the players see, and what the results of their actions are.)_

Otherwise you're not playing D&D in my opinion, you're playing Hero Quest (which also has a game master come to think of it).



Kobold Boots said:


> Full circle.
> KB




Okay.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 28, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Isn't the DM also there to be an independent arbiter and narrator?* Even if the players are playing through a module, don't they also need a DM to describe stuff, play the role of various characters, and make the experience enjoyable?
> 
> _(* Narrator in the sense that he describes what the players see, and what the results of their actions are.)_
> 
> Otherwise you're not playing D&D in my opinion, you're playing Hero Quest (which also has a game master come to think of it).




Not trying to be a pain in the butt here, sorry.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 28, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?
> 
> Is this a form of cheating?  Are players trying to gain an advantage?  Are they stretching the spirit of the game?



In order: technically no, yes, and yes.



> In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this.  Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....".  I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?



It's an issue in many systems, but the more interlocking mechanics the system has the more opportunity there is to break something, particularly if said mechanics weren't playtested into the gorund first.  Late-era 2e is the poster child for this.

The answer, though unpopular these days, is to try to remove game mechanics (feats and skills, front and center please!) rather than add them; and to where possible divorce separate mechanics from each other such that if one becomes a problem fixing it doesn't break other things elsewhere.

Lanefan


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 29, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?
> 
> Is this a form of cheating?  Are players trying to gain an advantage?  Are they stretching the spirit of the game?
> 
> In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this.  Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....".  I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?




Character concepts are neat, but fundamentally the game boils down to the following issue:
Will my character concept be capable of doing the thing I want them to do?  Yes/No.
Lets say for example, you want to be a detective.  There are specific Skills you need to have in order to accomplish that.  
Lets say you want to turn into animals.  There are specific class features you need in order to accomplish that.
Lets say you want to cast spells.  There are specific classes you need in order to accomplish that.

Most people I would wager want their characters to be good(TM) at what they want their characters to do.  You can simulate ineptitude at tasks by _choosing_ to take lower results.  It is within the control of the players to perform as poorly as they want.  It is not within the control of the players to perform as _well_ as they want.

So logically if you want to be a detective, you take the classes that grant you the skills that make best use of detective-like scores.  There's a reason that detective-like characters in fiction are not say, barbarians.  There's a reason why Conan is a warrior and why Batman is a ninja.

Maybe YOU the DM, make allowances that are outside the purview of the rules, but within the domain of the DM to say "Yeah, this Barbarian detective idea sounds cool, even though you're no good at detective stuff, I'm gonna help you out for the sake of story."

It _annoys_ be that people are quick to position "story" against mathematically-sound character building.  "Story" is about _how_ you play, not _what_ you play.  I don't need D&D to have a good story, heck I don't even really need _rules_ for that.  But if we're going to have randomized elements and rules and "game" elements to this story, I want to make _best use_* of those rules.  

Outside of a specific character concept that the creator _knows_ will be inept, there's no reason _not_ to make best use of the rules.

*best use here is not to mean _perfect_ use.  There are lots of ways to build very powerful and very successful characters.  Perfect use would be say, using _only_ the top build.  As opposed to say, the #2 or #3 build or even the #5 build.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 29, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> The answer, though unpopular these days, is to try to *remove game mechanics (feats and skills, front and center please!) rather than add them*; and to where possible divorce separate mechanics from each other such that if one becomes a problem fixing it doesn't break other things elsewhere.
> 
> Lanefan



Though this is not necessarily your intention here, this does get wheels turning in my head. Skills, particularly social and knowledge skills, are sometimes used as a way to reflect abilities that characters may have that players don't and as a way to overcome being required to roleplay (i.e., mind-reading) _against_ the GM. But is there a way to provide such mechanical safeguards for player characters without needing a skill system? I can already brainstorm several systems where this may apply, but I would need to further hone the nature of my question first.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 29, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?
> 
> Is this a form of cheating?  Are players trying to gain an advantage?  Are they stretching the spirit of the game?



I'm not sure I'd call that 'cheating' (just like several of the examples given in the article don't constitute 'cheating' for me), but it's definitely something I don't like. In my games RAI always beats RAW, and since I'm the GM, I'm the final arbiter about what's intended and what isn't.

I always discourage my players to visit or read the so-called "Character Optimization Boards". As I like to point out, it's not possible for a player to gain any advantage by abusing unintended cheese. The reason is that a player can never 'win' against a GM: If players start to overdo it and optimize their characters too much, all they'll achieve is that I'll be designing correspondingly harder encounters for them.
Players are better served spending their creative energy to create a fun character with a believable and interesting background and personality traits.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 29, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> It _annoys_ be that people are quick to position "story" against mathematically-sound character building.  "Story" is about _how_ you play, not _what_ you play.  I don't need D&D to have a good story, heck I don't even really need _rules_ for that.  But if we're going to have randomized elements and rules and "game" elements to this story, I want to make _best use_* of those rules.



Yes, my question wasn't about creating a viable character, which I would expect every player to do, its about whether it is pushing the boundaries too much to create a character that is super-optimsed to the rules.  I totally agree that if you want to play a detective, as per your example, than there are certain skills you'll need to take, and certain attributes you will want to boost at the expense of others.   My question was whether a player works the rules, i.e. studies how to combine this factor with that factor and how X stacks with Y, and how if I multi-class one level as a passivist doctor then it makes my blood thirsty space fighter pilot better because of this rule or lack of rule etc.



Sunseeker said:


> Outside of a specific character concept that the creator _knows_ will be inept, there's no reason _not_ to make best use of the rules.
> *best use here is not to mean _perfect_ use.  There are lots of ways to build very powerful and very successful characters.  Perfect use would be say, using _only_ the top build.  As opposed to say, the #2 or #3 build or even the #5 build.



Yes, totally with you, that is exactly it in my mind.  Viable build versus perfect build as you describe above.  By all means come up with a combination of stats that allows you to create a viable character of the sort you want but don't play the system as it were in terms of builds.  The caveat on that of course is unless that's the way the group want it, in which case go for it!
Where we've played systems like D&D 2e where you roll dice to get a pool of values to create your stats from, I've certainly let players re-roll because the dice values combined with the rules means that the player can't create the character they want, or if the pool of values is so poor that actually it wouldn't be much fun, especially compared to other players' characters.  Flaws can be great fun to play with in a character but a totally hamstrung character is not.


----------



## Gibili (Jun 29, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Though this is not necessarily your intention here, this does get wheels turning in my head. Skills, particularly social and knowledge skills, are sometimes used as a way to reflect abilities that characters may have that players don't and as a way to overcome being required to roleplay (i.e., mind-reading) _against_ the GM. But is there a way to provide such mechanical safeguards for player characters without needing a skill system? I can already brainstorm several systems where this may apply, but I would need to further hone the nature of my question first.



Ooh yes, this is always a tricky one.  Let's face it, a lot of the fun of RPGs is playing someone you are not and doing things you as a person are not capable of, physically, mentally, socially etc.    I can't think of any system I've played over the years that doesn't require some sort of skill system to allow this, so I'd be interested to hear what conclusions you come to.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 29, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Ooh yes, this is always a tricky one.  Let's face it, a lot of the fun of RPGs is playing someone you are not and doing things you as a person are not capable of, physically, mentally, socially etc.    I can't think of any system I've played over the years that doesn't require some sort of skill system to allow this, so I'd be interested to hear what conclusions you come to.




He's probably going to cheat.


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 29, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm not sure I'd call that 'cheating' (just like several of the examples given in the article don't constitute 'cheating' for me), but it's definitely something I don't like. In my games RAI always beats RAW, and since I'm the GM, I'm the final arbiter about what's intended and what isn't.
> 
> I always discourage my players to visit or read the so-called "Character Optimization Boards". As I like to point out, it's not possible for a player to gain any advantage by abusing unintended cheese. The reason is that a player can never 'win' against a GM: If players start to overdo it and optimize their characters too much, all they'll achieve is that I'll be designing correspondingly harder encounters for them.
> Players are better served spending their creative energy to create a fun character with a believable and interesting background and personality traits.




IME, there is always a way to _develop_ a trait, or advantage, over time, with work and character molding. But I have to agree there are things which can't be built into a character at the outset, which must be optimized, by feats, skill, magic, in essence,
a player's resources, as they rise through the levels. The more resources they expend, the better the optimization of the 
development.

The interpretation of RAI from RAW, IMHO will almost always be arbitrary. One can even argue that RAW is important, because
it negates the more obvious surface intention of itself.


----------



## Wulffolk (Jun 29, 2018)

I have not read pages 2-26 of this thread, so I don't know if these opinions have already been expressed.

Essentially, any game that places so much weight on random chance encourages players to find ways to improve their odds. The more random the game mechanics the more likely people are to try to cheat the system. D&D has always been far too random, in my personal experience and opinion. I have gone through phases of accepting D&D as a Role- Playing "GAME", with no cheating and minimal investment in the story or character. I have also gone through phases of playing D&D as a ROLE-PLAYING Game, in which I become heavily invested in the story and the characters which encourages more "cheating" to avoid ridiculous circumstances ruining things.

I very much lean towards the role-playing and story-telling elements of RPG's, especially as the decades have progressed. I make extensive use of house rules to mitigate the randomness of the "game" while still leaving an element of chance. This greatly reduces the need to "cheat".

Short version . . . Randomness is fun for games of chance with no emotional investment. Logic and consistency is better for building stories and character's to become emotionally invested in.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 29, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Though this is not necessarily your intention here, this does get wheels turning in my head. Skills, particularly social and knowledge skills, are sometimes used as a way to reflect abilities that characters may have that players don't and as a way to overcome being required to roleplay (i.e., mind-reading) _against_ the GM. But is there a way to provide such mechanical safeguards for player characters without needing a skill system? I can already brainstorm several systems where this may apply, but I would need to further hone the nature of my question first.



Social skills and knowledge skills are two different things, with different issues and possibilities.

First, knowledge skills.  The problem with codifying knowledge skills into specific areas a la 3e is that it far too strongly implies complete lack of knowledge outside these areas and utterly demolishes the idea of a jack-of-all-trades unless you've got a zillion skill points to spread around, which most classes don't.

Far better to scrap 'em.  Build a very few class-specific knowledges e.g. arcana into those classes that need it, and de-formalize the rest.  Some obscure bit of religious history: everyone roll d20.  Clerics and Bards need only roll very well, anyone else if it's not a 20 (or 1, depending on edition) don't bother telling me about it. (obviously, in this example if the obscure bit of history pertains to a deity or pantheon that has a Cleric in the party, the  roll is considerably easier for that character)

Second, social skills.  For my own part I'd prefer to see players roleplay - or at least try to - even if it involves going "against" the DM.  The problem with any sort of formalized mechanical system for this is that a significant proportion of players (and, sadly, some DMs) immediately want to use it as a shortcut: "Oh, screw all the talking, I'll just roll to see if I convince him or not".  The only way to excise this sort of thinking from the game - which would be my preference - is to remove* those mechanics.

* - or better yet, never have introduced them in the first place; but it's too late for that.

I don't believe that players or PCs need 'mechanical safeguards', to use your term, in a general sense.  The DM does, however, have to take into account the attributes (good or bad!) of the PC(s) doing the talking when coming up with the responses from her NPCs, and divorce that from her own opinion of the player at the table.

Lanefan


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 29, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Most boardgames are competitive, which makes it a bit different case.




About half the games I've played in the last year are PVB, not PVP.

But it makes no difference, either way — it's the fundamental character flaw it reveals. I don't like to deal with cheaters.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 29, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> There's no poll to be had out of this.  Rule 0 makes the DM arbiter of all things above the rules themselves.  Therefore no, they can't cheat.
> 
> What they can do is create an environment where people can have fun, or not.
> 
> ...




Rule 0 differs by game system. Many don't have the Gygaxian one ("The GM can change the rules as he sees fit"); a smaller set have a very different one ("Don't be a dick"), and a few have a counter-gygaxian ("The group can change the rules by consensus")...

Many don't even mention a rule zero equivalent.

Of course, Gygax's Rule Zero was essential for dealing with the incoherent Gygaxian Spew that was AD&D 1E. Almost no one ran it RAW, because various important bits were buried as asides in entirely the wrong chapters.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 29, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Honestly I don't understand why people are so surprised, or upset.
> 
> Has anyone ever seen those surveys on cheating in high-school?  Or in college?  The answer is the same: everyone cheats.
> 
> Why?  Because humans cheat.




Only if 0.9=1.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 29, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> He's probably going to cheat.



Yes, but I am the GM, so we call that "fudging."


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 29, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Is it a double standard that the DM can create encounters, but the players can't?  Is it a double standard that the DM awards experience, but the players can't?  Is it a double standard that the DM creates the adventure, not the players?  It seems to me that you are failing to understand that the role of DM comes with abilities that the players don't get.......like fudging dice.




Yes, it absolutely is, and one that is near-fundamental to the method. 

that said, I've played games with weak-GM - games where players can create/introduce  encounters the GM must now run - and games with shared GMing (where GM of the moment rotates).

Both of those radically change the feel of the game.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 30, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Only if 0.9=1.




If we actually cared about statistical accuracy, this thread about be going down in flames.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jun 30, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Rule 0 differs by game system. Many don't have the Gygaxian one ("The GM can change the rules as he sees fit"); a smaller set have a very different one ("Don't be a dick"), and a few have a counter-gygaxian ("The group can change the rules by consensus")...
> 
> Many don't even mention a rule zero equivalent.
> 
> Of course, Gygax's Rule Zero was essential for dealing with the incoherent Gygaxian Spew that was AD&D 1E. Almost no one ran it RAW, because various important bits were buried as asides in entirely the wrong chapters.




Yes, but assuming we're talking about the current version (which if I'm referring to another, I'll generally mention that as it's not trivial) there is a Rule 0 and my post remains accurate.

Don't mean to blow off your post, just being clear as to my intent.


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 30, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?
> 
> Is this a form of cheating?  Are players trying to gain an advantage?  Are they stretching the spirit of the game?
> 
> In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this.  Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....".  I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?




IME, many a player has worked the PHB and some others, in 3 and 3.5, seeking an advantage for their PC. IMO, if you discuss it with the DM before the game,
and it's OK with the party and DM, it's not cheating. If you wait till the middle of a crisis to spring some new or unknown surprise advantage, that's rules 
lawyering, and disruptive to the game. Many players, myself included, look to build strong PCs, to have an advantage, and do a lot of research in the process.
It's not the research that's bad, it's improperly using and vetting the information thru the DM and party, that's "cheating".


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> Simple - the DMs I play with do NOT keep it secret. If you don’t want it at your games, that’s fine. But if a group agrees amongst ourselves that it is acceptable we’re not suddenly having badwrongfun. Play the game how you like and let other groups play how they like.
> 
> Edit to add: In my games, DM fudging is also tacitly agreed upon by all participants. So why is it a different kettle of fish?




So, you announce die changes and fudging at the table before you do it?  You flat out tell your players, "Hey, I just changed the AC of the monster so you couldn't hit it this time to increase difficulty"?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 30, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Yes, it absolutely is, and one that is near-fundamental to the method.
> 
> that said, I've played games with weak-GM - games where players can create/introduce  encounters the GM must now run - and games with shared GMing (where GM of the moment rotates).
> 
> Both of those radically change the feel of the game.




I disagree.  I double standard is a rule that is unfairly applied to different groups of people.  None of those rules are applied to players at all.  D&D simply has different roles in the game, and the DM can do things within his role that the players can't.  That's not a double standard.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 30, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I never cheat, so this is a bit surprising to me. I never cheated as a player, and I have stopped fudging dice rolls as a DM in the last few years.
> 
> I feel that you rob yourself of fun by cheating. It takes away a lot of the excitement and drama that comes with failure. So I make it a point to always make my rolls out in the open, where everyone can witness my misfortune.




I'm like this guy.  Fudging rolls by the DM though is technically not cheating as it is RAW in most editions of D&D.  Dice are advisory to the DM's ultimate authority on everything happening in his campaign.  I did realize though that it's better not to fudge the dice even as DM and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, you announce die changes and fudging at the table before you do it?  You flat out tell your players, "Hey, I just changed the AC of the monster so you couldn't hit it this time to increase difficulty"?




Maybe it's getting lost in all of the posts, but I tried to explain several times that we

1) are very open about the practice happening _in general_ and do not hide it, and 

2) yes, we actually will _occasionally_ announce when we fudge things. I even listed specific examples earlier including announcing making a critical hit a non-critical and similar.

Would I announce increasing the AC? No, for a very simple reason - I wouldn't increase the AC. That's not a fudging I would do for likely the reason you think it's a gotcha question. *The players would not be happy about it*, especially if previous hits would now be misses which would also break immersion. If I want to draw a fight out and make it more challenging, it's far better to increase hit points rather than increasing AC. Requiring the PCs to have more successes to defeat an enemy is far more enjoyable than making them fail more often, but generally has the same practical effect. Even if we don't announce every single instance as it happens, we all know it will happen on occasion if it makes the game more fun. (And conversely, fights that are becoming a slog can have hit points be decreased on the fly.) We are are aware of it and are fine with it.

The only time I've ever adjusted AC on the fly is by _lowering_ it by 1 if a frustrated player is having a bad night and misses by 1 (and others haven't already missed by 1).

Do you never adjust hit points from what's in the book? 

Bottom line for us - if everyone at the table is fine with it, then it's acceptable. My group is fine with some DM fudging of certain numbers & rolls - announced in the moment when appropriate but not announced when not - and I'm not sure why that's confusing to people.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> Do you never adjust hit points from what's in the book?



Constantly.

But always before the combat starts and most of the time before the opponent has ever been encountered.  Once combat starts the hit points are locked in.

Lan-"and the adjustments are almost always to raise the total, as many 1e monsters as written have far too much glass in their cannons"-efan


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 30, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> The only time I've ever adjusted AC on the fly is by _lowering_ it by 1 if a frustrated player is having a bad night and misses by 1 (and others haven't already missed by 1).




A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows".  Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.

You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below.  Might be an interesting take on it....


....hadn't thought of that till now.  Maybe:
Every 1 point below the target AC subtracts from the damage die of your weapon, if the total negatives equal the maximum your dice can roll, you deal no damage.  Otherwise you roll and add your appropriate score, then subtract by how much you missed.  For every point above the target number, you get a +1 to damage.  

Could lead to certain characters (Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Battle Clerics) never missing, but since that's pretty much _their thing_ I could probably live with that.

Would also give less reason to hand out magic +X gear.

hmmmm.....


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 30, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows".  Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.
> 
> You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below.  Might be an interesting take on it....
> 
> ...



Interesting idea, but we’ve been moving towards more simplicity than complexity (e.g. switching to 5e from PF). Also, when our DMs do fudge numbers, it’s actually pretty rare. At a guess, maybe once or twice every 2 or 3 sessions.

But it’s an interesting rule for groups to consider.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 1, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows".  Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.
> 
> You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below.  Might be an interesting take on it....
> 
> ...



Now that's kitbashin'! 

I think I'd put a cap on how far + or - this can take you, at probably +/-5, to prevent things getting too crazy particularly at the + end.



> Could lead to certain characters (Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Battle Clerics) never missing, but since that's pretty much _their thing_ I could probably live with that.



One slight counter would be to have a natural '1' always miss no matter what, if you're not already doing that.

But at mid-high levels, this would certainly give the warrior types a boost - maybe too much so in 4e-5e?  Would need lots of playtesting, but I could see this being a fine idea for something like 1e-2e.  In 3e or PF it just piles on to what are already too many numbers so I can't ever see using it there.



> Would also give less reason to hand out magic +X gear.



While at the same time giving the players of warrior-type characters more reason to cry out for it. 

Lanefan


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 1, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Now that's kitbashin'!
> 
> I think I'd put a cap on how far + or - this can take you, at probably +/-5, to prevent things getting too crazy particularly at the + end.



Depends on the edition.  In editions with crazy numbers, yeah, maybe create a related stacking feat "increases your glancing blows range by 5" or something.



> One slight counter would be to have a natural '1' always miss no matter what, if you're not already doing that.



I don't run fumbles, but yes a nat 1 always misses.



> But at mid-high levels, this would certainly give the warrior types a boost - maybe too much so in 4e-5e?  Would need lots of playtesting, but I could see this being a fine idea for something like 1e-2e.  In 3e or PF it just piles on to what are already too many numbers so I can't ever see using it there.



I doubt it would make a huge difference in 5E, but in other editions it would likely get crazy.  But since melee-types fall severely behind at higher levels in 3X & PF, I don't think I'd worry about it too much.  What, the level 18 Barbarian deals 50 damage per hit?  And he has 5 hits?  Okay, he's level 18!  He better!  Because that Dragon is about to deck him for 200!



> While at the same time giving the players of warrior-type characters more reason to cry out for it.
> 
> Lanefan



I think it would make it more dependent on the players attitude towards magic items.  Melee classes across the gaming spectrum rely heavily on gear to keep up with casters.  Increasing the benefit of their base scores IMO, falls closer in line with the core concepts of those classes, than piling on the magical gear.  

Yeah I'm not saying it doesn't need some testing.  I literally thought it up in that post!


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2018)

kenmarable said:


> Maybe it's getting lost in all of the posts, but I tried to explain several times that we
> 
> 1) are very open about the practice happening _in general_ and do not hide it, and
> 
> ...




Sorry about that.  I hit reply before I realized just how far back upstream I was.  My bad.  But, an excellent answer.

As far as adjusting HP?  Nope.  Not once the monster is encountered.  Heh.  Funny story.  I run my games over Fantasy Grounds.  In our last session, I couldn't understand why the monsters were so tough.  The PC's were hitting, it was just that nothing was going down.  Then I took a closer look at the stats and realized that Fantasy Grounds has an option that I must have mistakenly clicked somewhere along the lines, to maximize all monster HP's.    After the fight, I kinda sheepishly admitted to the players what was going on, gave some bonus xp for the fight and changed the HP generation back to random.

Heck, I don't even KNOW the HP's of my monsters before they hit the table.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows".  Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.
> 
> You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below.  Might be an interesting take on it....
> 
> ...




Heh, hit on a miss rules.  Gotta love 'em.  Shame that any time this idea gets brought up seriously, it'll get dogpiled on as a bad idea.  :/


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh, hit on a miss rules.  Gotta love 'em.  Shame that any time this idea gets brought up seriously, it'll get dogpiled on as a bad idea.  :/




Right?  I mean the idea of AC is so silly when you stop and think about it.  A specific target number that you have to match in order to score a "hit", but then "hit points" don't actually represent meat?  I mean whaaaaaat?  And scoring above, even WAY above the target number is meaningless unless you crit?  Say whaaaaa?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Right?  I mean the idea of AC is so silly when you stop and think about it.  A specific target number that you have to match in order to score a "hit", but then "hit points" don't actually represent meat?  I mean whaaaaaat?  And scoring above, even WAY above the target number is meaningless unless you crit?  Say whaaaaa?




SHHHH!  Oh, god, you opened ALL THE WORMS at one time!!!  They're coming!  RUN!!!


------

hehe... ahem.

But, I do think that this is one of the bigger issues here.  4e rubbed people's faces in the ridiculousness of D&D rules.  It made no bones about how little sense the rules actually made, so, let's treat them as "game rules" and not worry too much about the whole "immersion" thing.  To me, that's what caused such a negative reaction to 4e.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> SHHHH!  Oh, god, you opened ALL THE WORMS at one time!!!  They're coming!  RUN!!!



Oh, an lets not forget that the way Dex and Armor apply to Ac is identical, but their practical implication in how you avoid damage is completely different.



> hehe... ahem.
> 
> But, I do think that this is one of the bigger issues here.  4e rubbed people's faces in the ridiculousness of D&D rules.  It made no bones about how little sense the rules actually made, so, let's treat them as "game rules" and not worry too much about the whole "immersion" thing.  To me, that's what caused such a negative reaction to 4e.




That's probably what I liked about it.  It was clear and up front that it was a _game_.  Anything people wanted to add on top of that was up to them.  I don't much care for pomp and circumstance in gaming, gimme the cut and dry and let me put all the makeup on the pig.

Although I do generally agree that 4E doesn't give the same feel as "traditional" D&D.  I don't _personally_ mind that but I know a lot of people did.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh, hit on a miss rules.  Gotta love 'em.  Shame that any time this idea gets brought up seriously, it'll get dogpiled on as a bad idea.  :/



Normally I don't like at all the idea of hit-on-a-miss because a hit, as previously defined by the game, is supposed to hit for damage and a miss is supposed to miss and do no damage - very binary - and never the twain shall meet. 

However what I do like with [MENTION=93444]Sunseeker[/MENTION] 's idea, and where I think it might have a lot of potential, is that it de-binarizes hit-miss* and in fact puts it on a sliding scale.  With this there is no real clear hit-miss divide any more, only different gradations of hit doing damage anywhere from 0 to normal-plus-lots based on how high your attack** roll was vs. the target's AC.

* - I'm guessing this was completely unintentional, but the best ideas often are.
** - note the different terminology - I intentionally did not say "to-hit roll" here.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> SHHHH!  Oh, god, you opened ALL THE WORMS at one time!!!  They're coming!  RUN!!!



Hell with running - I'm staying here!  

Those worms just ooze out experience points every time you hit one!  Hold my beer and pass my axe, will ya?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> there's a reason the DM is there.  If dice were meant to be the be all and end all, you could really play the game without one.



Given how many RPGs there are which have a distinctive GM roll, but also do not permit the GM to fudge or ignore the dice, I think this claim is obviously false.



Kobold Boots said:


> if you can buy an adventure path and state that the dice have to be followed all the time without fudging, I can tell you with certainty that the players don't need one to actually play.



And there you go - one reason those RPGs have a GM is to provide a better RPGing experience than from pre-scripted Adventure Path RPGing.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Given how many RPGs there are which have a distinctive GM roll, but also do not permit the GM to fudge or ignore the dice, I think this claim is obviously false.
> 
> And there you go - one reason those RPGs have a GM is to provide a better RPGing experience than from pre-scripted Adventure Path RPGing.




Different, not better.  Some people love the pre-scripted stuff.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 2, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Yes, but assuming we're talking about the current version (which if I'm referring to another, I'll generally mention that as it's not trivial) there is a Rule 0 and my post remains accurate.
> 
> Don't mean to blow off your post, just being clear as to my intent.




This thread isn't in the D&D section, KB, it's in the General Roleplaying one. So, no, we're NOT talking "Just D&D"...


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 2, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> This thread isn't in the D&D section, KB, it's in the General Roleplaying one. So, no, we're NOT talking "Just D&D"...




True, but most here have been discussing this thread only in terms of D&D, and a few only in terms of 5e.  A big clue is if you see someone saying DM, rather than GM.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Given how many RPGs there are which have a distinctive GM roll, but also do not permit the GM to fudge or ignore the dice, I think this claim is obviously false.
> 
> And there you go - one reason those RPGs have a GM is to provide a better RPGing experience than from pre-scripted Adventure Path RPGing.




Hi Pem - 

"Better" is relative and "given how many" is irrelevant.  All you need is one use case that favors my opinion and it's just as true as yours is.

Not getting into it with you beyond this.  History shows that if we're not on the same side of a discussion the thread count exponentially increases.

Be well, 
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 2, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> This thread isn't in the D&D section, KB, it's in the General Roleplaying one. So, no, we're NOT talking "Just D&D"...




Hi Aramis - 

I don't know that what other people are talking about has much to do with what I'm talking about.  Nor do I think that it matters much if I'm talking about what you're talking about.

However, I think the fact that I'm referencing "Rule 0" tells you what I am referring to.  It may not be what you're referring to.  That's cool.  Generally, when I make an argument I set parameters to it and I don't move the goal posts.  Helps keep the post count low.

Be well
KB

.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 2, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Hi Aramis -
> 
> I don't know that what other people are talking about has much to do with what I'm talking about.  Nor do I think that it matters much if I'm talking about what you're talking about.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure referencing "Rule 0" is very game specific.  After all, Rule 0, even in just D&D, has changed pretty radically over the years.  1e told you that Rule 0 was a means to adjudicate actions that the rules didn't cover.  It did not, at all, say that the DM has the power to over rule any rule or outcome.  That interpretation is something that folks have generally added in in their own head without actually referencing what is stated in the books.  

Heck, Rule 0 doesn't appear at ALL in 3e.  

So, which game are you actually referring to?  It would help understanding to be specific.  And stops blanket statements like this one:



> In fact, if I had to choose I'd say fabricated cool is better, simply because it means I'm engaged, know the players well and did a good job. Dice are important and they should be listened to more than 90 percent of the time, but there's a reason the DM is there. If dice were meant to be the be all and end all, you could really play the game without one.




which is an opinion that I certainly don't share.  The role of the DM most definitely is not to "fabricate cool" and I would detest playing at such a table.  If you want to "fabricate cool" then write a story and I'll read it.  I have zero interest at sitting at a table where the DM feels that his or her idea of cool is better than what is generated by the game.  If it works for you, that's groovy.  Go for it.  I'm simply not interested in that sort of play anymore.  Been there, done that.

I provide the script, the dice provide the direction.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Rule 0 and fabricated cool stuff coming out of my keyboard because I ignore the context of what was being replied to by the original posts.




1. Everyone who is on this forum set as a regular poster knows what Rule 0 is, knows what game it comes from and knows there's been at least a reference to a similar function as DM fiat going back to 1e.  Certainly those replying against do.  Reading the thread entirely proves that.

2. Every DM fabricates cool on behalf of their favorite or best player at least.  My version of it simply allows for the table to have outcomes that don't deflate everyone's desire to continue to play; which was the context.

That looks different for a group of 12 year olds than it does for a group of 40 plus year olds, but it happens.  I'm certainly not going to tell anyone I wouldn't play at their table if it didn't nor would I turn down an opportunity to be at a great DM's table if it did.

Everyone's mileage varies.
KB


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 2, 2018)

Gibili said:


> Ooh yes, this is always a tricky one.  Let's face it, a lot of the fun of RPGs is playing someone you are not and doing things you as a person are not capable of, physically, mentally, socially etc.    I can't think of any system I've played over the years that doesn't require some sort of skill system to allow this, so I'd be interested to hear what conclusions you come to.



Possibly something akin to Dungeon World. It has no skill system, but there are ability checks. The GM never rolls, but the players roll against a static level of difficulty (roll 2d6 + ability: 7-9, partial success; 10-12, full success). But when a player rolls is dictated by when the GM rules that it constitutes a "move" (e.g., hack and slash, defend, spout lore, parley, etc.).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2018)

I thought I would repost this, from upthread:



pemerton said:


> From Gygax's DMG, p 9:
> 
> [T]he rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well-thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest,
> and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game.​
> I'm not saying that Gygax's advice is the only way to do it, but I think it's noteworthy that he draws such a strong contrast between the GM making decisions that regulate the introduction of new challenges into play (eg by ignoring wandering monster dice) and the GM fudging action resolution results.



In other words, the AD&D DMG had a notion of what sorts of changes to dice results did, or did not, conform to the major precepts of the game.

The same idea is found later on in the book (p 110):

_t is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

. . .

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!_​_

This is not an advocacy of carte-blanche GM changing of outcomes. It's about the GM managing content introduction (wanderers, new dungeon areas discovered), and about combat being fairly adjudicated._


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure referencing "Rule 0" is very game specific.  After all, Rule 0, even in just D&D, has changed pretty radically over the years.  1e told you that Rule 0 was a means to adjudicate actions that the rules didn't cover.  It did not, at all, say that the DM has the power to over rule any rule or outcome.  That interpretation is something that folks have generally added in in their own head without actually referencing what is stated in the books.




It was not just a means to adjudicate actions that the rules didn't cover.  Gygax begins by saying that that there are boundaries, but goes on to say this...

"Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign *and how it must be handled*; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability. *As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them, systems devised seemingly to make the game drag for players, rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favor of the mundane and ordinary*."

He is specifically talking about changing the rules in the bolded areas.  How you handle something is the rules.  Keeping a watch out for thing(rules) which complicate matters, rules which drag things down, etc., is not referring to adjudicating something the rules don't cover.  It's specifically talking about the rules themselves and what they do cover.  Rule 0 in 1e allowed the DM to do what he wanted with the rules.  It just cautioned very strongly against doing too much, lest you lose your players by making it a game they don't want to play in.



> Heck, Rule 0 doesn't appear at ALL in 3e.




Yes, yes it does.  It's right on page 4 of the DMG.  It says these little gems.

"You are the master of the game--the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately the fun.  This is a great deal of power and you must use it wisely."

You cannot be the master of the rules if you are a slave to them.  That allows you to alter the rules.  However, because I know you will argue this, I will show you a clearer quote that is also from page 4.  In the Purpose of Sidebars section it says this.

"To give you an idea of some of the ways you can alter the D&D rules for your own campaign..."

That very explicitly is saying that you can alter the D&D rules.  Rule 0.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The same idea is found later on in the book (p 110):
> 
> [*I]t is your right to control the dice at any time *and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"
> 
> ...




He may not be advocating carte-blanche DM changing of outcomes, but he gives the DM the ability to change outcomes carte-blanche.  I bolded it.  He says very clearly that you can control the dice at "any time."  Not some of the time.  Not in these specific instances.  But any time.  He then goes on to say you should let bad luck with dice pass, not that you have to.

Gygax is all about giving the DM the power to do anything he wants and encouraging the DM to make D&D his game with his stamp on things, and then giving advice on how he thinks something should be done.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 2, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> He then goes on to say you should let bad luck with dice pass, not that you have to.
> 
> Gygax is all about giving the DM the power to do anything he wants



He also says "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"; that adjudication of consequences in combat should "take into account what the monster has done", and that fudging combat rolls would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". None of those remarks is about "giving the DM the power to do anything he wants". They evince a very clear conception of what the game is about (_skilled play_) and what the GM's function is (honouring skilled play, and appropriately managing content introduction, especially when the latter threatens not to honour skilled play).


----------



## Arilyn (Jul 2, 2018)

RPGs, including DnD, have vastly changed since Gygax. And even back in the 70s, there was a lot of arguing over this issue, so not sure that Gygax quotes really strengthen anyone's position. There is also the problem that Gygax's own views shifted over time, and were often contradictory.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> He also says "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"; that adjudication of consequences in combat should "take into account what the monster has done", and that fudging combat rolls would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". None of those remarks is about "giving the DM the power to do anything he wants". They evince a very clear conception of what the game is about (_skilled play_) and what the GM's function is (honouring skilled play, and appropriately managing content introduction, especially when the latter threatens not to honour skilled play).




There are times I wish Gary were still here to end debate about what he actually meant then and what he feels now.  There are too many threads where we all go "hey Gary said", and those of us who were lucky enough to actually have chatted with him a few times might have some insight that will never be accepted by those of us that didn't.

However, here's a thought, and it's my thought not Gary's.  There has been no game in the history of D&D where the dice have been followed absolutely AND skilled play alone has resulted in a high level character.  While I'm willing to believe you if you say, "sure there has" there's not going to be enough evidence to prove it without doubt.  Humans are not modrons, so I feel highly confident in my position.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure referencing "Rule 0" is very game specific.  After all, Rule 0, even in just D&D, has changed pretty radically over the years.  1e told you that Rule 0 was a means to adjudicate actions that the rules didn't cover.  It did not, at all, say that the DM has the power to over rule any rule or outcome.  That interpretation is something that folks have generally added in in their own head without actually referencing what is stated in the books.
> 
> Heck, Rule 0 doesn't appear at ALL in 3e.



 Sure it does, it had just become 'of course, the DM can change the rules...'  Though I understand your confusion, since the community was obsessed with RAW.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 2, 2018)

I always interpreted "the DM change change the rules" as clear permission from the game makers to add or subtract or alter rules before play.  IOW, kit bashing, altering classes, doing this or that or the other thing is perfectly fine.

But using that as evidence that che... err... fudging is fine well, actually, now that I think about it, yeah, I'll buy that.  All it does is redefine cheating as fudging so that DM's can have the warm fuzzies about cheating in the game and pretend that they aren't actually cheating.

Same sort of thing applies to character generation where DM's and players che... err... fudge all the time unless you use point buy values.  

It's something I see as very immature play to be honest.  I'm there to actually play the game.  Which means that I place a much higher value on the rules than on anyone else's notion of "rule of cool".  Either as a DM or a player.  I don't want your "rule of cool".  I really, really don't.  I don't think it results in more fun at the table.  I think that it takes away far too much from the game when the players cannot ever be sure if their victories were earned or a gimme.  

Like I said, if fudging was perfectly fine, then why is it done in secret at most tables?  You only hide it because everyone at the table hates it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> It's something I see as very immature play to be honest.  I'm there to actually play the game.  Which means that I place a much higher value on the rules than on anyone else's notion of "rule of cool".  Either as a DM or a player.  I don't want your "rule of cool".  I really, really don't



 It really depends on how un-cool the rules of the game are to begin with...



> Like I said, if fudging was perfectly fine, then why is it done in secret at most tables?  You only hide it because everyone at the table hates it.



 Why don't magicians let you see the stage from every angle?  Because being 'fooled' in certain ways is a kind of entertainment.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> It's something I see as very immature play to be honest.  I'm there to actually play the game.  Which means that I place a much higher value on the rules than on anyone else's notion of "rule of cool".  Either as a DM or a player.  I don't want your "rule of cool".




Hi Hussar - 

I respect that and your preferences.  Know that were you at my table this would come up during pre-campaign work before session zero.  I've no problem running games exactly that way, but when there's five or so players at a table, everyone would need to agree with it before I signed off on it.  If you were at a table with someone that was 180 degrees in the other direction, there'd need to be some compromise or it's likely that I lose a player to keep a player.

Putting the DM in that kind of position isn't good for the long term health of the game either. 

Be well
KB


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It really depends on how un-cool the rules of the game are to begin with...
> 
> Why don't magicians let you see the stage from every angle?  Because being 'fooled' in certain ways is a kind of entertainment.




Well, that's fair.  Then again, why am I playing a game I don't like?  Hopefully the rules of the game I'm playing are cool to me, otherwise, why bother?

As far as magicians go, I'm not expected to do anything other than be an audience.  I'm not expected to actually perform and the performance doesn't revolve around me.  At an RPG session, the entire group is expected to contribute to the "performance".  Which becomes problematic when at least some of the group isn't playing above board.

 [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] - oh, sure, it's totally a personal taste thing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Well, that's fair.  Then again, why am I playing a game I don't like?



 Because you can't find one other games willing to play the one you do like, but can find 12 others willing to play the one you don't?



> As far as magicians go, I'm not expected to do anything other than be an audience.  I'm not expected to actually perform and the performance doesn't revolve around me.  At an RPG session, the entire group is expected to contribute to the "performance".  Which becomes problematic when at least some of the group isn't playing above board.
> .



Magicians get volunteers from the audience all the time, and don't necessarily let them in on the trick.  

And, really, while players are performers in one s3nse that are also at least as much ausience.

And it's only one, whose role allows it, who gets the smoke & mirrors.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> He also says "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"; that adjudication of consequences in combat should "take into account what the monster has done", and that fudging combat rolls would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". None of those remarks is about "giving the DM the power to do anything he wants". They evince a very clear conception of what the game is about (_skilled play_) and what the GM's function is (honouring skilled play, and appropriately managing content introduction, especially when the latter threatens not to honour skilled play).




"It is your right to control the dice at any time.." is directly about giving the DM the power do do anything he wants with dice.

"I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled" and" As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability." are about letting us know that nothing he says binds the DM.  They are only suggestions.  He then goes on to say how he changes things when he thinks they should be changed. 

Gygax is all about the DM being able to change what he wants, but is also about warning the DM to be careful lest he ruin the game by changing too much.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 3, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> There are times I wish Gary were still here to end debate about what he actually meant then and what he feels now.  There are too many threads where we all go "hey Gary said", and those of us who were lucky enough to actually have chatted with him a few times might have some insight that will never be accepted by those of us that didn't.
> 
> However, here's a thought, and it's my thought not Gary's.  There has been no game in the history of D&D where the dice have been followed absolutely AND skilled play alone has resulted in a high level character.  While I'm willing to believe you if you say, "sure there has" there's not going to be enough evidence to prove it without doubt.  Humans are not modrons, so I feel highly confident in my position.




Have you read this thread?  I'm not through with it, but it's very interesting.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax&highlight=GYGAX


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But using that as evidence that che... err... fudging is fine well, actually, now that I think about it, yeah, I'll buy that.  All it does is redefine cheating as fudging so that DM's can have the warm fuzzies about cheating in the game and pretend that they aren't actually cheating.




You don't even need to do that much when it comes to fudging in 5e.  The 5e rules specifically say the DM can fudge rolls, so he doesn't need to change a rule.



> Like I said, if fudging was perfectly fine, then why is it done in secret at most tables?  You only hide it because everyone at the table hates it.




You hide it for the same reason you hide monster stats, secret doors, NPC abilities, maps, and more.  It works better when hidden is all.  Not because the table hates it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 3, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> RPGs, including DnD, have vastly changed since Gygax. And even back in the 70s, there was a lot of arguing over this issue, so not sure that Gygax quotes really strengthen anyone's position. There is also the problem that Gygax's own views shifted over time, and were often contradictory.



This is true. My point is that to claim that D&D has _always_ been about the GM doing whatever s/he wants to ensure "fun" is not correct. It's a type of homogenisation of different RPGing experiences.

No one thinks that downhill skiing, water skiing and cross-country skiing are exactly the same, even though all involve skis. No one thinks that canasta and bridge are exactly the same, even though both involve playing cards. Yet there is this repeated notion, in this thread and many others on these boards, that there is a single thing called RPGing and a particular GM approach is what GMing is.

When that notion is in play, it makes it very hard to talk about different sorts of RPGs, different sorts of RPG techniques, different styles of play, etc.

EDIT: This post from Hussar raises some similar points:



Hussar said:


> Well, that's fair.  Then again, why am I playing a game I don't like?  Hopefully the rules of the game I'm playing are cool to me, otherwise, why bother?



Part of the homogenisation that goes with "all GMing includes permission to fudge, "rule zero", etc" is this idea that the rules of the game don't matter, and that differences in rules don't produce different experiences.

(Except for 4e, which is bad because it makes it harder to weave your magic as GM.)



Hussar said:


> As far as magicians go, I'm not expected to do anything other than be an audience.  I'm not expected to actually perform and the performance doesn't revolve around me.  At an RPG session, the entire group is expected to contribute to the "performance".  Which becomes problematic when at least some of the group isn't playing above board.



Another part of the homogenisation is the idea that players are, overwhelmingly, audience.

The idea that the GM might be the audience for the players, and that this might require the GM to be bound by rules, bardely even gets a look-in.


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I always interpreted "the DM change change the rules" as clear permission from the game makers to add or subtract or alter rules before play.  IOW, kit bashing, altering classes, doing this or that or the other thing is perfectly fine.
> 
> But using that as evidence that che... err... fudging is fine well, actually, now that I think about it, yeah, I'll buy that.  All it does is redefine cheating as fudging so that DM's can have the warm fuzzies about cheating in the game and pretend that they aren't actually cheating.
> 
> ...




The DM is supposed to hide things, that's why he generally sets up, and  plays behind a screen. He's tasked with narrating, and I doubt very many folks
would be very interested in a DM who openly explained all his math and motives. Not many players I know would. Do you want the DM to say, at the 
outset of battle "this is a 63 HP Minotaur" ? or "well, when I rolled HD for the surprise attack, for the Rogue, it was only a 9, and I factored in your  +2 CON and DEX bonus, into your saving throw, so he escaped unscathed" ?  

Obviously, either example puts TMI in front of the DM's screen, and is arbitrary and disruptive to game flow. IMO, the only time folks will hate the DM is
when he's giving them information they don't need to know, or that slows down the game.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 3, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> The DM is supposed to hide things, that's why he generally sets up, and  plays behind a screen.



I think I used a screen for one session in the past 30 years. Some 4e boxed set that I bought had a screen in it, and I tried it for one session to see what it was like.

It got in the way, and has never come out since.

I already quoted some RPG rules text upthread about conventions (in BW and MHRP) for the GM when it comes to rolling dice and honouring their results.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 3, 2018)

The only thing I hide from my players, are unexplored rooms of a dungeon, the plot that I've prepared for them, and some stats of opponents. I've noticed that the DM screen is usually just there to indicate my authority as a DM, but I might as well put it aside. Most of my super secret notes are in a binder anyway, and I make most of my rolls in the open. Especially in regards to combat. Rolls for random tables I tend to make behind the DM screen, since the outcome of the dice has no meaning to the players, since they don't know what is on the random tables.



Maxperson said:


> You hide it for the same reason you hide monster stats, secret doors, NPC abilities, maps, and more.  It works better when hidden is all.  Not because the table hates it.




Do you though? Because back when I still fudged as a DM, I hid it because I did not want to give the feeling that I as a DM was protecting them. I wanted them to think that the dice fell where they did, and that their victory was their own. When they survived by the skin of their teeth, I wanted them to think they earned that victory, when in reality they would have (probably) lost/died.

Not at all the same reason that I keep the plot and dungeons a secret.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 3, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Do you though? Because back when I still fudged as a DM, I hid it because I did not want to give the feeling that I as a DM was protecting them. I wanted them to think that the dice fell where they did, and that their victory was their own. When they survived by the skin of their teeth, I wanted them to think they earned that victory, when in reality they would have (probably) lost/died.
> 
> Not at all the same reason that I keep the plot and dungeons a secret.



I don't fudge to protect them, though.  I fudge for two reasons.  First, to counter extreme bad luck.  Not bad luck.  EXTREME bad luck.  If my dice are hot and I'm hitting and critting left and right, and their dice are cold and they can't hit squat.  I'm not going to kill PCs for extreme bad luck.  When I fudge in that situation, it isn't to protect them.  Nobody is kept safe.  I will just even things up a little bit to give them a chance to win, but not guarantee by any stretch a win.  The entire party could still potentially TPK.  The second reason is to make the BBEG more exciting if he's going down to bad luck.  This also isn't protection, or even danger to the PCs.  I won't fudge enough to allow the BBEG to win the fight.  Just last a round or two longer so that he isn't a let down. 

In both examples they will still have earned their victory.  Nothing is being handed to them.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 3, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> The DM is supposed to hide things, that's why he generally sets up, and  plays behind a screen. He's tasked with narrating, and I doubt very many folks
> would be very interested in a DM who openly explained all his math and motives. Not many players I know would. Do you want the DM to say, at the
> outset of battle "this is a 63 HP Minotaur" ? or "well, when I rolled HD for the surprise attack, for the Rogue, it was only a 9, and I factored in your  +2 CON and DEX bonus, into your saving throw, so he escaped unscathed" ?
> 
> ...




I hide the DM side for the simple reason that I'm doing a lot more back there than rolling dice.  I have stats I don't want them to see.  I have plot notes I don't want them to read.  I have little pictures for NPCs who haven't shown up yet.

Beyond that: I've found players make decisions differently when they don't know whats on the other side of the screen.  I feel like they make decisions based on the circumstances they believe to be true rather than the mathematical results they can see on the dice.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 3, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Have you read this thread?  I'm not through with it, but it's very interesting.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax&highlight=GYGAX




Yup.  Aware of it.  Thanks for the link.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think I used a screen for one session in the past 30 years. Some 4e boxed set that I bought had a screen in it, and I tried it for one session to see what it was like.
> 
> It got in the way, and has never come out since.



 4e was unusual for D&D (ooh, do I get an Understatement of the Year nomination), in that it played very well 'above board.'  I could run 4e not just with dice rolled in the open, but with the monsters, their hp totals & current conditions, out in the open in front of me.  One group I played 4e with tracked monster hps (OK, damage done to the monsters, admittedly not quite the same thing) with numbered chits, right on the battlemat.   I could share the objective, consequences & DCs of a skill challenge, too, no issues.  
For a long while I thought 4e ran 'best' that way, but since I started running 5e and dusted off the tools I'd always used to run AD&D back in the day, I've found myself applying the same techniques (fudging, concealing information, 'illusionism,' whatever you want to call "successfully running an AD&D campaign that didn't suck" back in the day) in my 4e campaign, with equally good results.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2018)

As far as "keeping the numbers secret" goes, in 5e, monster HP are standardized - well, that's been true since 3e.  And, damage isn't random either - your monsters deal average damage.  Granted, I think most groups randomize damage.  

But, don't you tell your player's the save DC when they make a saving throw?  I do.  "The spell hits you, make a DC X Wisdom save to resist".  

I've never understood the idea that DM's need to hide information.  Get it out there.  The players are smart enough that they're going to know the monster's AC after the second or third attack anyway, most of the time, so, why keep it a secret?  Playing keep away with game stuff just slows the game down.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As far as "keeping the numbers secret" goes, in 5e, monster HP are standardized - well, that's been true since 3e.  And, damage isn't random either - your monsters deal average damage.  Granted, I think most groups randomize damage.
> 
> But, don't you tell your player's the save DC when they make a saving throw?  I do.  "The spell hits you, make a DC X Wisdom save to resist".
> 
> I've never understood the idea that DM's need to hide information.  Get it out there.  The players are smart enough that they're going to know the monster's AC after the second or third attack anyway, most of the time, so, why keep it a secret?  Playing keep away with game stuff just slows the game down.



For the last few sessions of gameplay, I have tried using a method popularized by Hankerin Ferinale (aka Runehammer of Drunken and Dragons) where everything in an encounter space or "room" has a single DC for rolls (e.g., AC for monsters, DC for skill checks, saving throws, etc.), and I put a d20 with the DC-side-up in the middle of the table for players to see. It speeds things up considerably while also adding a lot of transparency.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As far as "keeping the numbers secret" goes, in 5e, monster HP are standardized - well, that's been true since 3e.  And, damage isn't random either - your monsters deal average damage.  Granted, I think most groups randomize damage.
> 
> But, don't you tell your player's the save DC when they make a saving throw?  I do.  "The spell hits you, make a DC X Wisdom save to resist".
> 
> I've never understood the idea that DM's need to hide information.  Get it out there.  The players are smart enough that they're going to know the monster's AC after the second or third attack anyway, most of the time, so, why keep it a secret?  Playing keep away with game stuff just slows the game down.




A good rule of thumb to use at tables when your players have access to all the books is to state that the monster statistics in the manuals are guidelines and not facts.  Two good things happen here.

1. You can fudge hit points freely at your leisure and kitbash the monsters as you see fit.
2. Rangers, Druids and those with knowledge abilities might actually know more about the local monsters than the average adventurer.

As far as players knowing what the AC is, yes.  Once you declare a hit the player knows.  But how resilient is that ogre?  Harder to say.  Add in an ability or two, then there's a challenge.. get back to town and you just figured out you met "Mal the Angry"

2 cents.
KB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I've never understood the idea that DM's need to hide information.  Get it out there.  The players are smart enough that they're going to know the monster's AC after the second or third attack anyway, most of the time, so, why keep it a secret?  Playing keep away with game stuff just slows the game down.



 It goes way back.  The DM wasn't just supposed to keep the map secret, because not getting lost and puzzling out where secret treasure vaults might be hidden was a major part of the challenge, and to keep die rolls, hps, etc hidden to keep the players guessing with their tactics, but also to keep knowledge of the rules, themselves, from the players, as much as possible, always staying ahead of them in terms of rules knowledge (system mastery, we might say today).  The Gygaxian DM (like the Sith Master) keeps his players (apprentice) on the hook with the continuous promise of deeper secrets and greater power.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 3, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It goes way back.  The DM wasn't just supposed to keep the map secret, because not getting lost and puzzling out where secret treasure vaults might be hidden was a major part of the challenge, and to keep die rolls, hps, etc hidden to keep the players guessing with their tactics, but also to keep knowledge of the rules, themselves, from the players, as much as possible, always staying ahead of them in terms of rules knowledge (system mastery, we might say today).  The Gygaxian DM (like the Sith Master) keeps his players (apprentice) on the hook with the continuous promise of deeper secrets and greater power.




mmm.  I remember not mapping a dungeon well and getting lost.  That sucked, but it made for a great time.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 3, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> For the last few sessions of gameplay, I have tried using a method popularized by Hankerin Ferinale (aka Runehammer of Drunken and Dragons) where everything in an encounter space or "room" has a single DC for rolls (e.g., AC for monsters, DC for skill checks, saving throws, etc.), and I put a d20 with the DC-side-up in the middle of the table for players to see. It speeds things up considerably while also adding a lot of transparency.




That's a pretty good idea from a speed perspective and abstraction.  What happens with DC's above 20?  ( I know, not likely for all things in a room)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 4, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> mmm.  I remember not mapping a dungeon well and getting lost.  That sucked, but it made for a great time.



  Lol.  One time we didn't map, and got lost in a crazy labyrinth, the DM just kept describing this endless series of 4-way intersections.  
She finally got sick of us and drew it:


----------



## Arilyn (Jul 4, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Lol.  One time we didn't map, and got lost in a crazy labyrinth, the DM just kept describing this endless series of 4-way intersections.
> She finally got sick of us and drew it:




Yep, time honoured tradition, especially if you hate mapping. Look vague, wander about thoroughly lost, until GM takes pity....

Course that only works for GMs with a heart...


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As far as "keeping the numbers secret" goes, in 5e, monster HP are standardized - well, that's been true since 3e.  And, damage isn't random either - your monsters deal average damage.  Granted, I think most groups randomize damage.




They are not standardized as far as hit points go.  What 3e and later editions do, is give you an average hit point amount to use if you don't feel like rolling the hit points up individually, much the same way that you can choose the average hit points for your PC if you don't want to roll them.  It allows DMs to be lazy about it if they wish(and I do it a lot).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2018)

Heck pcs having standard hps are the norm in 5e. 

And, Rand hps for monsters so I can fudge is a pretty weak argument from my POV.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heck pcs having standard hps are the norm in 5e.
> 
> And, Rand hps for monsters so I can fudge is a pretty weak argument from my POV.




Standard hit points are not the norm.  You can take it or roll, your choice.  It's not even presented as an optional rule.  It's baked in that you can roll, so rolling for hit points is as much the norm as just taking the average.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Standard hit points are not the norm.  You can take it or roll, your choice.  It's not even presented as an optional rule.  It's baked in that you can roll, so rolling for hit points is as much the norm as just taking the average.




Sorry, I misspoke.  Standard HP/level are a norm, not the norm.  The other option is, of course, rolling.  

It's been so long since I actually rolled HP's, that I honestly forgot that some people still do this.  Good grief, it's been almost ten years now for me.  4e and then 5e.  Heck, even in 3e we typically took standard HP values.  

Kinda like die rolling characters.  Again, it's been so long since I've done that, I've kinda forgot that it's a thing that people do.

I wonder if there's any sort of correlation there.  Between people who prefer larger degrees of randomness in their game and also prefer to fudge.  IME, there is, but, that's just purely anecdotal.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I wonder if there's any sort of correlation there.  Between people who prefer larger degrees of randomness in their game and also prefer to fudge.  IME, there is, but, that's just purely anecdotal.




I doubt it. You could just as easily see correlation between people who prefer to let the die fall as they may, and also being against fudging.


----------



## Sadras (Jul 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> It's been so long since I actually rolled HP's, that I honestly forgot that some people still do this.  Good grief, it's been almost ten years now for me.  4e and then 5e.  Heck, even in 3e we typically took standard HP values.
> 
> Kinda like die rolling characters.  Again, it's been so long since I've done that, I've kinda forgot that it's a thing that people do.




I would like to try it again, but it is not something my current table would relish, and I'm unwilling to flex my DM muscle within our social contract for that. However, with a new group of players it should be easy to incorporate.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 4, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> That's a pretty good idea from a speed perspective and abstraction.  What happens with DC's above 20?  ( I know, not likely for all things in a room)



I was trying out his Index Card RPG system - which is essentially a stripped-down bare-naked skeleton D&D d20 system - and I can't recall those sort of DCs. I don't think it would be that hard though to use a 20 on a d20 and then use a d10 for the additional values. 

There is another system mechanic that helps though: easy and hard. When something is "easy" in the encounter, then it is the encounter DC minus 3. When something is "hard" in the encounter, then it is the encounter DC plus 3. So you can distinguish between bosses and mooks through easy and hard.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I doubt it. You could just as easily see correlation between people who prefer to let the die fall as they may, and also being against fudging.




There's a clear correlation between both people who fudge and people who don't fudge, and disliking anchovies.  Just ask around!


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, I misspoke.  Standard HP/level are a norm, not the norm.  The other option is, of course, rolling.
> 
> It's been so long since I actually rolled HP's, that I honestly forgot that some people still do this.  Good grief, it's been almost ten years now for me.  4e and then 5e.  Heck, even in 3e we typically took standard HP values.
> 
> ...




Part of the point of the game, at  least for us, is to "roll the bones". I guess what you do must be fun (?) but it wouldn't be the same without dice. Some 
of us harken back to before the planet's crust cooled, and we used 4D6 as the basis for all rolls, in the early times, before polyhedrals were widely available.
Granted, it's just a game play style, but for some, many, still perhaps, a ritual one.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> Part of the point of the game, at  least for us, is to "roll the bones". I guess what you do must be fun (?) but it wouldn't be the same without dice. Some
> of us harken back to before the planet's crust cooled, and we used 4D6 as the basis for all rolls, in the early times, before polyhedrals were widely available.
> Granted, it's just a game play style, but for some, many, still perhaps, a ritual one.




That's where I am.  I simply won't use point buy or array, nor will I use static hit points.


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 4, 2018)

I admit to being a bit of a whore to point-buy, who wants a dull, boring character? And I'll also accept or use any other mechanic which makes the game more fun.
But we just love to roll the dice, and the game just wouldn't be the game, without it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> I admit to being a bit of a whore to point-buy, who wants a dull, boring character?




No character has to be dull and boring.  Characters are what you make of them 

Seriously, though, some editions had minimum bonus rules that if you didn't achieve, allowed you to re-roll.  Those are good ideas.  You don't have to be mighty in stats to be exciting and fun to play, but a seriously bad roll is usually a drag.

For me, though, point buy and array result in PCs that are too similar in stats to one another, and feel contrived(which they are since you pick them).  I much prefer the unknown of a roll, even if that roll generates numbers that you can get via an array or point buy.

In the 5e game that we are playing, we have 2 players rolling hit points, and 2 taking the average.  We all rolled stats.  So far at 5th level my rolls have me at +1 hit point over taking the average.  Woohoo!! Power rolls for the win!



> But we just love to roll the dice, and the game just wouldn't be the game, without it.




Agreed.


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 4, 2018)

It's interesting to see the characters different people create with the point buy system. Sometimes even more interesting to see what they 
consider the "dump stat" for different heroes.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 4, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I was trying out his Index Card RPG system - which is essentially a stripped-down bare-naked skeleton D&D d20 system - and I can't recall those sort of DCs. I don't think it would be that hard though to use a 20 on a d20 and then use a d10 for the additional values.
> 
> There is another system mechanic that helps though: easy and hard. When something is "easy" in the encounter, then it is the encounter DC minus 3. When something is "hard" in the encounter, then it is the encounter DC plus 3. So you can distinguish between bosses and mooks through easy and hard.





Just take a small dry erase board and write the DC.  Using a D20 is cute but not functional across the entire scope of the game system


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 4, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Using a D20 is cute but not functional across the entire scope of the game system



Maybe for D&D, but I was playing in ICRPG with its own idiomatic set of norms. The book recommends most DCs at around 12-15.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> It's interesting to see the characters different people create with the point buy system. Sometimes even more interesting to see what they
> consider the "dump stat" for different heroes.




I have my players roll stats straight down the line.  Then I allow them to swap one pair of stats so that they can put their highest number in the prime stat for the class that they want to play.  Most of the time their low score is chosen for them.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 4, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> The only thing I hide from my players, are unexplored rooms of a dungeon, the plot that I've prepared for them, and some stats of opponents. I've noticed that the DM screen is usually just there to indicate my authority as a DM, but I might as well put it aside. [...] Rolls for random tables I tend to make behind the DM screen, since the outcome of the dice has no meaning to the players, since they don't know what is on the random tables.



Were I to take down my DM screen I'd immediately have to replace it with something similar so I'd have somewhere to tack up all my tables, charts, notes, etc., that if put in a binder would grind things to a halt as I'd be constantly flipping through the binder. (and I also have a binder, for things not needed as often)

Also the players use it to tack up info on their side relevant to them e.g. watchkeeping order.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As far as "keeping the numbers secret" goes, in 5e, monster HP are standardized - well, that's been true since 3e.  And, damage isn't random either - your monsters deal average damage.  Granted, I think most groups randomize damage.



In 3e-4e-5e monster h.p. are standardized only if you want them to be.  Ditto damage.



> But, don't you tell your player's the save DC when they make a saving throw?  I do.  "The spell hits you, make a DC X Wisdom save to resist".



Never.

I just say something like "Somer, you need a saving throw".  Sometimes she'll in-character know or guess against what, other times (e.g. a hidden caster or any psionic attack) she won't have a clue.  EDIT to add: I do it this way because in cases where it's not obvious what she's saving against, if she fails the other characters might not know what happened to her and-or what caused it, only that she's down or acting funny or whatever.  And because the characters don't know the players shouldn't know either.



> I've never understood the idea that DM's need to hide information.  Get it out there.  The players are smart enough that they're going to know the monster's AC after the second or third attack anyway, most of the time, so, why keep it a secret?  Playing keep away with game stuff just slows the game down.



On a philosophical level I'm of the exact opposite view: the players should know and-or have to deal with the least amount of game mechanics possible.  That's what the DM is there for, to worry about that stuff; and the push - that started with 3e and continues today - to move mechanics to the player side irks me to no end, particularly as a player.

As a player I also really enjoy the sense of mystery that this secrecy can bring.  Had I not started DMing I'd be quite happy to never have learned a lot of the DM-side rules and mechanics, and just gone on playing. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 4, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> Yep, time honoured tradition, especially if you hate mapping. Look vague, wander about thoroughly lost, until GM takes pity....
> 
> Course that only works for GMs with a heart...



 "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"

<move>

"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"

<move>

"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"

<move>

"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"

<move>

"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"

...

A few years ago I actually worked this into a dungeon I wrote and ran..... 

Lan-"heartless"-efan


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 4, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Maybe for D&D, but I was playing in ICRPG with its own idiomatic set of norms. The book recommends most DCs at around 12-15.




That's fine, but I was replying to a post that was specifically referring to D&D, so my reply needs to be taken in that context and not yours.

Agreed if all DC's ever are going to be under 20, then using a D20 is fine.

Be well
KB


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I have my players roll stats straight down the line.  Then I allow them to swap one pair of stats so that they can put their highest number in the prime stat for the class that they want to play.  Most of the time their low score is chosen for them.




As I recall, don't you roll 5d6 drop 2 for chargen?  I seen to recall that from another conversation.

So, realistically, not really much of a chance of a low score and very good chances of high scores.  IOW, cheating in anything but name.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 4, 2018)

I'm with Lanefan on keeping information secret from players.  I don't even tell them the name of the monster.  I describe it.  Now if they are very familiar with the monster, I may give them the name.  But new monsters I don't.

It's part of my quest to keep the players in-character.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 4, 2018)

The DM can't really cheat.  Rule 0 overrides all other rules.  Everything after rule 0 is an advisory to the DM on how to properly use rule 0.

So "cheat" should not be the world we use.  "Fudge" maybe?


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"heartless"-efan




That surpassed heartless and ran head first into cruel.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As I recall, don't you roll 5d6 drop 2 for chargen?  I seen to recall that from another conversation.




Not quite.  It's 4d6 straight down, but I give them the option to have 2 rolls at 5d6 drop 2, and 2 rolls at 3d6 straight up.  It's a gamble they sometimes take and sometimes don't.



> So, realistically, not really much of a chance of a low score and very good chances of high scores.  IOW, cheating in anything but name.




First, it's not what I give.  Second, I play in a game where the DM does give 5d6 drop the lowest 2 and low numbers still make it into stats a lot of the time.  He plays a harsher world, though, so the higher stats are sort of a necessity.

Edit: Third, even if it was 5d6 drop 2 the entire way, it's still not cheating in any form whatsoever, since they would be following a rule that I made, so it's not possible for it to be cheating, or even fudging.  Hell, it's not even unfair since they would all get it.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 5, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As I recall, don't you roll 5d6 drop 2 for chargen?  I seen to recall that from another conversation.



No, that's us who do that. (though Max might do so as well, I think you're remembering our crew)


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 5, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Were I to take down my DM screen I'd immediately have to replace it with something similar so I'd have somewhere to tack up all my tables, charts, notes, etc., that if put in a binder would grind things to a halt as I'd be constantly flipping through the binder.




I have reached the point where I might need to put all the random tables in a binder of their own, instead of together with all my maps and campaign notes. Because that binder is about to explode.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jul 5, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I have reached the point where I might need to put all the random tables in a binder of their own, instead of together with all my maps and campaign notes. Because that binder is about to explode.




I started recreating all my random tables in Google Docs. I am almost to the point where all I have in front of me while DMing is my iPad, a notebook, a pencil, and a single set of dice.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 5, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I have reached the point where I might need to put all the random tables in a binder of their own, instead of together with all my maps and campaign notes. Because that binder is about to explode.



Maps have their own folder (and some player-facing ones are online as well).  Campaign notes have their own folders and boxes scattered around the room.

My "red book" binder is for DM-only tables and charts, magic item lists and prices, homebrew monster and magic item write-ups, and other things I find useful to have close to hand during a session but might not need all the time.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 5, 2018)

Jacob Marley said:


> I started recreating all my random tables in Google Docs. I am almost to the point where all I have in front of me while DMing is my iPad, a notebook, a pencil, and a single set of dice.



Quicker for me during a session to look at a piece of paper clipped to my DM screen than fumble with a tablet or phone and look it up online.

That said, I could put the tables into excel or something if I could find a way to fit a desktop* into the rather cramped space behind my DM screen.  Now you've got me thinking...

* - I've come to despise laptops/notebooks...I just don't get along with them.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I've come to despise laptops/notebooks...I just don't get along with them.




I only keep a Laptop next to me to play music and sound effects. I don't use it to look anything campaign related up (if I can help it), because I feel that takes attention away from the table. If I do not want my players to constantly look at screens, I shouldn't be doing it either.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As I recall, don't you roll 5d6 drop 2 for chargen?  I seen to recall that from another conversation.
> 
> So, realistically, not really much of a chance of a low score and very good chances of high scores.  IOW, cheating in anything but name.




How can following the rules for their game be cheating? By that measure, everybody using point buy or 4d6 drop 1 is cheating as far as I'm concerned. 3d6 all the way!


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 17, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> How can following the rules for their game be cheating?




Exactly!! If everybody at the table agrees to it - it's not cheating. That's been my definition all along. It seems the simplest and most intuitive.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 19, 2018)

I suppose it depends on the viewer really. A table that lets you declare hits, for example, isn’t cheating by your definition since the table agrees. But they certainly aren’t playing by the rules either. 

Are they cheating or not?  From their perspective probably not. But from any outside observer?  I’d say yes they are.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I suppose it depends on the viewer really. A table that lets you declare hits, for example, isn’t cheating by your definition since the table agrees. But they certainly aren’t playing by the rules either.




Sure they are.  The table makes the rules.  Official rules aren't sacred.  They can be altered or removed without it being cheating.



> Are they cheating or not?  From their perspective probably not. But from any outside observer?  I’d say yes they are.




They can't be.  An outside observer may not understand, but if everyone at the table is doing it, the outside observer can't call it cheating and be correct.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 19, 2018)

Just out of curiosity [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if the rules say you can cheat, is it cheating to cheat?


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Just out of curiosity [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if the rules say you can cheat, is it cheating to cheat?



How do you not see this as a fallacy of circular reasoning? And this is the sort of circular reasoning that "the GM cannot cheat" relies upon to perpetuate itself. 

Players: "You're cheating!" 

GM: "I'm not cheating; I'm fudging." 

Player: "What's fudging?" 

GM: "It's when I lie and respond dishonestly about dice results and mechanics." 

Players: "How is that not cheating?" 

GM: "The rules permit me to cheat." 

Players: "So if you are permitted to cheat, then you can cheat?" 

GM: "Yes, but I am authorized to cheat." 

Players: "So you are cheating?!"

GM: "No, because I can cheat." or even "No, because I cannot cheat." 

Players: /facepalm 

The GM just shifts the goal posts as convenient to excuse and justify their actions. 

If you are authorized to cheat and then engage in that act, then I would say that, yes, you are still cheating. Being authorized to do something so does not erase the nature of the act. Your parents may have let you cheat when they were playing Monopoly with you, but you would still have been cheating, no? 

If you want to cheat to make a more enjoyable game for everyone, then that's fine. But I would appreciate if GMs would be honest about the fact that they are cheating and not just hiding behind duplicitous doublespeak and the pretext of Rule 0 to do it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> How do you not see this as a fallacy of circular reasoning?




It's not a fallacy.  I happen to know a game where the rules allow you to cheat(it's not an RPG).  If I engage that rule and cheat, am I cheating?



> Players: "You're cheating!"
> 
> GM: "I'm not cheating; I'm fudging."
> 
> ...




That's how it would really go down.



> The GM just shifts the goal posts as convenient to excuse and justify their actions.




Um, no goal posts are shifted there. 



> If you are authorized to cheat and then engage in that act, then I would say that, yes, you are still cheating. Being authorized to do something so does not erase the nature of the act. Your parents may have let you cheat when they were playing Monopoly with you, but you would still have been cheating, no?




That's a False Equivalence.  If they ignore cheating, that's different from a rules change.  For example, if as a child I took a $500 bill from the stack that I wasn't supposed to have and my parents ignored it, I would be cheating and have crappy parents.  If on the other hand my parents and I added the Free Parking rule and put a $500 in the middle of the board for whoever landed on Free Parking, that would not be cheating if I landed on it and took the $500.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It's not a fallacy.



Circular reasoning is a fallacy, though you probably intend to argue that your circular reasoning is not circular. Perhaps by cleverly insisting that it's not circular reasoning because it is in fact oval reasoning. 



> I happen to know a game where the rules allow you to cheat(it's not an RPG).  If I engage that rule and cheat, am I cheating?



Unless I am mistaken, you answered your own question: you engaged in that rule _and cheated_ ergo you cheated. 



> That's how it would really go down.



If that were the case, then we would not be at 30+ pages of listening to people bending over backwards to justify their cheating as GMs, would we?  



> Um, no goal posts are shifted there.



Um, yes they were because the GM is being evasive about their cheating and shifting the goal posts to that end. 



> That's a False Equivalence.  If they ignore cheating, that's different from a rules change.



False Equivalence? You asked if you were authorized to cheat whether or not it would be cheating. In my example, the parents authorized the kid to cheat. Your question did not stipulate a rules change. 

But isn't ignoring the rules part of Rule Zero? But you are right that cheating is different from a rules change. And that is part of my problem with arguing about Rule Zero. (1) It encompasses too many various game permissions (e.g., house rules, gm fiat, gm fudging/cheating, etc.) to be of any real practical use, and in so doing, (2) it imparts too much carte blanche authority to a singular figure (i.e., the GM). As it stands now in this thread, Rule Zero essentially amounts to the GM forcing the other plays to submit to their whims in a game of Calvin Ball while insisting that its for their own good. Such a rule probably made more sense in the early days when the game was far more ambiguous and unknown, with the GM being the only real expert on the rules, but that is less the case with how many games are currently played. 

I would personally prefer if more RPGs made a distinction between House Rules/Game Hacks, GM Fiat, and GM Fudging, and possibly a few other permissions I am forgetting, instead of conflating all of them within the singular, but nebulous and potentially Social Contract-breaking, Rule Zero. 

House Rules/Games Hacks: that authority rests with the GM _and players_. Changes to the rules in mid-play should be discussed by all participants. 

GM Fiat: although ultimate authority makes the GM the final arbiter of the rules, the GM can and should discuss this with the group such that expectations are clear. 

FM Fudging: Let's call a spade a spade and just admit that it's cheating.


----------



## Sadras (Jul 19, 2018)

@_*Aldarc*_, out of interest, does it make a difference to the terminology you prefer if the act is transparent? 
i.e. if the _insert preferable word_ occurs in the open is it cheating in your view? 

The only reason I ask is because the USA Pres is allowed to make executive orders, but it is not classed as unconstitutional, similar in a way to the DM who is allowed to fudge without it defined as cheating, as that authority and power is given to them by the positions they fill.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would personally prefer if more RPGs made a distinction between House Rules/Game Hacks, GM Fiat, and GM Fudging, and possibly a few other permissions I am forgetting, instead of conflating all of them within the singular, but nebulous and potentially Social Contract-breaking, Rule Zero.



Or, for even more clarity, simply state right up front that there is a big difference between the GM role and the player role; part of which is that a GM can in effect do what she likes but a player cannot.

This then needs to be immediately either preceded or followed by an outline for both players and GMs on what it means to play in good faith and stay within the spirit of the game, whatever game it may be.



> House Rules/Games Hacks: that authority rests with the GM _and players_. Changes to the rules in mid-play should be discussed by all participants.



Fine in theory, but in practice if the GM wants to change a rule, chances are high to extremely high that it gets changed.

That said, major rule changes in mid-play are not often a good idea and are instead best done between campaigns, using lessons learned in one campaign to fix the next one.



> GM Fiat: although ultimate authority makes the GM the final arbiter of the rules, the GM can and should discuss this with the group such that expectations are clear.



Or, as I said above, the game itself should make this clear in both its PH and DMG equivalents.



> FM Fudging: Let's call a spade a spade and just admit that it's cheating.



And here terminology gets squarely in the way.  

Cheating is a negative term, describing something usually done outside the rules specifically to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or one's team or side.  But in the situation of a GM, I'd guess it's very rare she's "cheating" to give herself an unfair advantage - in fact she's probably doing it to unfairly give herself a disadvantage - which means cheating probably isn't the best term for it as what she's doing only meets half the definition: she's outside the rules, yes, but not looking to gain an unfair advantage for herself.

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Just out of curiosity [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if the rules say you can cheat, is it cheating to cheat?



 It's cheating not to.  But that's OK, because you're supposed to cheat, so you're not cheating... so... "Illogical, illogical. All units relate. All units. Norman, coordinate. "



Maxperson said:


> It's not a fallacy.  I happen to know a game where the rules allow you to cheat(it's not an RPG).



 Is it SJG's 'Munchkin,' a card game about kids _playing_ an RPG?  (That is, through the distorted lens of memory, pretty darn realistic.)

But, yeah, as the final arbiter of the rules, the DM (and in most cases GM) can override the rules, which may involve an action exactly like cheating, but that is not cheating, merely a privilege accorded DMs (and often a really good idea).


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Circular reasoning is a fallacy, though you probably intend to argue that your circular reasoning is not circular. Perhaps by cleverly insisting that it's not circular reasoning because it is in fact oval reasoning.




I'm not engaging any circular reasoning.  There is a game where the rules allow "cheating."



> Unless I am mistaken, you answered your own question: you engaged in that rule _and cheated_ ergo you cheated.



But if it's a rule, it's not cheating.  It's "cheating."



> If that were the case, then we would not be at 30+ pages of listening to people bending over backwards to justify their cheating as GMs, would we?




You're kidding, right?  This is the internet where you can get 30+ pages on which came first, the chicken or the egg.



> Um, yes they were because the GM is being evasive about their cheating and shifting the goal posts to that end.




No goalpost is being moved, nor is even an iota of cheating happening.  Nor for that matter is the DM being evasive.  To be evasive, someone has to be inquiring about it. 



> False Equivalence? You asked if you were authorized to cheat whether or not it would be cheating. In my example, the parents authorized the kid to cheat. Your question did not stipulate a rules change.




It depends on what you meant by "parents let you cheat."  If you meant that they didn't call out the kid when they saw the kid cheat, it's absolutely a False Equivalence.  That's how I read your sentence.  If on the other hand you mean let him "cheat" by changing the rules for him, then the kid wasn't cheating.



> But isn't ignoring the rules part of Rule Zero? But you are right that cheating is different from a rules change. And that is part of my problem with arguing about Rule Zero. (1) It encompasses too many various game permissions (e.g., house rules, gm fiat, gm fudging/cheating, etc.) to be of any real practical use, and in so doing, (2) it imparts too much carte blanche authority to a singular figure (i.e., the GM). As it stands now in this thread, Rule Zero essentially amounts to the GM forcing the other plays to submit to their whims in a game of Calvin Ball while insisting that its for their own good. Such a rule probably made more sense in the early days when the game was far more ambiguous and unknown, with the GM being the only real expert on the rules, but that is less the case with how many games are currently played.




The DM is given quite a bit of power, and with that great power comes great responsibility.  The DM has an obligation not to be a douche and abuse that power.  Fudging isn't an abuse, and in 5e is actually a rule, so no Rule 0 is even required. 



> I would personally prefer if more RPGs made a distinction between House Rules/Game Hacks, GM Fiat, and GM Fudging, and possibly a few other permissions I am forgetting, instead of conflating all of them within the singular, but nebulous and potentially Social Contract-breaking, Rule Zero.




I can understand that.  Some people would prefer games where there is no option for the DM to fudge or engage in those sorts of things.  Me, I prefer games where it's possible.  Responsible DM fiat has resulted in some of the most enjoyable games that I've played in.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's cheating not to.  But that's OK, because you're supposed to cheat, so you're not cheating... so... "Illogical, illogical. All units relate. All units. Norman, coordinate. "




lol



> Is it SJG's 'Munchkin,' a card game about kids _playing_ an RPG?  (That is, through the distorted lens of memory, pretty darn realistic.)




No.  The game I'm talking about is Illuminati from Steve Jackson Games.  It has an optional rule that if invoked, says that you are allowed to cheat as long as you don't get caught.  Then there's Cosmic Encounter which bills itself as the game that breaks its own rules.



> But, yeah, as the final arbiter of the rules, the DM (and in most cases GM) can override the rules, which may involve an action exactly like cheating, but that is not cheating, merely a privilege accorded DMs (and often a really good idea).



Not exactly like cheating.  The DM generally isn't doing it to gain unfair advantage.  It's almost always for the enjoyment of the players.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> In 3e-4e-5e monster h.p. are standardized only if you want them to be.  Ditto damage.



In 4e a monster stat block tells you what its hit points are. These are calculated by a formula that factors in monster level, monster role, and monster CON.

There is no provision in the rules for changing the hp without varying one or more of those parameters. There are some tables that systematically reduce monster hp in the interest of expediting combat resolution, but that's not something the rules contemplate.

And going the other way - increasing a monster's hp without increasing other stats - is really changing its role (say, form standard to elite), and there's good reason, if doing that, to make other concomitant changes, such as upping its action economy to elite levels, giving an appropriate XP award for an elite, etc.

In 4e most monster damage is listed as a die roll plus adds. And the rules make no provision for standardisation, although it probably wouldn't do any harm for a GM to just calculate and apply averages.



Aldarc said:


> that is part of my problem with arguing about Rule Zero. (1) It encompasses too many various game permissions (e.g., house rules, gm fiat, gm fudging/cheating, etc.) to be of any real practical use, and in so doing, (2) it imparts too much carte blanche authority to a singular figure (i.e., the GM). As it stands now in this thread, Rule Zero essentially amounts to the GM forcing the other plays to submit to their whims in a game of Calvin Ball while insisting that its for their own good. Such a rule probably made more sense in the early days when the game was far more ambiguous and unknown, with the GM being the only real expert on the rules, but that is less the case with how many games are currently played.



As far as D&D rulebooks are concerned, the earliest time I know of that the rules gave the GM carte blanche to ignore dice rolls and dictate outcomes via fiat and fudging was in 2nd ed.

In Gygax's AD&D books, the role of the GM as arbiter is primarily amount managing the introduction of _content _when random rolls deliver undesired outcomes (I think I posted the relevant passages somewhere upthread). This makes sense in a game with a large amount of random content generation, some of which is meant to feed into the generation of challenges but which a GM is in a position to judge to be going too far in posing needless frustration (or, if we're talking about treasure placement, is going too far the other way in generosity). But when it comes to action resolution, the only example of GM arbitration that Gygax suggests is treating a death blow to the PC of a player who played well but gog unlucky as some sort of unconsciousness or maiming instead, and even there he stresses that the fiated consequence must take into consideration what the monster has done (ie won the combat vs that PC).

In Gygax's discussion of saving throws there is a brief discussion of the GM's authority to adjudicate the fiction (so eg being immersed in water helps with saving throws vs fireballs), and Moldvay Basic has a more extended discussion of this. But none of this is about fiating outcomes either - it's about adjudicating the ficiton in a system which is intended to make the fiction something the players engage with and exploit for advantage, and which doesn't have a generic resolution system. (Contrast, say, Burning Wheel, which does have a generic resolution system and in which the default rule is that if a player plays the fiction to advantage, s/he gets a bonus die - in that system, there's no need for some extensive GM authority to make up or tweak resolution systems.)

Nothing in early D&D rulebooks suggests that the GM has the sort of carte blanche that contemporary rule zero advocates content for. That is an artefact of later books reflecting typical 80s/90s RPG sensibilities. (The same thing is found in White Wolf's "golden rule".)


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In 4e a monster stat block tells you what its hit points are. These are calculated by a formula that factors in monster level, monster role, and monster CON.



Though I'd known monster hit points were locked in in 4e module write-ups (as has been the norm since day 1) I never noticed until now that 4e locks monster h.p. in at the MM level as well.  3e and 5e give a suggested number but also give the dice and bonuses if you want to roll yer own.



> There is no provision in the rules for changing the hp without varying one or more of those parameters. There are some tables that systematically reduce monster hp in the interest of expediting combat resolution, but that's not something the rules contemplate.



Seems a little buttoned-down, that there's no ranges given.

Were it me I'd vary them up a little, if only to throw off MM-savvy players from knowing exactly how many h.p. a foe has.



> And going the other way - increasing a monster's hp without increasing other stats - is really changing its role (say, form standard to elite), and there's good reason, if doing that, to make other concomitant changes, such as upping its action economy to elite levels, giving an appropriate XP award for an elite, etc.



Depends how big a change you make, I suppose.  Going up by 10% - who cares?  Going up by double - yeah, now you're into a different pay grade.

But surely 4e gave the DM a method or guidelines for calculating xp for altered or homebrew monsters, didn't it?  If yes, and the change is significant enough to warrant a revised xp award, why not just use those guidelines?



> In 4e most monster damage is listed as a die roll plus adds. And the rules make no provision for standardisation, although it probably wouldn't do any harm for a GM to just calculate and apply averages.



Yeah, I was thinking of 5e there, which does give a standardized damage value followed by a range.



> As far as D&D rulebooks are concerned, the earliest time I know of that the rules gave the GM carte blanche to ignore dice rolls and dictate outcomes via fiat and fudging was in 2nd ed.



Which in a way isn't surprising.  Original 2e was in many ways a codification of what had become quasi-standard practices during 1e's run (well, that and some knee-jerk reaction to the Satanic panic), and DM fudging was certainly common enough long before 2e came around. 



> In Gygax's AD&D books, the role of the GM as arbiter is primarily amount managing the introduction of _content _when random rolls deliver undesired outcomes (I think I posted the relevant passages somewhere upthread). This makes sense in a game with a large amount of random content generation, some of which is meant to feed into the generation of challenges but which a GM is in a position to judge to be going too far in posing needless frustration (or, if we're talking about treasure placement, is going too far the other way in generosity). But when it comes to action resolution, the only example of GM arbitration that Gygax suggests is treating a death blow to the PC of a player who played well but gog unlucky as some sort of unconsciousness or maiming instead, and even there he stresses that the fiated consequence must take into consideration what the monster has done (ie won the combat vs that PC).
> 
> In Gygax's discussion of saving throws there is a brief discussion of the GM's authority to adjudicate the fiction (so eg being immersed in water helps with saving throws vs fireballs), and Moldvay Basic has a more extended discussion of this. But none of this is about fiating outcomes either - it's about adjudicating the ficiton in a system which is intended to make the fiction something the players engage with and exploit for advantage, and which doesn't have a generic resolution system. (Contrast, say, Burning Wheel, which does have a generic resolution system and in which the default rule is that if a player plays the fiction to advantage, s/he gets a bonus die - in that system, there's no need for some extensive GM authority to make up or tweak resolution systems.)
> 
> Nothing in early D&D rulebooks suggests that the GM has the sort of carte blanche that contemporary rule zero advocates content for. That is an artefact of later books reflecting typical 80s/90s RPG sensibilities. (The same thing is found in White Wolf's "golden rule".)



And all of this is somewhat countered in the 1e DMG when Gygax in effect says to the DM that it's your game to design and play as you like. (e.g. see the first couple of paragraphs in the preface - he sets this tone with the first words in the book!)  This in effect gives the DM carte blanche to kitbash, to tweak or change or ignore rules, and to make it "suit [your] personal tastes".

The next paragraph does go on to caution the DM against going overboard with such things, but the gate's already open by this point. 

Lanefan


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Nothing in early D&D rulebooks suggests that the GM has the sort of carte blanche that contemporary rule zero advocates content for. That is an artefact of later books reflecting typical 80s/90s RPG sensibilities. (The same thing is found in White Wolf's "golden rule".)




In the OD&D brown box, the introduction specifically says the rules are guidelines, and the word guidelines is underlined.

The Holmes basic introduction has similar guidance.

In the AD&D DMG it specifically says, “You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.” 

There are a few examples given and some guidelines both for and against the players.

It’s well documented that in Gary’s own campaigns that he used a much simpler set of rules that not only differed from any of the published versions, but changed frequently and often changed to suit the given circumstances at the table.

It was reinforced at the time that the DM has control of the game, in Dragon magazine as well as Gary’s own commentary in the rulebooks. Personally, I think the more explicit declarations in the DMG were indicative of Gary’s own thoughts on the matter, as it was a pretty common approach of his to clarify in print what it seems he believed was obvious in the first place, but was being questioned in the gaming community, either directly or indirectly through articles, 3rd party publications, etc.

I think 2e went farther in clarifying what had become a larger debate. Because if the intention was to follow the rules closely, I don’t find it very likely that they would have added rules that would take away that adherence to the written rules. On the contrary, I remember an interview with one of the early TSR designers saying that by introducing more rules they were empowering the rules lawyers over the DM, and reducing their ability to adjudicate as they wished, to which Gary concurred. 

The whole design of the game at the time kept the bulk of the rules out of the player’s hands, again in part I believe, because the adjudication and application of the rules was to be left in the hands of the DM and not solely a dependency on RAW or to the dice.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In Gygax's AD&D books, the role of the GM as arbiter is primarily amount managing the introduction of _content _when random rolls deliver undesired outcomes (I think I posted the relevant passages somewhere upthread). This makes sense in a game with a large amount of random content generation, some of which is meant to feed into the generation of challenges but which a GM is in a position to judge to be going too far in posing needless frustration (or, if we're talking about treasure placement, is going too far the other way in generosity). But when it comes to action resolution, the only example of GM arbitration that Gygax suggests is treating a death blow to the PC of a player who played well but gog unlucky as some sort of unconsciousness or maiming instead, and even there he stresses that the fiated consequence must take into consideration what the monster has done (ie won the combat vs that PC).




No.  It happens in 1e just like I showed you early on.



> Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon* yourself the ultimate power.* To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot.  By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it.




He gives you the ultimate power, not just to interpret the rules, but to change them.  Then he gives advice not to do it lightly since the players expect not to play a game made up on the spot.  He doesn't say you can't make up stuff on the spot, because he just gave you the power to do that, but he advises the DM to really think about it and use that power sparingly.  Then he goes on to reaffirm that it's the DM's game, though, and it happens the way he imagines and CREATES it.  That's carte blanche to do whatever you want.

He also says.



> Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability. *As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them, systems devised seemingly to make the game drag for players, rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favor of the mundane and ordinary.*




Here he is saying that while he is making these rules for the DM and players, he wouldn't want anyone telling him exactly how to handle things, and that he understands that he can't think of everything.  Those comments tell the DM that they should make the game(including the rules) their own.  He follows those statements with advice to the DM to keep an eye out for things that pull the game down for the group so the DM can change them.  I bolded that part for you.  More carte blanche for the DM.

You ignored it before, and I expect you to ignore it again, like you do to anything post refutes you completely.  I'll still point out to the others in the thread, though, when what you say is incorrect.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> In the OD&D brown box, the introduction specifically says the rules are guidelines, and the word guidelines is underlined.



But the game is described as a _wargame_. The rules are "guidelines" for adjudicaiton of the ficiton, of PC development, etc. There is not the least hint that the GM might just make up outcomes because they are "good for the story"/"good for the fun of the participants".



Ilbranteloth said:


> In the AD&D DMG it specifically says, “You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.”



And he then goes on to give two examples: allowing the PCs (and thus players) to discover a secret door leading to a new dungeon area (ie content introduction); and treating a death result against a skilled player who got unlucky as maiming or unconsciousness instead (which I mentioned in my post).

He also says that the GM's adjudication should _take into account what the monster has done_ in reducing a PC to zero hp; and that the GM should _always give a monster an even break_. There is not the least suggestion that something like the White Wolf "golden rule" should apply - ie that the GM is expected or entitled to fiat outcomes in the interests of "the story". That doesn't come into D&D books until 2nd ed AD&D. (When the game is not presented as anything like a wargame.)



Ilbranteloth said:


> It’s well documented that in Gary’s own campaigns that he used a much simpler set of rules that not only differed from any of the published versions, but changed frequently and often changed to suit the given circumstances at the table.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if the intention was to follow the rules closely, I don’t find it very likely that they would have added rules that would take away that adherence to the written rules.





Maxperson said:


> He gives you the ultimate power, not just to interpret the rules, but to change them.





Lanefan said:


> Gygax in effect says to the DM that it's your game to design and play as you like. (e.g. see the first couple of paragraphs in the preface - he sets this tone with the first words in the book!)



None of this is relevant to what I posted. I didn't say anything about _following the rules closely_ or _not changing the rules_. I talked about the sort of adjudication that the GM was expected to engage in.

For instance, how can anyone think that Gygax's DMG would support fudging combat outcomes when, in the first page of the introduction (those opening paragraphs that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentions), he says that while a GM _is _entitled to disregard a positive wandering monster roll where the players are playing well but getting unlucky and hence having their session spoiled, a GM _should not_ have the wanderers appear and then allow the PCs to easily defeat them or escape from them, because that would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game."

What are those precepts? That players who play well should have their PCs propser, and that those who play with little skill should have their PCs suffer the consequences. This could hardly be clearer across his PHB and DMG.

The precepts that underpin "rule zero" as some in this thread are presenting it - that is, that every outcome at every moment of play, that the signficance of every player decision and every player die roll is, in principal, a matter over which the GM is entitled to exercise unreserved fiat - are not found at all in Gygax's AD&D books.

His sole focus is on (what he calls) "skilled play".


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not engaging any circular reasoning.  There is a game where the rules allow "cheating."



If it allows cheating, then cheating occurs and it remains cheating. That cheating forms part of the game does not alter the nature of the act. 



> But if it's a rule, it's not cheating.  It's "cheating."



That's double-speak. 



> I can understand that.  Some people would prefer games where there is no option for the DM to fudge or engage in those sorts of things.  Me, I prefer games where it's possible.  Responsible DM fiat has resulted in some of the most enjoyable games that I've played in.



It's not a matter of whether the GM can or cannot engage in these things, but that these things should be independently delineated and justified. If we presume that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules, then some GM Fiat is necessary. Groups and individuals may prefer changes to the rules that are more suitable to their games. That's fine. But investing this into a singular person who can change this on their whims - whether it is done for the "greater good" (Greek chorus chants: _the greater good_) of the group or not - sits at odds with my own sensibilities that seeks a greater democratization of power and a deconstruction of the GM as Game God. 

It absolutely sends shivers down my spine every time I hear a game is referred to as the "DM's game" and not "the group's game," as if ownership belonged to the GM. It suggests a completely different, if not archaic, alignment of core gaming values.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But the game is described as a _wargame_. The rules are "guidelines" for adjudicaiton of the ficiton, of PC development, etc. There is not the least hint that the GM might just make up outcomes because they are "good for the story"/"good for the fun of the participants".
> 
> And he then goes on to give two examples: allowing the PCs (and thus players) to discover a secret door leading to a new dungeon area (ie content introduction); and treating a death result against a skilled player who got unlucky as maiming or unconsciousness instead (which I mentioned in my post).
> 
> ...




Question: How can anyone think that Gygax's DMG would support fudging combat outcomes?

Answer: It all depends on your interpretation of sentences like,

"As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game..."
"You have every right to overrule the dice at *any* time..."
"You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides."
"...but still the freakish roll of the dice...you should let such things pass...*Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation*"

What about in the context of the punitive approach that he recommends you take against (cheaters) people who read the books reserved for the DM in taking away a magic item or two?

How about in the context of advice like, "Throughout all of this - making decisions, playing roles, handling monsters - the DM must remember that he or she is in control. The DM is the judge, and it is his or her game.The DM should listen to the players and weigh their cases fairly when disagreements arise, but the final decision belongs to the DM. The Dungeon Master's word is law!" (Gary Gygax in _B2 - Keep on the Borderlands_. 

To me, what seems consistent in the advice is to "be fair" and "never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions (in overruling the dice). "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!" He goes so far as to say "Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with..." is a system shock roll to see if a character is resurrected. That is, by implication "any other die roll" may be tampered with. Which is consistent with "you have every right to overrule the dice at any time" but with this "one exception" which he explicitly states as "the one die roll that you should never tamper with.

You may consider the examples exclusive, in which any other application of _all_ doesn't apply. Others may consider the examples inclusive and that "all" means, well, all. His further writing in that very section supports that when you get to "one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with..."

You state: "There is not the least suggestion that something like the White Wolf "golden rule" should apply - ie that the GM is expected or entitled to fiat outcomes in the interests of "the story"."

I think that an example like, "you may wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining" is saying exactly that. Something that will "be especially entertaining" in the context of "the story." Because at the time, that _was_ the story. 

You ask "how can anyone think that?" But many, such as myself, would ask "how can anyone not?" While I don't remember a huge debate about this back in the day, for those that did debate it, the fact that 2e more explicitly stated it might be seen as validation that we were understanding the guidance of Gary in the manner he intended. Regardless, the way the game is written, it's not really a question of what Gary intended, it's a question of what each individual DM intends. because what is clear to me is that the rules state, in many different ways, that the DM is in full control of the game and the rules. 

The fact is, the rules aren't crystal clear, like many folks would like to believe. I'm not saying you are wrong in your interpretation of what Gary writes. Because it's a completely valid way to read the rules that way. But I also think it's a completely valid way to read it the way that I and others read it as well. And ultimately the only "rule 0" that matters is the one at the table you're sitting at. Back in the day that rule 0 was determined "solely by the DM." Nowadays it would be considered more appropriate for it to be determined by the table as a whole, but the DM might carry more weight, or at the very least be a tie-breaker.

Do I think Gary fudged rolls? Absolutely. In later interviews he even explicitly stated he did, but usually in the context of when he accidentally made an encounter too difficult or similar situations. To me, this discussion (and usually which side of the interpretation fence a player falls on) is all dependent upon trust and responsibility.

If the DM accepts the responsibility that it is their job to be fair and impartial, that they aren't playing against the PCs and that their "absolute authority" is granted solely for the purpose of creating an enjoyable experience for the players, and that something like fudging the dice is a circumstance reserved for a (hopefully) rare circumstance that it's compensating for a mistake that the DM themselves made, then there is generally no problem, and no accusations of cheating. 

On the other hand, if the DM takes this as the authority to do it their way, with or without consideration of the players, their characters, or what makes the experience enjoyable to them... Frankly, I think that's a bad DM who is not accepting their responsibility in the game. But there are undoubtedly DMs like that, and in those circumstances, a strict adherence to the written rules and die rolls becomes an aid in ensuring that the DM is "fair."

Regardless, what is and isn't considered cheating is determined by the group playing the game within the context of the rules. For example, if you're playing baseball, spitballs and the like are against the rules, and therefore cheating. If you choose as a group to play "1910 rules" or simply state that the rule about spitballs doesn't apply, then the use of a spitball is no longer cheating. It's within the rules. D&D is no different. If you sit down at my table, you clearly believe that if we're playing AD&D and I, as a DM, fudge die rolls, that I'm cheating. However, if you sit down and I explicitly tell you that at this table I reserve the right to fudge the die rolls (however rare it might be), and you choose to stay and play anyway, then it is not cheating, and that you've accepted it as so within the game at that table.

I do think that you're right in that the general approach of the game is that when you as a DM decide that a die roll is required, that you are generally expected to follow the results of the die roll.

But I also think that fudging, if used at all, should be within the context of what's fair first, and then taking into account the story/narrative/flow of the game depending on play style. The rules, as I read them, indicate that it's best to follow the written rules without modification the majority of the time. That "fudging" rolls is better done in the context of providing situational modifiers as appropriate before the roll, rather than altering it after its done. But, it's made clear that the DM has the ability to retroactively alter, or outright ignore, the roll of the die if they determine that it's necessary. This is in the context that this is a fantasy RPG and not a wargame. The rules are not absolute, but are guidelines, a framework, a "best practice" for almost every situation, but that that no rule can address every situation in a game as complex and free-form as a fantasy RPG.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2018)

His words establish the GM as a dictatorial autocrat. It's worth questioning Gary Gygax's position on game mastering. His authority on the matter may not be a position worth preserving, as it likely reflects an agenda that privileges his authority. Might Gygax as a Gamemaster who prefers gamemastering not have incentives to provide greater latitude of powers to his preferred play position? It backs this power in a rationality of the "greater good of the players," but is that just smoke and mirrors for preserving and propagating his power? 


There are game systems that limit/restrict the responsibilities and capabilities of the DM/GM/MC/Narrator/etc. In a number of systems (e.g., Cypher System, Powered by the Apocalypse, etc.) the GM does not roll. They are incapable of Fudging dice rolls. 

Powered by the Apocalypse provides a list of what a GM is permitted to do via GM-exclusive 'moves.' 

The Cypher System even affords the GM to create rules-narrative exceptions via GM Intrusions. So for example, the GM may hand the player 2 XP as part of an intrusion and say, "Yes, you did hit that Zuro'gonx* incredibly well with your critical hit, but it was perhaps too well. And now your axe is stuck in the beast." The player may then spend 1 XP to reject it, or they can accept the 2 XP and the narrative consequences, with them then giving 1 of the 2 XP to another player at their discretion. 

So it is not as if the loss of Rule Zero or Fudging would cause the foundations of tabletop roleplaying to crumble. 

* No idea what it is, as I made it up, but Numenera is weird like that so its identity doesn't particularly matter.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> None of this is relevant to what I posted. I didn't say anything about _following the rules closely_ or _not changing the rules_. I talked about the sort of adjudication that the GM was expected to engage in.




Carte blanche to do anything you want is not relevant?  Then what is?



> For instance, how can anyone think that Gygax's DMG would support fudging combat outcomes when, in the first page of the introduction (those opening paragraphs that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentions), he says that while a GM _is _entitled to disregard a positive wandering monster roll where the players are playing well but getting unlucky and hence having their session spoiled, a GM _should not_ have the wanderers appear and then allow the PCs to easily defeat them or escape from them, because that would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game."




Yes, it does support that.  That's what carte blanche does.  It supports everything the DM wants.  Now, Gygax himself?  No, he probably wouldn't support that, which is why he told the DMs to do things their own way, but be careful about what they do, and THEN gives his OPINION about how how HE does things.

What are those precepts? That players who play well should have their PCs propser, and that those who play with little skill should have their PCs suffer the consequences. This could hardly be clearer across his PHB and DMG.



> The precepts that underpin "rule zero" as some in this thread are presenting it - that is, that every outcome at every moment of play, that the signficance of every player decision and every player die roll is, in principal, a matter over which the GM is entitled to exercise unreserved fiat - are not found at all in Gygax's AD&D books.




Opinions are not precepts.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Groups and individuals may prefer changes to the rules that are more suitable to their games. That's fine. But investing this into a singular person who can change this on their whims - whether it is done for the "greater good" (Greek chorus chants: _the greater good_) of the group or not - sits at odds with my own sensibilities that seeks a greater democratization of power and a deconstruction of the GM as Game God.




And you aren't alone in that.  That's why so many games were created that minimize that sort of thing, and why groups of like minded people congregate.  The same thing holds true for those of us who enjoy fiat greatly and like a DM with that sort of power.  Assuming he isn't a douche and doesn't abuse it.

One of the guys in my group was more like you, but recently(a few years ago) started DMing.  More and more as he sits on that side of things, he's appreciating DM fiat and what it can do for the game.  Right now he sits somewhere between you and me on the spectrum I think.  I don't think he will ever get to where I am on the spectrum, though, as he likes things to be structured.



> It absolutely sends shivers down my spine every time I hear a game is referred to as the "DM's game" and not "the group's game," as if ownership belonged to the GM. It suggests a completely different, if not archaic, alignment of core gaming values.



It's like co-ownership in a business, where the DM has an 80% stake and the 4 players have 5% each.  It's not the DM's game, but on the other hand it is since he has 80%.  That said, if he abuses that power and authority, the others will sell their stake and leave, and 100% ownership of a roleplaying game is very lonely.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> If it allows cheating, then cheating occurs and it remains cheating. That cheating forms part of the game does not alter the nature of the act.




This is one thing that I just disagree with. If the rules allow something, then by definition it cannot be cheating. The context of cheating often centers around not altering the roll of the dice. You get what you get. However, the halfling lucky trait says that if you roll a 1, you can reroll it. That is not cheating in any way (well, you might "cheat death" as a result, but that's not the kind of cheating we're talking about).

If the rules explicitly say, "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to" and the group decides this is a rule that they accept, then it is not cheating for the DM to do so. It's that simple. 



Aldarc said:


> It's not a matter of whether the GM can or cannot engage in these things, but that these things should be independently delineated and justified. If we presume that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules, then some GM Fiat is necessary. Groups and individuals may prefer changes to the rules that are more suitable to their games. That's fine. But investing this into a singular person who can change this on their whims - whether it is done for the "greater good" (Greek chorus chants: _the greater good_) of the group or not - sits at odds with my own sensibilities that seeks a greater democratization of power and a deconstruction of the GM as Game God.
> 
> It absolutely sends shivers down my spine every time I hear a game is referred to as the "DM's game" and not "the group's game," as if ownership belonged to the GM. It suggests a completely different, if not archaic, alignment of core gaming values.




Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that such a game is not a valid approach, nor is it cheating in any way. The fact is, that even within the context of AD&D (and others from the era, like the Holmes basic set) that specifically spell out the game as the "DM's game" it's still done so in the context of fairness and a responsibility to the players. It's a, "hey do you want to come over to my place and play in my world?" sort of "DM's game" and not an "I can do anything I want and screw you over" sort of game. 

I think that over the years, bad DMs, along with well-intentioned guidance has given the idea of the "DM's game" a bad reputation. But what exactly does it mean? I (and my players) consider it the DM's game in the sense that I decide what setting we're playing in, what races and classes are allowed, and what rules in general we are using. We have extensive house rules, most of which I've written. I take the responsibility of being the DM seriously, and spend a lot of time working on things like rules, story arcs within the world, and just generally being prepared to make each session fun and exciting. And yet, the last session is as good an example as any as to what that looks like in practice in my game. 

I currently run two nights, and a couple of the players play both nights. In each group, the players have multiple characters, and we have about 4 or 5 different character parties right now, all involved in events in the same time and location in the campaign. They often come together and then head off in different parties as the campaign unfolds. I see my job as handling the events and activities of the world and its inhabitants. In this example, one relatively important/powerful NPC was killed, and two others escaped, an attack by the Cult of the Dragon. The attack happened at a time and place where the PCs weren't present, but when things went awry, their attention was drawn to it. They have determined that the two that escaped used a magical painting to teleport to Waterdeep some 700 miles away.

On the other night, there are some other events entirely unrelated to this. The party on that night, most of whom do not live in the village, have determined that what they discovered is of importance to the village and wish to tell the authorities, which they do. Several of them also decide that as travelers, that the events of the night indicate that there are dangers here in town that they don't see any point in sticking around and they would like to leave and not wait for the caravan that they've been traveling with. So they head off to go shopping for supplies.

So in this session, two of the characters who are shopping for supplies, do so in the business of one of the PCs from the second night. So the first part of the session is the two PCs from night two at first interacting with a PC from night one, and then as they learn that these two travelers have information that may be of interest, fetching several of the other PCs (including two of the PCs of the players who are currently playing their PCs from night two). Probably a quarter of the session was spent with me as a spectator to the discussions and debates between the characters. After the two travelers left, further debate continued, and they gathered some of the other PCs that weren't yet present to decide on the best courses of action (there were several, and the parties were being formed in the moment).

The decision was made to then focus on the group of PCs that have decided to use the painting to head to Waterdeep to see if the two survived and what they can learn. This decision was made in part because one of the players is moving across the country, and he will have one session left before leaving. So I suggested we address the story arc that is most interesting to him right now.

So halfway through the session, where I have yet to really provide any input as DM other than to suggest that we do what he'd like, we find the PCs heading to Waterdeep. One of the players, however, has decided that none of his characters feel that they want to be involved in this particular direction. They are going to be busy addressing other pressing issues (of which this upcoming session will be focused on, because the friend that is moving won't be here this week). So they find that they painting deposits them into the sewers (they had already determined this). So I have a chance to explain to them what their options are (left or right, basically), and then what they find once they choose a direction. There was a bit of discussion amongst the characters disagreeing on how the character that opted to lead the way came to his decision. They found a secret door which led them into a tavern, which, they surmised, correctly, that the two they are following used to exit the sewers. It led into the Thirsty Throat, and the player who didn't have a PC decided he wanted to play the proprietor. So I gave him the description and personality, and a small bit of information, and now I'm once again the spectator as the PCs attempt to convince this man that they are in fact friends of the two they are looking for, and that if he knows anything (he does) he should help them. The information I provided is just enough for the player to handle the scene, but also generates more questions as to why he told them what he did and the manner in which he did it. The session ended shortly after they left the tavern through a secret exit he provided.

So in "my game" I, as DM, often am little more than a spectator or audient enjoying a play.

If you ask any of the players, there is no question that it's "the DM's game." In fact, it's not an uncommon comment for any of them (or players no longer currently in the campaign) to refer to it is "your game" or "Randy's game" etc. While I maintain it as "our game" when I talk about it or reference it, they always refer to it as my (the DM's) game. They are fully onboard with the idea that I have full veto power over character creation/background ideas, that the limitations set within my ruleset are how we play (ASIs are +1, not +2, you can't take a feat instead of one, gaining feats happen at different levels, there are save and die things like poison, critical hits can bypass hit points and potentially kill, or at least seriously endanger any level character, etc.). At the same time, I fully recognize that any rule, limitation, restriction, etc. that I want to impose must be accepted by the players at the table. In addition, like almost all of the rules of the game, I don't consider them absolute and I'm willing to consider exceptions given the circumstances and wishes of the players. The purpose of all of these are simply to provide an immersive experience for them to develop their characters and white their stories. While I can't say that some of them wouldn't want to play, say, a dragonborn, which don't appear in my campaign, they accept that the limitation is there for a purpose and they have plenty of other options and choices and run with it. 

I have no doubt that "my game" is not the game for everyone. I continue to approach it in the same manner I always have, based on my interpretation/understanding of the game as a combination of the Holmes basic/B2/AD&D DMG. The specific mechanics might change, but the underlying approach remains the same. I view the rules as being there to support the narrative, not define it. The narrative is written largely by the players, with me usually reacting to what they do, but often interjecting a new event, challenge, or whatever. I personally like there to be an underlying rule for everything, because it helps me adjudicate things better, and I think players respond better knowing that there are rules that define how things will work. But they also know that the rules are flexible to suit the circumstances.

For example, in one particular encounter, a rather large and strong PC decided to jump off the stairs and kick a drow in an attempt to knock them down and eventually disable them to question them. He rolled a 20. In circumstances like this in our rules, the drow gets a saving throw, primarily to avoid being knocked prone. It rolled a 1. Normally he would roll double damage, and the drow would be injured from such a blow, and there's even a possibility of death from it. All of that really just felt irrelevant. My ruling was simple - you've crushed the drow's ribcage, and he crumples to the floor, coughing up blood, and clearly dying. The PC had seconds to try to extract any information from it before he died.

Did I fudge? I don't know. I didn't change the die rolls, but I skipped any additional rolling proscribed by the rules, going instead with a dramatic scene that made sense. Is it cheating? I don't see how it could possibly be described as such in almost any game, but in our game we explicitly understand that the rules are their as guidelines, and this didn't really need any guidelines. A 6'6" muscular human just crushed a drow. 

When I asked about the ruling at the end of the session, it was unanimous that it's exactly what should have happened. It was also unanimous that there was no reason for me to question whether the ruling was appropriate. Their expectation is that I will determine what happens, with help from the rules, the dice, and considering the circumstances as described by me and them. They don't care what combination of those apply. The general consensus is that the less the players have to consult the rules, the better. They don't want to focus on rules or "play a game." They want to role-play their characters and their story within the setting I provide. That is, it's left entirely up to me to handle the rules and the adjudication and application of them. I don't think it gets to be more of a "DM's game" than that. But they don't want a "story-teller" game either. They want to know that there are underlying rules that help define the world, understanding that there may be exceptions to those rules. Most of the time, we try to work those exceptions back into the rules themselves.

There are three players in particular that are happy to work on tweaking rules, play-testing them specifically, and we agree that we should be able to mechanically represent how I run the game within a set of rules so others could use them if they want. And these three in particular help adjudicate when necessary, and help the other players (especially those that don't care to engage the rules), know what they should be doing. Our rules do change quite frequently. While we do let everybody know when something has changed, and they always have access to the rulebook online. But several of them really don't have an interest in them (and probably would really enjoy a story-teller game, one in particular has never really played D&D but loved playing Vampire: The Masquerade). So when something comes up that might have changed, we tell them what, and why, and the answer is almost always, "Oh, OK. That makes sense," and that's the end of it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> You state: "There is not the least suggestion that something like the White Wolf "golden rule" should apply - ie that the GM is expected or entitled to fiat outcomes in the interests of "the story"."
> 
> I think that an example like, "you may wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining" is saying exactly that. Something that will "be especially entertaining" in the context of "the story." Because at the time, that _was_ the story.



No. At the time there _was_ no "the story". There is exploring the dungeon.

What do _you_ think Gygax means when he says that fudging a combat with wandering mosnters would be contrary to the major precepts of the game?



Maxperson said:


> Opinions are not precepts.



Likewise. What do _you_ think Gygax means when he says that fudging a combat with wandering mosnters would be contrary to the major precepts of the game?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> His words establish the GM as a dictatorial autocrat. It's worth questioning Gary Gygax's position on game mastering. His authority on the matter may not be a position worth preserving, as it likely reflects an agenda that privileges his authority. Might Gygax as a Gamemaster who prefers gamemastering not have incentives to provide greater latitude of powers to his preferred play position? It backs this power in a rationality of the "greater good of the players," but is that just smoke and mirrors for preserving and propagating his power?
> 
> 
> There are game systems that limit/restrict the responsibilities and capabilities of the DM/GM/MC/Narrator/etc. In a number of systems (e.g., Cypher System, Powered by the Apocalypse, etc.) the GM does not roll. They are incapable of Fudging dice rolls.
> ...





The issue behind people's dislike of fudging is not that the number has changed. It's that the GM is imposing their will over the game, when in theory they otherwise don't have that capability. That the actions of the player and the luck of the die aren't the deciding factor, but the GM is. It's a question of how much power the GM has, more than it is the mechanics of that power.  People get hung up on fudging, but if the GM tells you after you complain that before they made the roll they determined that under these particular circumstances there was a bonus applied to the roll, and that's why it occurred, people have less of an issue with that. It's no longer fudging.

On the other hand. there are players that don't want the GM to have the power to make any such judgements. The rules state when a modifier is applied or not, and if those conditions aren't met, then the roll is not modified.

In story now games, the GM can absolutely still impose their will. It has to be done in a different way, and it might be more difficult, but the underlying problem can still exist. The GM intrusion you describe is essentially the same thing. In Cypher there is a mechanic to reject that intrusion, but the GM has still altered the results to their desire. In Apocalypse games, the players can't necessarily reject it, they have to find a way to work with it. Is it fudging? Cheating? Rule Zero? I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Many of these games seem to be designed to reduce the influence of the GM, as if it's a bad thing. They have rules, such as the ability to reject a DM "intrusion" to further reduce their power or influence on the game. Certainly there are ways to design a game that don't require a GM at all. But even without control of the rules, the GM will still have an influence on the game and the narrative.

I haven't played enough of those games, nor often enough, to claim any sort of mastery. All I can say is that they aren't the kind of game I enjoy. I really enjoy the AD&D-style approach of a GM that has near absolute control. Not so I can exercise superiority, but because I like the particular separation of powers. One of my goals is to allow the players to be immersed in their characters, and whenever they have to engage the rules, they are no longer immersed in their character. So if I'm in charge of the rules, then they can spend more time immersed in their characters. I love world building, I love writing rules, I love writing complex, inter-weaved narratives. All of these are things I can do without reducing the player's immersion and full control of their character within the game. The Gygaxian AD&D model is the best fit I've found, and more importantly, it's the model that seems to work best for the players in my campaigns. 

I enjoy the theory, and probably drive my players a bit crazy with it from time-to-time. But there's a difference between idealistic theory and what works well. I get it, there are plenty of folks who feel that rule zero or fudging are unnecessary, bad game design, lazy GMing, whatever. But this is, after all, a game. And as such the most important thing is that the participants are enjoying it. And for a large amount of the RPG population, these methods are not a problem. And that's really the only thing I object to, the idea that one approach is "right" and the other is "wrong" when the reality is that it really just depends on the participants.

And no, I don't think it's smoke and mirrors for propagating his power. While I don't always agree with all of Gary's specific rulings, overall in interviews and chats with him it's clear that he saw the purpose of the GM to be a fair and impartial referee within the game to provide a place for the players to explore and enjoy. The idea that Rule Zero or fudging might be used from time-to-time is dependent upon that responsibility.


----------



## kenmarable (Jul 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> FM Fudging: Let's call a spade a spade and just admit that it's cheating.




Nice try, but I think a massive amount of the several hundred messages in this thread are debating whether that thing is actually a spade or not.  Hand waving away the entire discussion convinces no one.



Aldarc said:


> If it allows cheating, then cheating occurs and it remains cheating. That cheating forms part of the game does not alter the nature of the act.




And that is as logically contradictory as a 3-sided square. Cheating means breaking the rules. If the rules allow it, it isn't cheating, it's following the rules - by definition. The statement "The rules allow cheating." is either a logical contradiction or using specialized (or Bizarro World) definitions for those words that are far from their actual, normal use.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> No. At the time there _was_ no "the story". There is exploring the dungeon.
> 
> What do _you_ think Gygax means when he says that fudging a combat with wandering mosnters would be contrary to the major precepts of the game?




Every adventure they published had some background and story to it, however thin.

But my point was that his example specifically references ignoring or adjusting the die roll for the purpose of more exploration that “would be particularly exciting.” If you want to choose to believe that there was no story (which we know is not the case for all people playing D&D at the time because prior to AD&D Ed Greenwood was already playing D&D where the fiction was more important), the purpose was exploration, which serves the same purpose that story serves now.

To answer the question about the precepts of the game, it’s all about exploration and the activities they happen within the game. It’s not about following the rules without intelligent input. If the purpose of the rules was specifically to follow them the same way you’d play a game of Monopoly, then the role of the DM would simply have been the creation of the world and not the referee.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, it does support that.  That's what carte blanche does.  It supports everything the DM wants.



 Well, the DM supports everything he wants, unhindered by any part of his carte not being blanche...



> What are those precepts?



 The carte blanche you just mentioned:  the DM is final arbiter of the rules, so anything that does or does not happen in his game happens because he allowed it to happen, or made it happen.  Nothing happens because a player decision or die roll result or a rule or interference from sunspots or a benign deity (unless you count the DM as benign) made it happen.




pemerton said:


> What do _you_ think Gygax means when he says that fudging a combat with wandering mosnters would be contrary to the major precepts of the game?
> What do _you_ think Gygax means when he says that fudging a combat with wandering monsters would be contrary to the major precepts of the game?



 A question so important, we had to ask it twice (I know, you asked it of two different people, but if you ask a question around here, just anyone might answer - and is about to).

I suspect it was something along the lines of a Zen (or Sith) Koan, not a simple answer, but a conundrum to contemplate as the player struggles on his path of acquiring Skill, eventually exceeding his own DM and, finally becoming DM, himself.  Picture Keanu Reeves saying "There is no Rule...?"

... I mean, not really, EGG contradicted himself all the time.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 20, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> If it allows cheating, then cheating occurs and it remains cheating. That cheating forms part of the game does not alter the nature of the act.



If a game specifically in its rules allows cheating then by definition a player can't cheat, in that part of the definition of cheating is to go outside the rules...and so you end up with a paradox.



> It's not a matter of whether the GM can or cannot engage in these things, but that these things should be independently delineated and justified. If we presume that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules, then some GM Fiat is necessary. Groups and individuals may prefer changes to the rules that are more suitable to their games. That's fine. But investing this into a singular person who can change this on their whims - whether it is done for the "greater good" (Greek chorus chants: _the greater good_) of the group or not - sits at odds with my own sensibilities that seeks a greater democratization of power and a deconstruction of the GM as Game God.
> 
> It absolutely sends shivers down my spine every time I hear a game is referred to as the "DM's game" and not "the group's game," as if ownership belonged to the GM. It suggests a completely different, if not archaic, alignment of core gaming values.



Have some shivers, then; because like it or not it is the DM's game in the end. Why?  Simple: players are replaceable, but if the DM stops playing there is no game.

When I play in someone else's game it's because I've been invited to do so, and while usually these invitations have an open-endedness to them I'm also fully aware that they can in theory be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.  As a DM I take the same approach: I invite players into my game who I'd like to have there and who I think will more or less get along with each other and with me; someone who just walks in uninvited, sits down, and says "run a game for me" is in for a rude awakening which will include a boot to the rear.

Keep in mind also, most games I've ever seen or been involved with are played at the DM's residence.  FLGS situations* might be a bit different in that a DM has to run for whoever shows up and can't toss out a player until and unless that player's actions warrant such...but even there the DM still has final say over the rules and rulings within the game.

* - and AL play is different again, the DMs are much more restricted there in what they can do.

When a DM does something I-as-player don't agree with I can voice my objections, but in the end that's all I can do (other than leave the game, which rather defeats the purpose).  If all the other players agree with my objection, however, then a reasonable DM might have some re-thinking to do.

IME the worst and fiercest arguments come when half the players agree with something and the other half don't...particularly if the change was proposed by a player in the first place, which happens.  But in the end, it's still the DM's call.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 20, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that such a game is not a valid approach, nor is it cheating in any way. The fact is, that even within the context of AD&D (and others from the era, like the Holmes basic set) that specifically spell out the game as the "DM's game" it's still done so in the context of fairness and a responsibility to the players. It's a, "hey do you want to come over to my place and play in my world?" sort of "DM's game" and not an "I can do anything I want and screw you over" sort of game.



Exactly; though it seems some few did take the latter approach and kinda poisoned the well for the rest of us.



> I think that over the years, bad DMs, along with well-intentioned guidance has given the idea of the "DM's game" a bad reputation. But what exactly does it mean? I (and my players) consider it the DM's game in the sense that I decide what setting we're playing in, what races and classes are allowed, and what rules in general we are using. We have extensive house rules, most of which I've written. I take the responsibility of being the DM seriously, and spend a lot of time working on things like rules, story arcs within the world, and just generally being prepared to make each session fun and exciting. And yet, the last session is as good an example as any as to what that looks like in practice in my game. ... <snip a wonderful example of multiple interweaving parties> ...
> 
> So in "my game" I, as DM, often am little more than a spectator or audient enjoying a play.



Ain't it fun when the game just runs itself? 



> If you ask any of the players, there is no question that it's "the DM's game." In fact, it's not an uncommon comment for any of them (or players no longer currently in the campaign) to refer to it is "your game" or "Randy's game" etc. While I maintain it as "our game" when I talk about it or reference it, they always refer to it as my (the DM's) game.



I don't know how my ex-players (those who I've lost touch with) refer to my games, if ever they do at all, but common practice within our crew is to refer to the game by its world or region name, or a party name within that world if there's more than one.  Thus, I called my current game "Decast" as that was the name of the starting region, and the two parties currently active are usually called "Decast northern" and "Decast southern" simply due to where they've been operating (though that may change real soon as with any luck at all they're going to meet and interweave within the next session or two).  The game I play in is called either "Dafan" or - to distinguish it from a previous campaign in the same world - "New Dafan", where Dafan is the name of the world.  The parties are called "Main" (the one that plays every week) and "Legends" (a bunch of hoary old veteran characters from the 80's that we play once every few months).



> They are fully onboard with the idea that I have full veto power over character creation/background ideas, that the limitations set within my ruleset are how we play (ASIs are +1, not +2, you can't take a feat instead of one, gaining feats happen at different levels, there are save and die things like poison, critical hits can bypass hit points and potentially kill, or at least seriously endanger any level character, etc.). At the same time, I fully recognize that any rule, limitation, restriction, etc. that I want to impose must be accepted by the players at the table. In addition, like almost all of the rules of the game, I don't consider them absolute and I'm willing to consider exceptions given the circumstances and wishes of the players. The purpose of all of these are simply to provide an immersive experience for them to develop their characters and white their stories. While I can't say that some of them wouldn't want to play, say, a dragonborn, which don't appear in my campaign, they accept that the limitation is there for a purpose and they have plenty of other options and choices and run with it.



All sounds fine from here. 



> There are three players in particular that are happy to work on tweaking rules, play-testing them specifically, and we agree that we should be able to mechanically represent how I run the game within a set of rules so others could use them if they want. And these three in particular help adjudicate when necessary, and help the other players (especially those that don't care to engage the rules), know what they should be doing. Our rules do change quite frequently. While we do let everybody know when something has changed, and they always have access to the rulebook online.



The only caution there, based on past and current experience, is to watch out if the rule-testing and rule-suggesting players don't agree on something, or one suggests something another objects to.  The arguments can get nasty...

Lanefan


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Likewise. What do _you_ think Gygax means when he says that fudging a combat with wandering mosnters would be contrary to the major precepts of the game?




I think he means exactly what he says.  He says that there are rules(precepts) and that it's the DM's game to alter as he sees fit with the carte blanche authority Gygax writes into 1e.  Then he warns against altering the precepts without a lot of thought as it can go badly, and gives an opinion(not a precept) about how he feels the DM should do things.  It's very straight forward, but you will only write in half of what he says, leaving out the parts that prove you wrong.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, the DM supports everything he wants, unhindered by any part of his carte not being blanche...




I'll blanche my carte any time I want to, thank you very much.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'll blanche my carte any time I want to, thank you very much.



If you have to _blanche_ it yourself, your _carte noire_ isn't really doing you any favors...


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> It's that the GM is imposing their will over the game, when in theory they otherwise don't have that capability. That the actions of the player and the luck of the die aren't the deciding factor, but the GM is. It's a question of how much power the GM has, more than it is the mechanics of that power.  People get hung up on fudging, but if the GM tells you after you complain that before they made the roll they determined that under these particular circumstances there was a bonus applied to the roll, and that's why it occurred, people have less of an issue with that. It's no longer fudging.



Though I think you get to some really fantastic nuances in your argument, I also see other issues at play. 

(1) Double-Standards for the Same Behavior: Where there is already a gross imbalance of power, this particular imbalance becomes noticeably irksome when it comes to "fudging" and the double-speak used to preserve it for GMs while also castigating players who engage in it. And when pushed, the appeal for many GMs becomes... 

(2) "The Greater Good": I understand that there may be genuinely well and good intentions behind the idea of the GM fudging for "the greater good." But this amorphous defense casts too wide a net and becomes a lazy means of excusing nearly any and all fudging and a range of Social Contract-breaking behaviors. What I also find disturbing about this defense is the patronizing tone that often accompanies it: _"It was done for your own good."_ It's the idea that "I, the GM" know better than the players how to produce a greater amount of fun for the whole, and that I can engage in duplicitous autocratic behavior for the sake of achieving said "greater good." But is it the greater good? How does the GM know this? I have not seen much retrospection from GMs on this matter. This "good" and the GM's success in achieving it is taken for granted. Sometimes when GMs fudge for "the greater good," they potentially take away from many awesome and amazingly exciting moments for players. Sure, if the player had killed the Big Bad now, it would have taken a lot of wind out of the story that the GM planned. But whose fun is being served when the GM railroads outcomes like this? I don't think it is necessarily the players'. It's fine to be honest and say that it was your interests and happiness that fudging serves and not the group's. You, the GM, were disappointed by what happened. I would appreciate more transparency and honesty about it all. 

Let us imagine for a second any other game that required a referee, such as basketball or fußball. And that a singular ref decided to change the rules throughout play. They would lie about the results that the players and their opponents achieved. And they would hide behind telling the players, "I can assure you that this is all being done for the 'greater good' of your fun." Now, a sports game is not fully comparable to a tabletop roleplaying game, and I will readily admit that. But my point here, however, is that this would be inexcusable and infuriating behavior in other gaming contexts. And part of the key difference is that the GM exists as both referee and player opposition. And that would make the sports analogy even more infuriating. For example, imagine if your opponent in tennis was also the referee. Yikes. 



> In story now games, the GM can absolutely still impose their will. It has to be done in a different way, and it might be more difficult, but the underlying problem can still exist. The GM intrusion you describe is essentially the same thing. In Cypher there is a mechanic to reject that intrusion, but the GM has still altered the results to their desire. In Apocalypse games, the players can't necessarily reject it, they have to find a way to work with it. Is it fudging? Cheating? Rule Zero? I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Many of these games seem to be designed to reduce the influence of the GM, as if it's a bad thing. They have rules, such as the ability to reject a DM "intrusion" to further reduce their power or influence on the game. Certainly there are ways to design a game that don't require a GM at all. But even without control of the rules, the GM will still have an influence on the game and the narrative.



Not quite. In these cases, the GM "imposes their will" within guidelines. It is not a blank check. There are mechanics and guidelines for a GM providing an Intrusion in Numenera. There is a mechanical player payoff for it. The GM is transparent about when it occurs. There are mechanics for the player to reject it. Hell, Numenera 2 was released this month, and it further introduces mechanics for Player Intrusions. But in my prior example, the GM had not changed a die roll or the results. What was the desired result? The player sought to hit the monster. The player hit succesfully. /golf clap. The fiction reflected that fact. Damage was dealt. The GM Intrusion did not erase that hit. What it did was add a further complication to the fiction that follows from the established fiction: i.e., following the successful hit, the axe remained lodged in the beast. 



> I really enjoy the AD&D-style approach of a GM that has near absolute control. Not so I can exercise superiority, but because I like the particular separation of powers. One of my goals is to allow the players to be immersed in their characters, and whenever they have to engage the rules, they are no longer immersed in their character. So if I'm in charge of the rules, then they can spend more time immersed in their characters. I love world building, I love writing rules, I love writing complex, inter-weaved narratives. All of these are things I can do without reducing the player's immersion and full control of their character within the game. The Gygaxian AD&D model is the best fit I've found, and more importantly, it's the model that seems to work best for the players in my campaigns.



I am glad that this works for you and your players. If it works for you, then keep it up, and I wish you happy gaming. But I don't think that this a case of either/or. That strikes me as a false dichotomy, though it may be of benefit to you and your players, so I am glad that you find value in this approach. But I myself can't see much of a causal connection between "I want my players immersed in their characters" with "therefore, I prefer near absolute control as a GM and a separation of powers." While these issues may be casually connected via other related issues, GM Autocracy and Player Character Immersion do not seem causally connected. And there are many other systems where the GM has less absolute autocratic powers, but players are not regularly required to engage in the rules or break their immersion. Let's take this argument from the player side. I recognize your good intentions as a GM. You are concerned about my immersion as a player. But what I would be hearing as a potential player is that you feel that my character immersion and my ability to immerse myself in my character is dependent on your autocracy as a GM. You may not intend it to be taken this way, but this will be a potential implication that I would take away from this approach. 



> And no, I don't think it's smoke and mirrors for propagating his power. While I don't always agree with all of Gary's specific rulings, overall in interviews and chats with him it's clear that he saw the purpose of the GM to be a fair and impartial referee within the game to provide a place for the players to explore and enjoy. The idea that Rule Zero or fudging might be used from time-to-time is dependent upon that responsibility.



Okay, but please understand that I am naturally skeptical of it. 



Lanefan said:


> If a game specifically in its rules allows cheating then by definition a player can't cheat, in that part of the definition of cheating is to go outside the rules...and so you end up with a paradox.



Agreed, but there is little reason to preserve the rules paradox for the sake of preserving it. There are ways to write what it attempts such that it not a paradox. 



> Have some shivers, then; because like it or not it is the DM's game in the end. Why? Simple: *players are replaceable, but if the DM stops playing there is no game.*



That's not true though. DMs can and are replaceable, and they have been in a number of games that I have played. We have deposed and replaced DMs. DMs have left, and a new DM rose to take their place. I have done this on occassion as well. And some games ended not because of the DM stops play but because particular players left or all of them left the DM. The DM is less of a special breed than most DMs imagine themselves to be. And the sooner we can kick these myths to the rear, the healthier our hobby can become.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Just out of curiosity [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if the rules say you can cheat, is it cheating to cheat?




Well, that's the point of this disagreement isn't it?  If you are allowed to cheat, and you cheat, are you not still cheating?  Permission doesn't change the nature of what you're doing.  It's permissible to roll dice when you attack in D&D.  That doesn't mean that you aren't rolling dice when you attack.  That would be ridiculous.

So, yes, regardless of permissibility, it's cheating.  Of course, we don't call it "cheating".  We call it "fudging", so that DM's can still feel all warm and fuzzy inside and pretend that they aren't cheating.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> This is one thing that I just disagree with. If the rules allow something, then by definition it cannot be cheating. The context of cheating often centers around not altering the roll of the dice. You get what you get. However, the halfling lucky trait says that if you roll a 1, you can reroll it. That is not cheating in any way (well, you might "cheat death" as a result, but that's not the kind of cheating we're talking about).
> 
> If the rules explicitly say, "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to" and the group decides this is a rule that they accept, then it is not cheating for the DM to do so. It's that simple.
> 
> /snip of massive amount of verbiage.




Therein lies the disagreement.  Simply writing it into the rules that you can cheat doesn't suddenly make it not cheating.  It's that you've changed the rules to make yourself feel better because, while everyone knows that you are cheating, you don't have to call it that.  That's the whole point of the original article.  We added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating.  

But, like [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] says, let's call a spade a pointy digging implement.  It's cheating in everything but name.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> /snip
> 
> Have some shivers, then; because like it or not it is the DM's game in the end. Why?  Simple: players are replaceable, but if the DM stops playing there is no game.
> /snip




Having replaced more than a few DM's at groups, I'd say that this is not true.  DM's are pretty replaceable.  Granted, "a" player is pretty easily replaceable.  But, players?  Not really.  I've seen campaigns completely fall apart after losing 2 of 5 players.  And, really, if you've replaced all your players, you aren't playing the same game.  You are playing something loosely based on the old game, but, it's very much not the same.

I find the idea that the game 80% belongs to the DM is just a giant red flag.  I have gotten to the point where I have zero interest playing at this kind of table.  

It's really kinda like fudging.  The older I get, the less tolerant I am of fudging.  I sit down to play D&D.  Which is OUR game.  I have very, very little interest in playing YOUR game.  And I certainly don't want to run MY game.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, yes, regardless of permissibility, it's cheating.  Of course, we don't call it "cheating".  We call it "fudging", so that DM's can still feel all warm and fuzzy inside and pretend that they aren't cheating.




Incorrect!  We don't call it cheating or fudging.  We call them rules.  In the beginning Gygax had a game without rules, and everything was cheating.  Then he said, let there be 20 sided dice, 12 sided dice, 10 sided dice, 8 sided dice, 6 sided dice and 4 sided dice, and it was good, and they were used for the game, and it was no longer cheating to do so.  When you make something a rule, it ceases to be cheating or even fudging.  Fudging is only fudging, because that's the name that was stuck on the rule many years ago.  It really has no place.  If I alter a die roll or tweak hit points on a monster mid fight, I'm simply engaging a rule.  I'm not fudging or cheating.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Therein lies the disagreement.  Simply writing it into the rules that you can cheat doesn't suddenly make it not cheating.  It's that you've changed the rules to make yourself feel better because, while everyone knows that you are cheating, you don't have to call it that.  That's the whole point of the original article.  We added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating.




This can only be true if you completely re-define cheating.  Of course, then every rule ever made for every game is also cheating, since at some point those rules didn't exist and were only created to make the players feel better.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Incorrect!  We don't call it cheating or fudging.  We call them rules.  In the beginning Gygax had a game without rules, and everything was cheating.  Then he said, let there be 20 sided dice, 12 sided dice, 10 sided dice, 8 sided dice, 6 sided dice and 4 sided dice, and it was good, and they were used for the game, and it was no longer cheating to do so.  When you make something a rule, it ceases to be cheating or even fudging.  Fudging is only fudging, because that's the name that was stuck on the rule many years ago.  It really has no place.  If I alter a die roll or tweak hit points on a monster mid fight, I'm simply engaging a rule.  I'm not fudging or cheating.




And, if you or I were sitting at that table back in the 70's, you'd have a point.  Unfortunately, I doubt that either of us were there.  So, what's your point?  We're now going to include game development into the conversation?  Gimme a break.

In the absence of any rule, there can be no cheating, since there is nothing to cheat.  That's what Rule 0 was meant for.  The rules cannot cover everything, so, the DM needs to step in and make a ruling to keep the game moving.  No problems.

However, that's not what's being discussed.  What actually is the issue is when there is a perfectly clear rule that everyone at the table agrees to abide by, and the DM decides to abandon that rule, for only this specific situation, because the DM thinks it will make the game "better".  IOW, the DM fudge or, by any other name, cheats.



Maxperson said:


> This can only be true if you completely re-define cheating.  Of course, then every rule ever made for every game is also cheating, since at some point those rules didn't exist and were only created to make the players feel better.




Yeah, stop the merry go round, I'm getting off.  This is ludicrous.  The goalposts aren't even in the same zip code anymore.

Look, you can call it whatever you like.  Obviously.  That's precisely WHY we call it "fudging", so that DM's can feel all warm and fuzzy.  Me, I'll call it what it is - cheating.  

You are over ruling a rule for entirely personal reasons.  You're doing it because YOU think that it will give a "better" result.  That's pretty much the textbook definition of cheating.  The fact that you keep it a secret from the players because the players would hate it if they knew what you were doing tells me very clearly that this isn't a good thing.

Don't like the negative connotations?  Too bad.  Don't do it.  If you do do it, own it.  Embrace it.  But, don't pretend that it's something that it's not.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> And, if you or I were sitting at that table back in the 70's, you'd have a point.  Unfortunately, I doubt that either of us were there.  So, what's your point?  We're now going to include game development into the conversation?  Gimme a break.




You made the claim that making rules is cheating.  Not me.  If making rules is not cheating, then a rule to alter die rolls is not cheating.  There is literally no difference between making a rule about critical hits and making a rule about altering die rolls.  Both are now fair and game legal rules that make whatever they allow into acceptable game behavior.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Every adventure they published had some background and story to it, however thin.



Your "however thin" is my point. These weren't stories. The Talisman boardgame has backstory too, but it's not a story. The Warlock of Firetop Mountain has backstory, but it's not a story - it's an exploration-oriented single player wargame.



Ilbranteloth said:


> If you want to choose to believe that there was no story (which we know is not the case for all people playing D&D at the time because prior to AD&D Ed Greenwood was already playing D&D where the fiction was more important), the purpose was exploration, which serves the same purpose that story serves now.



I don't know why you're attributing obviousluy stupid beliefs to me. I'm not, and have never asserted, that all AD&D play followed Gygax's precepts.

I'm saying that _Gygax's books_, which do advocate those precepts, do not advocate a "rule zero" of the type that many in this thread have done.

And saying that "exploration serves the same purpose that story serves now", is like saying that cooking (on Master Chef) serves the same purpose as explosions (on Mission Impossible). I mean, I guess so, insofar as people watch Master Chef for cooking and Mission Impossible for explosions, but that doesn't mean we can learn about cooking by reflecting on explosions, nor vice versa.

Homogenising all ways of RPGing into some single thing is the antithesis of both serious analysis, and serious understanding of the range of play that is going on in the world.



Ilbranteloth said:


> But my point was that his example specifically references ignoring or adjusting the die roll for the purpose of more exploration that “would be particularly exciting.”



Yes. I quoted that passage upthread well before yuou did. I'm familiar with it. Likewise, in the same passage where he says that allowing victory over wandering monsters by fudging woudl be _contrary to the major precepts of the game_, he says that a GM can ignore wandering monster rolls in circumstances where players are playing with skill and another encounter with wanderers would be frustrating.

Which is my point. Gygax encourages the GM to judiciously modulate content introduction, overriding randmo content generation, in the interests of increasing excitement and reducing frustration (provided said frustration is not the result of bad play, which players are expected to suck up). But he describes fudging a combat outcome, by allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape, as _contrary to the major precepts of the game_.



Ilbranteloth said:


> To answer the question about the precepts of the game, it’s all about exploration and the activities they happen within the game. It’s not about following the rules without intelligent input.



To reiterate: no one in this thread, least of all me, is talking about "following the rules without intelligent input". I'm talking about _changing outcomes which otherwise would follow from the rules that have been applied_.

Being _about exploration_ isn't a precept. The precept, clearly, is that skilled play should be rewarded and unskilled player should suffer for it (within the context of the game). Hence Gygax's repeated suggestion (pp 9, 110) that:

If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. . . . When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!​
There is nothing magical about that precept. My own RPGing doesn't really adhere to it. But all that means is that I can't find advocacy, of my own approach to RPGing, in Gygax's DMG. Nor can those who adhere to the expansive reading of "rule zero".



Ilbranteloth said:


> there are players that don't want the GM to have the power to make any such judgements. The rules state when a modifier is applied or not, and if those conditions aren't met, then the roll is not modified.



If the game is a RPG and not a wargame or boardgame, then those conditions will include references to circumstances within the fiction. And then someone will have to make a judgement about the fiction, and the fictional positioining of the PCs. In most traditional RPGing, that person is the GM.

This has nothing to do with "rule zero" or fudging.



Ilbranteloth said:


> In story now games, the GM can absolutely still impose their will. It has to be done in a different way, and it might be more difficult, but the underlying problem can still exist.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think that your unfamiliarity with these games is showing in your description of them.

There are (at least) two ways of thinking about RPG mechanics. One is that they are a device that the GM might pay regard to in deciding what story to tell the players. Another is that they are devices for allocating (in various more-or-less complex ways) authority over the content and development of the shared fiction. This is not _reducing the influence of the GM_ unless we take the view that the default, for an RPG, is that the GM tells the players whatever story s/he wants. But that has never been the default except perhaps for a period in the late 80s through 90s.

Preferring the second approach to mechanics over the first, GM story-telling, approach doesn't mean that one thinks the first is _bad_. It's not a moral judgement. It's an aesthetic preference - for my part, if I want to be told a story I'll sign on for that, and if I want to play a RPG then I want to have robust mechanics that mean that the game is not one of storytelling.



Ilbranteloth said:


> The Gygaxian AD&D model is the best fit I've found, and more importantly, it's the model that seems to work best for the players in my campaigns.



If I signed on for a game of "Gygaxian AD&D", and then found the GM was fudging or doing other stuff _contrary to the major precepts of the game_, I'd be a bit irritated, for much the same sorts of reasons as if I learned that someone was playing with loaded dice.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. . . . When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!​
> There is nothing magical about that precept. My own RPGing doesn't really adhere to it. But all that means is that I can't find advocacy, of my own approach to RPGing, in Gygax's DMG. Nor can those who adhere to the expansive reading of "rule zero".




Not only is there nothing magical about that "precept," but it's not even a precept.  That's an example of Gygax giving his advice/opinion on what the DM should do.  It's nowhere close to being a precept/rule.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> EGG contradicted himself all the time.



Sure, but there is no significant contradiction in the AD&D DMG and PHB concerning how the game is expected to be played. The closing words of the PHB (before the Appendices) state that if one finds AD&D worth playing, one will find it doubly so if played well. And the preceding 2+ pages give advice on what "playing well" means - and nowhere is metagaming condemned (in fact it is advocated!, in relation to party composition, equipment and spell load outs). What is advocated is skilled dungeoneering - comprehenisve equipment lists, well coordinated spell load outs, a good plan, good mapping, trying to avoid wandering monsters, etc. In other words, it's much the same as the stuff that appears in the DMG paragraphs about adjusting die rolls that I quoted not far upthread!

As I said, I don't think everyone played like Gygax did. Nor did Gygax, obviously, or he wouldn't have needed to advocate it so strongly! My point is textual - the AD&D texts don't propound or advocate for a "rule zero" of the sort that is clearly found in the 2nd ed books, in 3E, and in Essentials. (But _not_ in 4e itself - I regard the change of text in the later Essentials books as a significant retrograde step, given that the whole schtick of 4e is that it runs smoothly without need to fudge outcomes.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> That strikes me as a false dichotomy, though it may be of benefit to you and your players, so I am glad that you find value in this approach. But I myself can't see much of a causal connection between "I want my players immersed in their characters" with "therefore, I prefer near absolute control as a GM and a separation of powers." While these issues may be casually connected via other related issues, GM Autocracy and Player Character Immersion do not seem causally connected.



I certainly do not find AD&D a particularly immersive game. My PC is rather poorly defined, and the world is very hard to grasp with the concreteness that I grasp the real world as I move through it.

Of "classic" RPGs, BRP type games GMed in a certain style are highly immersive. Of "contemporary" games, my favourites are 4e and Burning Wheel, though I suspect I could also get pretty into Dungeon World, and find that pretty immersive. 



Aldarc said:


> DMs can and are replaceable, and they have been in a number of games that I have played. We have deposed and replaced DMs. DMs have left, and a new DM rose to take their place. I have done this on occassion as well. And some games ended not because of the DM stops play but because particular players left or all of them left the DM.



Absolutely. I've been part of uprisings against bad GMing, and have withdrawn from games that started to suck due to poor GMing and seen those games end as others withdraw too.

From the social point of view, the GM is one player among the rest.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Not only is there nothing magical about that "precept," but it's not even a precept.  That's an example of Gygax giving his advice/opinion on what the DM should do.  It's nowhere close to being a precept/rule.



So you think that when Gygax refers to fudging combat dice being _contrary to the major precepts of the game_, he's wrong? About his own game?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> In the absence of any rule, there can be no cheating, since there is nothing to cheat.  That's what Rule 0 was meant for.  The rules cannot cover everything, so, the DM needs to step in and make a ruling to keep the game moving.  No problems.
> 
> However, that's not what's being discussed.  What actually is the issue is when there is a perfectly clear rule that everyone at the table agrees to abide by, and the DM decides to abandon that rule, for only this specific situation, because the DM thinks it will make the game "better".



Well, this is one of those points where the disinclination of some posters to actually analyse anything, or even to acknowledge that there can be different sorts of game rules serving different sorts of purposes, makes it very hard to talk coherently about various roles the GM might have.

In this thread, the following things have all been lumped togther as "rule zero" - and probably others as well:

* A GM describes a boulder as "large", and then a player says "I pick it up and throw it across the chasm", and someone has to adjudicate the fiction, eg in this case deciding how heavy the boulder is and hence whether or not the PC can pick it up.

* A player declares an action - say, "I throw the boulder across the chasm" - for which the system has no express rule (AD&D has no express rule for throwing boulders, for instance), and so someone (typically the GM) has to come up with a resolutin method;

* A player delcares an action - let's stick with "I throw the boulder across the chasm" - for which the system does have an express rule (eg 4e and 5e have rules for making STR checks for this sort of feat of athletics), and that rule includes various sorts of provision for circumstantial modifiers, and the GM applies such a modifier;

* A player delcares an action - let's stick with "I throw the boulder across the chasm" - for which the system does have an express rule (eg 4e and 5e have rules for making STR checks for this sort of feat of athletics), and yet the GM decides to impose a different resolution method, or perhaps fiats failure or impossibility;

* A resolution method has been agreed upon at the table, and the GM pretends to apply it but actually doesn' (eg by ignoring or fudging a die roll);​
The first sort of thing is found in most "traditional" RPGs - the GM has to adjudicate the fiction. It is also found to a significant degree in a game like Burning Wheel. In some "modern" systems, though, the determination of the ability of the PC to lift the boulder might be rolled into the resolution of a declared attempt to lift or throw it - eg if such a check fails, one possible narration might be that the boulder is so big even the strong PC can't lift it!

The second sort of thing is common in classic D&D, because it has few generic resolution processes, and rather has a whole lot of situation-particular mechanics (most of which involve searching for, listening at, or forcing open doors - which tells us something about what those early games were mostly focused on!).

The third is expressly advocated in AD&D (see eg the discussion of the adjuciation of saving throws in Gygax's DMG), although in my own experience it's rare for an AD&D GM to apply modifiers that aren't being read from a chart (so attack modifiers are common, because there are lists of those, but saving throw modifiers are rare, because these are stated as general principles rather than a detailed list). Most RPGs that I'm familiar with are pretty similar to AD&D in this respect, although not all: Cortex+ Heroic doesn't directly allow the fiction to modify resolution (it's mediated via Scene Descriptors), and in Dungeon World the fiction is expressed primarily by way of GM moves.

The fourth is not advocated expressly in many systems I'm familiar with, and nor is the fifth. The fourth, to me, smacks of arbitrariness if done unilaterally (why is the GM not going the first or third way?), though if the purpose of the variant is eg to save time at the table, and the player is on board, then that is a different matter. Many contemporary RPGs address this possibility expressly by having both "simple" and "complex/extended" resolution options.

The fifth - outright fudging - is to me a sign of limitations in the system. A well-designed system won't deliver results that need to be overridden. Look at the two examples Gygax gives: his need to fudge the roll for the secret door discovery to get to the "exciting" layer of the dungeon becomes unnecessary in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" approach to resolution (and I have used this in Classic Traveller on occasion to mitigate some of the issues inherent in that system); his need to fudge wandering monster rolls could be mitigated by having a rule for triggering monster rolls that factors in considerations other than time in the dungeon (eg a cap on the number or HD or whatever of wanderers while on the way to an objective, with that cap growing by X every time the party does a stupid/careless thing that makes them deserve all the wanderers they get - mechanics like the Cortex+ Heroic Doom Pool show how this can be done).


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So you think that when Gygax refers to fudging combat dice being _contrary to the major precepts of the game_, he's wrong? About his own game?




I think it's irrelevant to the power that he gives the DM.  He's right that it's contrary to the major precepts, but as he also acknowledges that the game belongs to the DM and the DM has the Gygax given ability to change every last precept as the DM sees fit, that he is right just doesn't matter.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Therein lies the disagreement.  Simply writing it into the rules that you can cheat doesn't suddenly make it not cheating.  It's that you've changed the rules to make yourself feel better because, while everyone knows that you are cheating, you don't have to call it that.  That's the whole point of the original article.  We added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating.
> 
> But, like [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] says, let's call a spade a pointy digging implement.  It's cheating in everything but name.




OK, so what are you defining as cheating? Because to me, following the rules by definition cannot be cheating.

I disagree with the assertion that we "added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating." We have no idea why they more explicitly stated something in the rules. Regardless, it really doesn't matter _why_ something was added to the rules. In American football it used to be against the rules to throw a forward pass. By your logic, every time a QB throws a forward pass it's cheating.

So again, what is your definition of cheating?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So you think that when Gygax refers to fudging combat dice being _contrary to the major precepts of the game_, he's wrong? About his own game?




I'm still not sure where you're seeing this. 

One of the examples in particular is specifically about combat:
"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such thins pass...*Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation*."

He goes on to say that there should be consequences if you are choosing to overrule the death of the character, but I think this is another place where it's pretty clear that the primary precept in the game in regards to the DM and the rules is that the DM has full control over the rules, and that you can alter them as written.

So one thing that comes to mind is that the interpretation of the rules is probably more important than the intent in many cases. I really don't know the intent Gary had at the time. I know in interviews he stated that he did fudge things when necessary. This included in combat situations, such as when he had designed an encounter as overpowered, which is one of the more common reasons I think DMs sometime fudge. His approach was usually to reduce the power of the encounter, such as reducing hit points, but there's a fine line between reducing hit points and increasing the damage done by the PCs. Most call this fudging.

Could be be wrong about his own game? Sure, why not. I think that it's not all that uncommon for people to state they believe one thing, and yet be proven that they believe another when you challenge that belief sufficiently, even if many won't admit it. Can I definitely say that Gary's comments regarding fudging in 2006 would have matched what he would have said in 1976? Of course not, people's opinions change.

You're adamant in your reading of the DMG as being "accurate" and I'm just as adamant in mine. It is quite possible for both "sides" to be right.

Regardless, I'm not really attempting to change your opinion on what Gary wrote or meant. While it is an interesting debate, ultimately the only thing to me that really matters in regards to the rules and what is cheating and what is not is what happens at my table. The rules as written are what they are. The rules as interpreted, modified, and agreed upon at the table is what is important.

My point simply remains that to a large number of gamers, particularly D&D players, over decades believe that the rules specifically give the DM the right to fudge rolls. This believe/approach was apparently a big enough thing in the pre-internet days that the authors of the game explicitly codified it into the rules. The primary author of the game also acknowledged that he did occasionally fudge as well. So I don't believe it is wrong, nor do I believe it's the only correct interpretation of the rules. But in the groups that accept this interpretation as correct, they are following the rules, and by following the rules, not cheating.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> However, that's not what's being discussed.  What actually is the issue is when there is a perfectly clear rule that everyone at the table agrees to abide by, and the DM decides to abandon that rule, for only this specific situation, because the DM thinks it will make the game "better".  IOW, the DM fudge or, by any other name, cheats.





Actually, one of the rules actually being discussed are the rules that state the DM is allowed to "fudge" or to modify or ignore a die roll in the moment. Whether that's the interpretation that the table has of the 1e DMG, or the more explicit rules in later DMGs, even if it's simply a house rule.

We are discussing this rule in the context that everyone at the table agrees to abide by that rule - that is, the DM has the right to use it, and the players will abide by the results, whether they were determined by die roll or DM. This is probably the most important aspect of this discussion: _The rule is agreed upon as a rule by the table_. At this point it is a rule of the game. As much as saying you roll 4d6 drop 1 for an ability score. Oh, but your table uses point buy? Why isn't that cheating? Wasn't that written into the rules just so players could have more powerful characters? 

The DM is not abandoning any rule, they are engaging a different rule.

The DM may be doing it for all sorts of reasons. However, in the context of the rules, the DM doesn't have to justify it, the rule simply states they can do it.

The idea that it being secret is wrong is also false. For a game of imagination, many people find they don't want a look behind the curtain because it ruins the immersion. We disagree, and have regular conversations about what I do. If I fudge a roll, I have no problem telling them. "Wow, that's the second critical in a row. How many hit points do you have left? One? That seems a bit harsh." I might rule something else, although most of the time I leave such decisions up to the player. In one case, I had trapped a sarcophagus. It was a simple trap, and they had been in the room several times and decided that it was too dangerous to deal with it, and felt there was nothing of value. Then, weeks later, they decided to return and open it. The tomb had been largely plundered before them, and it was clear that a great many much higher level characters had all met their end in the tomb. But they decided to do it. They were very clear that any dangers in this tomb that remained were far above their abilities.

Both characters took massive damage, but one was clearly not going to make it. I suggested that perhaps she suffered a significant injury, and he said, "no, I was down low, working my dagger into the seam and my face was 5 inches from it." So she was dying, and the other characters had a chance to get to town to see if they could bring somebody back to save her, but at that point it was just a matter of time. But it turned into a two-day ordeal and was much, much more dramatic than a simple, "you've died." 

One of the responsibilities of a DM, even back in the AD&D days, is to abide by the rules of the table. Although AD&D explicitly grants the authority over everything, even altering a die roll, the fact is, if the players don't agree to those rules, then the DM either has to change it, find a new table, or yes, cheat. And I agree, if you sat at my table and I agreed that I would not fudge die rolls, and I did anyway, you have every right be be angry because that's just wrong.

But what if I, as a DM, don't fudge. It's not something I've ever done, and I sit down at a table where the players tell me they don't want their characters to die, and they don't like resurrection? Sure, you could say D&D isn't the game for them, but I disagree. One of the original precepts of the game is "make it your own." It can be just about anything. You could write some new rules, but not everybody is good at writing rules. Also, rules for something that has to account for an endless number of variables can be difficult to write. It's far easier to allow the DM to adjust to the circumstances when necessary to ensure that the heroes always survive. It could be modifying the encounter difficulty, having a rescuer at the last minute, or a heroic moment, whatever. In most cases it's probably going to be just adjusting a die roll here or there to ensure that the combat is intense, but not lethal.

How is that cheating? It's not.

I do find it interesting that the primary rule that folks seem to hold onto is the die roll. While there are certainly groups that like more or less GM input into their games (which will vary based on the rules in play), the only thing that seems to be consistently labeled as "cheating" is die rolling. To me, at least in the context of D&D, the innovation of the game design is that it wasn't 100% dependent upon the rules. That the rules weren't rules but guidelines and tools to help the DM adjudicate whatever craziness the players come up with. Yes, for consistency I think it's important to follow the rules probably 99% of the time. In theory a better written set of rules would require deviating from the rules less frequently. But consider the directions game design has taken since D&D was released. Everything from Apocalypse Now-based games, storytelling games, rules intensive games like Hackmaster, Pathfinder, and D&D 3 and 4e.

What's unique about RPGs, at least what I found unique in the Holmes basic/AD&D that I started with, is that the most important part of the game is what happens in the game. It has been called many things - the fiction, story, narrative, etc. Whether explicitly or implicitly, that's always been there. The "adventure" is what the game is about. Every other game I'd ever played was all about the rules. The rules of the game tell you what you can do and when you can do it. D&D was different. While the rules were there to make the game possible, you were also encouraged to modify them to suit your needs. As a DM it was all about creating an exciting experience for the players. The rules were malleable, you could pick and choose what you wanted. As a player, you didn't really need to know many rules at all. You needed to know what die to roll to attempt something (although the DM could tell you if you didn't know), and you needed to understand a few simply concepts like hit points. You had some things you were good at, based on what you picked as a race and class, along with a handful of restrictions. Even more amazing - it wasn't competitive, it was cooperative. It was about working together as a team to overcome challenges, and you didn't have to worry about whether you were the "best" fighter. You were who you were, and all you had to do is tell the DM what it was you wanted to do.

So to me it was extremely clear that as a DM, my sole job was to provide an interesting and exciting adventure. The rules were important, but not the focus of the game. While that may or may not have been the intent of the designers, that's what I (we) took out of it. And it's clear based on the many, many people I've met, chatted with, and played with, not to mention the amazing breadth of RPG design it spawned, that I'm not the only one.

Plain and simple, the DMs job is to provide the adventure. The rules, as we understood them, allowed the DM to have control over every aspect of the game, including the dice, to ensure that the players are having an exciting adventure. It's that simple to me. 

I totally recognize that there are others feel completely different. Even from when I started playing there I have known players that like to master the rules of the game. Over the years I admit that I've had my own "RPG snob" attitude towards munchkinizers, min/maxers, power gamers, or whatever they might be called. There are, of course, all sorts of points in the middle. The real point, for me, is that there isn't one "proper" way to play D&D, or most RPGs.

While I say that I prefer the Gygaxian authoritative DM model, it's really in regards to the setting and adjudication of the rules. The rules in play are always a matter of agreement by all those at the table, and I'm always open to potential exceptions in my campaign as well. My role as a DM is always one in service of the players, and the rules of the table.  For example, I have never, ever, fudged a die roll at a table where a player stated that they objected to that, and I ask.

But at a table like mine at home, the player's expectations of my job are not rule-focused. The rules and the dice are not the controlling factors at our table, and that's entirely player preference. That doesn't mean the dice rolls mean less, but they are but one of many tools we use to make the game work. And not one of the many, many players that I've DMed would agree that my following the rules that we agreed upon at the table is cheating. Because it's not. Cheating is breaking the rules, not adhering to them.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 22, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> OK, so what are you defining as cheating? Because to me, following the rules by definition cannot be cheating.
> 
> I disagree with the assertion that we "added these allowances to allow the DM to "fudge" the rules so we didn't have to call it cheating." We have no idea why they more explicitly stated something in the rules. Regardless, it really doesn't matter _why_ something was added to the rules. In American football it used to be against the rules to throw a forward pass. By your logic, every time a QB throws a forward pass it's cheating.
> 
> So again, what is your definition of cheating?




When you change the result of a die, what rule are you following?  

And, even if you want to point to "rulings not rules" or some other vaguely defined term, it's cheating, even if the rules kinda/sorta give you permission to do so.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 22, 2018)

With apologies (well, not really) to REM:

EVERYBODY CHEATS

When the game is long
And the fight, the fight is yours alone
And it seems you've reached the end
Of this life, well hang on

Don't give up quite yet
'Cause everybody lies
And everybody cheats sometimes

Sometimes everything goes wrong
And the plans don't play along
And your P-C's dying soon (roll on, roll on)
But you can't face letting go (hold on)
Well it doesn't take that much
To just cheat, and roll on

'Cause everybody cheats
And messes with their friends
Everybody cheats
Don't read the dice, oh no

Don't read the dice
If you feel they'll do you wrong
No, no, no, make it up instead

If you're sinking fast in this game
There's ways to turn it round
When you think you can get away with it, hey you can

Well, everybody cheats sometimes
Everybody lies
And everybody cheats sometimes
And everybody cheats sometimes

So roll on, roll on
Roll on, roll on, roll on, roll on, roll on, roll on
Everybody cheats

No, no, no, no you are not alone.

Lan-"the easiest rewordings are those where you hardly have to change the original words at all to give it a whole new meaning"-efan


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> When you change the result of a die, what rule are you following?
> 
> And, even if you want to point to "rulings not rules" or some other vaguely defined term, it's cheating, even if the rules kinda/sorta give you permission to do so.




Well there are plenty of examples in the thread already, and like I said it matters what rules the table has. But here’s one from the 5e DMG:

“Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. 
Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks-or worse, that you're playing favorites.”

It’s not a vague reference, it’s a rule specifically allowing the DM to fudge rolls.

And if you’re just going to keep repeating your mantra that it’s still cheating even if the rules say you can do it, then there’s no point in discussing it.

Bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, cheating is breaking the rules. Period. I think that definition would be accepted by almost anyone playing any game. 

I’ve already pointed out that there are plenty of other rules in 5e that allow the DM or a player to alter the results of a die roll. They also point out additional rolls that can be made in secret and the benefits of doing so. In AD&D these rolls were instructed to be in secret. Just because something is a secret also does not make it cheating. The fact that a DM fudging a die doesn’t have any fixed trigger other than DM discretion doesn’t make it cheating. The only thing that makes it cheating is a rule, published or agreed upon by the table, that the DM will not fudge die rolls.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> When you change the result of a die, what rule are you following?
> 
> And, even if you want to point to "rulings not rules" or some other vaguely defined term, it's cheating, even if the rules kinda/sorta give you permission to do so.




I also want to point out that I think that it’s a reasonable expectation when playing a game, even one like D&D, that something like die rolls are accepted as they lay.

When I started playing and read a sentence like, “...it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players,” and, “You do have the right to overrule the dice at any time...” it was a bit of an aha moment. That there’s something different about this and that the events in the game are more important that the rules, and the rules perform a different function in this game.

But because that is so different than what people might expect in a game, I also think it’s important for them to understand how I consider the rules, and what to expect when playing with me. I don’t assume they interpret them the same way (especially now since most of them never played AD&D), and make sure we’re on the same page. If I have to adjust, so be it.

The point is, that the rule is one that has to be understood and agreed upon by the table. This is the case with any rule. It’s clear there are people that disagree with my interpretation of the rules and that’s fine. The only place my interpretation matters is at my table. 

But to tell me Im cheating when we’re in agreement at my table and following the rules we agree to is wrong. 

Likewise, if your table says the DM can’t fudge rolls, then doing so would be cheating.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> I'm still not sure where you're seeing this.



I'll quote it again, from p 9 of his DMG, ie the first page under the heading *Introduction*:

The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well-thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. *No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. *Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them. If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance. The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play.​
I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between _introducing content_, which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and _resolving conflicts_, where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be _contrary to the major precepts of the game_



Ilbranteloth said:


> One of the examples in particular is specifically about combat:
> "Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such thins pass...*Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation*."
> 
> He goes on to say that there should be consequences if you are choosing to overrule the death of the character, but I think this is another place where it's pretty clear that the primary precept in the game in regards to the DM and the rules is that the DM has full control over the rules, and that you can alter them as written.



I have quoted that passage (from p 110) multiple times upthread. I will quote it again, in full, and emphasising some salient elements:

You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision *you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"* . . .

Now and then* a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character*. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or *invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done*. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character *when they have played well*. *When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!*​
In both the passage on p 9 and the passage on p 110, the distinction between _playing well_ (ie taking precautions, preparing sensibly, moving quickly and quietly through the dungeon, etc - all this stuff is spelled out in more detail on pp 107-9 of the PHB) and _failing to take precautions_ or otherwise _doing something stupid_, hence _deserving what befalls one_, is drawn very clearly.

And the need to _respect what a monster has done_ - so that a loss in combat still counts as a loss in combat, just not a fatal one - and to _always give a monster an even break_, and thus for instance not allow the PCs to easily defeat a monster or unnaturally escape from it, is likewise emphasised very clearly. Which only makes sense, given that _playing well_ means _making rational choices to overcome the challenges posed by the game_, and one doesn't _overcome_ challenges if the GM hands one victory by fudging.

Thus, as I have repeatedly said, I don't see that anyone can read all that Gygaxian text, and then conclude that he was advocating that the GM fudge monster hp to (sya) let the PCs win, or to delay a PC victory, or anything of that sort. That sort of thing would obviously _go contrary to the major precepts of Gygax's game_.



Ilbranteloth said:


> I know in interviews he stated that he did fudge things when necessary. This included in combat situations, such as when he had designed an encounter as overpowered, which is one of the more common reasons I think DMs sometime fudge. His approach was usually to reduce the power of the encounter, such as reducing hit points, but there's a fine line between reducing hit points and increasing the damage done by the PCs. Most call this fudging.



I think it's worth noting that what Gygax is advocating in the interviews you refer to _contradicts what he says in his DMG_. His advice may be good or it may be bad. But it goes directly against his direction to _always give a monster an even break_, to _not seriously harm a NPC_, and to _not allow the PCs an easy victory_. I am not talking about what Gygax himself did, or what he said in interviews. I'm saying that the classic D&D texts (AD&D; Moldvay Basic; OD&D and Chainmail as best I know them, though I don't know them as well; and I would assume Holmes also, though I know it least well of all) did not advocate GM control over outcomes in the way that the 2nd ed AD&D books, with their focus on the GM doing "what is good for the story" did.

I'll also add a personal opinion: I think that, in cases where an AD&D GM has made an encounter "too difficult" (whatever exactly that means), then Gyagx's advice to ameliorate the results of death blows seems to me to be better advice than adjusting the hit points on the fly. The result is likely to be a PC defeated but not dead, who then must be rescued by henchmen or associates, which seems the appropriate sort of outcome for a "skilled play", dungeoneering game.



Ilbranteloth said:


> a large number of gamers, particularly D&D players, over decades believe that the rules specifically give the DM the right to fudge rolls. This believe/approach was apparently a big enough thing in the pre-internet days that the authors of the game explicitly codified it into the rules. The primary author of the game also acknowledged that he did occasionally fudge as well. So I don't believe it is wrong



I don't believe that it is wrong. I do think it's a sign of poor design - unsurprising i the transition from Chainmail to AD&D, but by the time we get to 2nd ed AD&D a sign of an unwillingness to grapple with the reality that the rules for a dungeoneering wargame simply don't make a very good vehicle for playing something like Dragonlance.

To quote Luke Crane, in his discussion of Moldvay Basic:

I've a deeper understanding why fudging dice is the worst rule ever proposed. The rules indicate fudging with a wink and a nudge, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game." Seems like good advice, but to them I say, "Don't put bad die rolls in your game."​
(He goes on with the following:

To expand on the point: The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.

So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text.[/url]

I think that this is good advice also for Dragonlance play - if your system can't give you epic drama without the game becoming about what _the GM_ wants to happen, then it's a poorly designed system.)​


----------



## Hussar (Jul 22, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> /snip
> 
> Bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, cheating is breaking the rules. Period. I think that definition would be accepted by almost anyone playing any game.
> 
> I’ve already pointed out that there are plenty of other rules in 5e that allow the DM or a player to alter the results of a die roll. They also point out additional rolls that can be made in secret and the benefits of doing so. In AD&D these rolls were instructed to be in secret. Just because something is a secret also does not make it cheating. The fact that a DM fudging a die doesn’t have any fixed trigger other than DM discretion doesn’t make it cheating. The only thing that makes it cheating is a rule, published or agreed upon by the table, that the DM will not fudge die rolls.




Yup.  Totally agree.  There are plenty of rules in 5e that allow the players to legally cheat to mitigate outcomes.  I believe that would be the entire point of the original article.  That cheating has become enshrined into the game.

From the original article:



> Game masters have a phrase for cheating known as "fudging" a roll; the concept of fudging means the game master may ignore a roll for or against PCs if it doesn't fit the kind of game he's trying to create. PCs can be given extra chances to reroll, or the roll could be interpreted differently. This "fudging" happens in an ebb and flow as the GM determines the difficulty and if the die rolls support the narrative.
> 
> GM screens were used as a reference tool with relevant charts and to prevent players from seeing maps and notes. But they also helped make it easier for GMs to fudge rolls. A poll on RPG.net shows that over 90% of GMs fudged rolls behind the screen.
> Cheating Is the Rule
> ...




Call it fudging if it makes you feel better.  Doesn't change anything.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between _introducing content_, which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and _resolving conflicts_, where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be _contrary to the major precepts of the game_




Have we considered the radical idea that maybe Mr. Gygax _wasn't consistent_ in his writings?  Because earlier in this thread, it has been noted (multiple times, I think) that he *also* wrote that GMs can alter dice rolls to get the results they want.  I know, I am suggesting a saint may have been fallible... or not.  Maybe he wasn't a theoretician hard-case, OneTrueWay kind of guy.  Maybe, he actually was a little more pragmatic, and remembered that his game started as massivly house-ruled wargame and maybe being all hoity-toity about exactly how it should be done was not exactly intellectually solid.  

Now, of course, we could reject this, and can all cherry-pick the quotes that support our preferred way of playing the game, to demonstrate that our individual way is "more correct" (or at least more Gygaxian). I submit that way lies argument and frustration for all.

Alternatively, we can come to the conclusion that maybe there's sufficient support for any choice a GM is going to use.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Have we considered the radical idea that maybe Mr. Gygax _wasn't consistent_ in his writings?  Because earlier in this thread, it has been noted (multiple times, I think) that he *also* wrote that GMs can alter dice rolls to get the results they want.  I know, I am suggesting a saint may have been fallible... or not.  Maybe he wasn't a theoretician hard-case, OneTrueWay kind of guy.  Maybe, he actually was a little more pragmatic, and remembered that his game started as massivly house-ruled wargame and maybe being all hoity-toity about exactly how it should be done was not exactly intellectually solid.



Who's being hoity-toity?

Gygax talks repeatedly about _skilled play_. The closing words of his PHB say that, if you think AD&D is worth playing, you'll find it doubly so if played _well_. And the preceding two pages of text tell us what _playing well_ means in this context, as do the passages  [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have quoted from the DMG: it means preparing sensibly, having a plan of attack in relation to the dungeon, not being distracted by the GM's lures and wandering monsters, etc, in rulebooks that I think don't even use the word "story".

Obviously that's not the only metric for _RPGing well_. It's not a metric that I use in my own RPGing. But it is clear enough, and if that is how one judges skilled play, then certain consequences follow. Which Gygax himself points to when he says that certain GMing practices would be _contrary to the major precepts of the game_.

I don't know why it's so important to you and others in this thread to show that Gygax endorsed the White Wolf "golden rule" way back in 1978-79.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To quote Luke Crane, in his discussion of Moldvay Basic:
> 
> I've a deeper understanding why fudging dice is the worst rule ever proposed. The rules indicate fudging with a wink and a nudge, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game." Seems like good advice, but to them I say, "Don't put bad die rolls in your game."​
> (He goes on with the following:
> ...



Interesting and entertaining read. Luke Crane's discussion on running Holmes/Moldvay basic adventures had me curious about going back through Keep on the Borderlands, which happens to also include a section on being an effective Dungeon Master: 


> HOW TO BE AN EFFECTIVE DUNGEON MASTER
> 
> As Dungeon Master, the beginner is faced with a difficult problem. The DM is the most important person in the D&D game. He or she sets up and controls all situations, makes decisions, and acts as the link between the players and the world he or she has created. Perhaps the most common question asked by a beginning Dungeon Master is, “What do I do to run a game?” It is possible to read through the rules and become slightly lost by all the things that must be prepared or known before DMing a game.
> 
> ...



The dungeon master guide in this classic adventure does not say that the DM can or should fudge. My reading is that the DM's position as judge is contextualized rather than unilateral. The assertion that "the Dungeon Master's word is law!" is, for example, contextualized within a discussion on arbitrating player disagreements and arguments, whether that is between players or the players and the GM. 

It says that the DM will act as a judge, arbiter, and final word when situations arise that are not covered by the rules. Fudging, however, more often than not occurs in cases that _are_ covered by the rules. The DM wants to break the rules to change the outcome to a more desirable one, whether for the player or their campaign plans. But the goals of fudging - changing die results for "the greater good of the player" - would seem to run contrary to the advice given here, namely when told "As DM, much satisfaction comes from watching players overcome a difficult situation. But they should do it on their own!" Fudging breaks this precept pretty hard as it takes away from the players earning victory by "[overcoming] a difficult situation." We are even told that the DM should play the monster to the best of its ability. Fudging would likewise run contrary to this imperative, as it essentially handicaps the monsters and unfairly favors players from their "just rewards." 

Overall, this DM advice speaks well to what  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says about how the goal should be good play from the players and and that notions of "Rule Zero" was not as liberally interpreted to include DM-authorized cheating as it is now.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> When you change the result of a die, what rule are you following?
> 
> And, even if you want to point to "rulings not rules" or some other vaguely defined term, it's cheating, even if the rules kinda/sorta give you permission to do so.




So all you can come up with to counter our arguments is, "Yes it is!"?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> My reading is that the DM's position as judge is contextualized rather than unilateral. The assertion that "the Dungeon Master's word is law!" is, for example, contextualized within a discussion on arbitrating player disagreements and arguments, whether that is between players or the players and the GM.



Unsurprisingly, I agree!



Aldarc said:


> It says that the DM will act as a judge, arbiter, and final word when situations arise that are not covered by the rules. Fudging, however, more often the not occurs in cases that _are_ covered by the rules.



Right, this is the sort of thing I tried to do with my 5-fold analysis of "rule zero" upthread.

It's pretty uncontroversial, in most RPGs which have a traditional GM role at all, that the GM adjudicates the fiction if that has come under question (eg "Is my character in a position to jump across the chasm?").

And because classic D&D has no general resolution mechanics, but only particular ones (dealing with doors; fighting; a few other bits and pieces), it can easily come about that once the fiction is adjudicated, the GM also has to come up with a rule as to how the outcome will be determined. (Eg "Roll 5+ on 1d6 to jump the chasm - on a 4 you balk, on a 1-3 it's down you go!")

But more modern systems tend to have generic resolution mechanics, making this partiuclar sort of adjudication less necessary.

And as you say, fudging in the context of applying an established resolution system is quite a different thing!


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> So all you can come up with to counter our arguments is, "Yes it is!"?



...which would make his argumentative content consistent with everyone else in this latest top quality "yes it is" / "no, it is not" thread. 

Going back to an earlier point... 


Ilbranteloth said:


> If the rules explicitly say, "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to" and the group decides this is a rule that they accept, then it is not cheating for the DM to do so. It's that simple



I had also quoted this paragraph before. My reading of this paragraph in the 5e DMG, much like the preceding paragraph on players fudging, does not seem so much to be about permitting DM fudging as legal, but, rather, simply an admission that it happens and that DMs use the DM Screen as a means to "cleverly" enable their own cheating. Jaywalking does not become legal just because most law enforcement looks the other way or finds it beneath their trouble. 

Now if the DM and players decide that cheating is permissible, presumably within limits of some social contract, then it does not mean that cheating has ceased being cheating, but that certain forms of cheating has become permissible within play at that table.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't know why it's so important to you and others in this thread to show that Gygax endorsed the White Wolf "golden rule" way back in 1978-79.




For several reasons.  Some larger than others. 

F'rex, small one - if Gygax did it back then, then the thing has nothing to do with White Wolf.  It means that invoking While Wolf in this regard (which will perforce also bring up any associations the audience has with those games) is misleading.

The most important reason to my mind at the moment is that doing so keeps the discussion honest.  It is a significant and relevant item, and ignoring it while analyzing his statements on the subject will yield flawed results.  Cherry-picking will do that, as we all know.  When I see folks explicitly taking this in hand, and making it a consistent part of the philosophy that comes out of the analysis, then I'll feel no need to mention it.  

It is all well and good to say that Gygax supported "skilled play", and that he had a notion that he had a notion of "precepts fo the game".  He *ALSO* said that, all that theorycraft notwithstanding, there will be times you'll want to do this other thing, and that's totally within your rights and okay.  

Which is a good thing - because, to be honest, by modern standards, his experience with RPGs at the time he wrote his various advice was limited - it had to be, because RPGs were new at the time. That leaves his thoughts heavily influenced by selection bias.  Maybe they speak to the author's intent for things up through 1e, but not much more than that.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Who's being hoity-toity?
> 
> Gygax talks repeatedly about _skilled play_. The closing words of his PHB say that, if you think AD&D is worth playing, you'll find it doubly so if played _well_. And the preceding two pages of text tell us what _playing well_ means in this context, as do the passages  [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have quoted from the DMG: it means preparing sensibly, having a plan of attack in relation to the dungeon, not being distracted by the GM's lures and wandering monsters, etc, in rulebooks that I think don't even use the word "story".
> 
> ...




Why is it so important? Why is it so important to you to ignore the dozens of passages where Gygax explicitly goes against everything you quote?  

He's big on saying that you should do things one way, but that the game is the DM's and they should also make the game theirs by changing whatever they like.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 22, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I had also quoted this paragraph before. My reading of this paragraph in the 5e DMG, much like the preceding paragraph on players fudging, does not seem so much to be about permitting DM fudging as legal, but, rather, simply an admission that it happens and that DMs use the DM Screen as a means to "cleverly" enable their own cheating. Jaywalking does not become legal just because most law enforcement looks the other way or finds it beneath their trouble.




The cops don't give advice on when and how to Jaywalk, though.  The 5e rule does.  It's a rule, not simply an admission that it happen.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 23, 2018)

Umbran said:


> It is all well and good to say that Gygax supported "skilled play", and that he had a notion that he had a notion of "precepts fo the game".  He *ALSO* said that, all that theorycraft notwithstanding, there will be times you'll want to do this other thing, and that's totally within your rights and okay.




It seems to me nowadays that the "skilled play" approach has been in decline for some time.  I personally still play that way but I see a lot of alternate views out there that likely weren't back in Gygax's time.

When I was much younger, I used rule zero a lot more.  Nowadays I almost never use it to "fudge" a roll.  For some of the reasons people have given in that it steals the glory from the players for a job well done.  I will say that if I ever fudged a roll it would be extremely rare these days and it would likely be because I as DM made a mistake and I was trying to rectify what I had done.

I think it's pretty obvious that there is a tension even in Gygax's writings between fudging and playing it straight.  I expect he did fudge on occasion but not super often.  If the players catch you fudging you've lost them.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'll quote it again, from p 9 of his DMG, ie the first page under the heading *Introduction*:
> 
> The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well-thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. *No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. *Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them. If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance. The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play.​
> I have bolded the salient passage. Although Gygax doesn't use the terminology, he is drawing a clear distinction between _introducing content_, which the GM can manage in the interests of excitement provided that it doesn't give undeserving parties an unfair benefit; and _resolving conflicts_, where allowing the PCs an easy victory or unnatural escape would be bad GMing, because it would be _contrary to the major precepts of the game_




Yep. Note that he doesn't say "don't alter the rules," but rather "don't allow them to encounter monsters without consequence." He's already given permission to alter or ignore a rule (roll for wandering monsters every x amount of time), and stated that it's a better option than having a wandering monster and no consequences.



pemerton said:


> I have quoted that passage (from p 110) multiple times upthread. I will quote it again, in full, and emphasising some salient elements:
> 
> You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision *you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"* . . .​





This would be altering the results in the opposite direction - consequences should never seriously harm the party. But also remember that there should be consequences. 



pemerton said:


> Now and then* a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character*. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or *invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done*. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character *when they have played well*. *When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!*



This is more specifically about combat, although a player could also die from traps, etc. Once again he's allowing the DM to alter the results. One of the most common reasons (if not THE most common reason) a DM fudges is to avoid killing a character. But make sure there are consequences. Go ahead and alter it if you must, I'd recommend that you don't most of the time, but if you do, there must be consequences.



pemerton said:


> In both the passage on p 9 and the passage on p 110, the distinction between _playing well_ (ie taking precautions, preparing sensibly, moving quickly and quietly through the dungeon, etc - all this stuff is spelled out in more detail on pp 107-9 of the PHB) and _failing to take precautions_ or otherwise _doing something stupid_, hence _deserving what befalls one_, is drawn very clearly.
> 
> And the need to _respect what a monster has done_ - so that a loss in combat still counts as a loss in combat, just not a fatal one - and to _always give a monster an even break_, and thus for instance not allow the PCs to easily defeat a monster or unnaturally escape from it, is likewise emphasised very clearly. Which only makes sense, given that _playing well_ means _making rational choices to overcome the challenges posed by the game_, and one doesn't _overcome_ challenges if the GM hands one victory by fudging.




Agreed again. The DM shouldn't even consider fudging for stupidity. It's really a tool that is best suited for those circumstances (freakish roll of the die, a mistake made by the DM) where the rules of the game interfere with the excitement of the game.



pemerton said:


> Thus, as I have repeatedly said, I don't see that anyone can read all that Gygaxian text, and then conclude that he was advocating that the GM fudge monster hp to (sya) let the PCs win, or to delay a PC victory, or anything of that sort. That sort of thing would obviously _go contrary to the major precepts of Gygax's game_.




And that depends entirely on which words you feel are more important. For example, I don't recall a sentence as specific as "you do have the right to overrule the dice at any time," that states the opposite. The closest I'm aware of is also very specific (and exclusive): "Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead." Not "one of the die rolls," but "one die roll." This is in the same section you've quoted where he's quite clearly stated twice ("you have *every *right to overrule the dice *at any time*," and, "Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation."



pemerton said:


> I think it's worth noting that what Gygax is advocating in the interviews you refer to _contradicts what he says in his DMG_. His advice may be good or it may be bad. But it goes directly against his direction to _always give a monster an even break_, to _not seriously harm a NPC_, and to _not allow the PCs an easy victory_. I am not talking about what Gygax himself did, or what he said in interviews. I'm saying that the classic D&D texts (AD&D; Moldvay Basic; OD&D and Chainmail as best I know them, though I don't know them as well; and I would assume Holmes also, though I know it least well of all) did not advocate GM control over outcomes in the way that the 2nd ed AD&D books, with their focus on the GM doing "what is good for the story" did.




And yet, if you're understanding of the quoted passages is that the DM is similar to mine, he very rarely contradicted himself. Here's a whole list of them: https://orbitalflower.github.io/rpg/people/gary-gygax-quotes.html

Does that mean his opinion never changed? Of course not. What he says in later years is also colored by years of additional game design by him and others as well. But the overall thrust fits quite comfortably with the way I've thought D&D should be played.



pemerton said:


> I'll also add a personal opinion: I think that, in cases where an AD&D GM has made an encounter "too difficult" (whatever exactly that means), then Gyagx's advice to ameliorate the results of death blows seems to me to be better advice than adjusting the hit points on the fly. The result is likely to be a PC defeated but not dead, who then must be rescued by henchmen or associates, which seems the appropriate sort of outcome for a "skilled play", dungeoneering game.




And this is exactly what I think he was saying all along - that it's the DMs job to ensure that the consequences are commensurate with the challenge. If the consequences are not, either by die roll or DM error, then don't slavishly follow the rules or the die roll, because that's not the major precept of the game. It's not the point of the game.



pemerton said:


> I don't believe that it is wrong. I do think it's a sign of poor design - unsurprising i the transition from Chainmail to AD&D, but by the time we get to 2nd ed AD&D a sign of an unwillingness to grapple with the reality that the rules for a dungeoneering wargame simply don't make a very good vehicle for playing something like Dragonlance.




Well, the design team wanted to alter 2e quite a bit more than they were allowed, simply because it had to remain compatible with 1e. I think 3e initially handled the switch to new mechanics extremely well, but it altered the power scale significantly, although that wasn't immediately apparent either. Trying to maintain the general balance and feel of a game while at the same time radically redesigning the mechanics is a very difficult thing to do, especially since much of the feel is dependent upon the mechanics. This was extremely evident with 4e. But also with various OD&D variants such as Dungeon World that are directed toward a specific style of play (and then take it farther).



pemerton said:


> To quote Luke Crane, in his discussion of Moldvay Basic:
> 
> I've a deeper understanding why fudging dice is the worst rule ever proposed. The rules indicate fudging with a wink and a nudge, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game." Seems like good advice, but to them I say, "Don't put bad die rolls in your game."​
> (He goes on with the following:
> ...





And this is one opinion of the effect of fudging a roll. But in an RPG I see at least two points where a player's sense of accomplishment can be attained (and they aren't mutually exclusive). One is in the master of the rules, that is, the mechanics. We entered this dungeon, and through good play (including playing the mechanics), we conquered the dungeon. This is particularly important in organized and the old tournament play, where every table is playing the same adventure. Even if it isn't an official tournament, there is a satisfaction of being able to compare your group to others.

But in another approach, it's about the characters' accomplishments more than the players'. The rules are there to help the DM adjudicate the circumstances. It could be following an epic storyline like Dragonlance or Lord of the Rings, where the players are playing the known characters that cannot die for the story to continue. Things like resurrection in epic tales of this nature are not an option, because death is meant to be permanent. In LotR, Gandalf's return is more meaningful because Boromir did not. Had he simply been resurrected too, then it would have had less of an impact. Maybe D&D isn't the best design for this, but it works very well nonetheless. Perhaps something like Dungeon World is better suited, but for my tastes it loses the feel and flavor that I'm looking for when I play D&D. So it's not a good fit for me.

I totally disagree that you take it away, nor do I think it's a flaw. I think it's one of D&D's greatest strengths. That the rules don't control the flow of the game for the PCs or the DM. It's not just a wink and a nudge. There are statements throughout the OD&D/AD&D era in the books that are constantly instructing the DM to make the game their own. And they aren't just limited to the setting, they also state that if a rule isn't working for you, don't use it.

What it really comes down to from my perspective is how my importance you place on the rules themselves, and things like the dice. From a designer standpoint, "don't put bad die rolls in your game." Fair enough. But it's very, very difficult to do. Historically, each iteration of D&D has tried to clarify rules, it's easy to follow in the spell descriptions, and it was often done in response to "rules lawyers" and players that would find loopholes that allowed them to exploit the rules. Gygax and others from the era lamented the fact that the more rules they put in, the more the rules lawyers had to hold onto. That it often became a debate about the reading of the rules (like this), rather than playing the game. That adding and "clarifying" rules had more unintended consequences than benefits. 

For me, all we need is a set of rules that gives us a basic resolution mechanic, and some guidelines on how to set up difficulties, and that takes care of the majority of the resolutions. If it takes care of 90%+, and I have to adjust on the fly the rest, I'm good to go. I'm not worried about a rule set that can handle every situation without error, because it requires too many rules. I like the general rule structure and game structure of D&D.

I'm not saying your interpretation, or even the post you quote here is wrong. But it's also not right for everybody. And that's my point. The rules fully support these two and many other ways that folks want to play D&D.​


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> He's big on saying that you should do things one way, but that the game is the DM's and they should also *make the game theirs by changing whatever they like.*



I would say that houseruling new rules for the table is one thing, but that fudging the rules you supposedly follow is another. And I don't think that we should speak as if these the two matters equate with each other.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> ...which would make his argumentative content consistent with everyone else in this latest top quality "yes it is" / "no, it is not" thread.
> 
> Going back to an earlier point...
> I had also quoted this paragraph before. My reading of this paragraph in the 5e DMG, much like the preceding paragraph on players fudging, does not seem so much to be about permitting DM fudging as legal, but, rather, simply an admission that it happens and that DMs use the DM Screen as a means to "cleverly" enable their own cheating. Jaywalking does not become legal just because most law enforcement looks the other way or finds it beneath their trouble.
> ...




Again, this is where I disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and you.ere are a couple of definitions of cheating:

_Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination. "she always cheats at cards"_

And another:

_Act dishonestly, be cunning, be dishonest, befool, beguile, betray, break faith, commit breach of trust, cozen, deceive, defalcate, defraud, deprive of dishonestly, dissemble, dupe, embezzle, fraudare, ignore ethics, lack honesty, obtain money by false pretenses, pettifog, play false, practice chicanery, practice fraud, prevaricate, purloin, represent falsely, sharp, swindle._

The definition of cheating is all about being dishonest, unethical, breaking the rules, etc. Literally, by definition, playing by the rules cannot be cheating. Telling us we're cheating _when we're following the rules, openly and honestly at our tables_ is insulting.

The problem I have with folks continuing to call this cheating within the context of a game where it is explicitly allowed by the people playing the game. It's really not about what's in the rules, but what the people sitting at the table agree to. You're calling people dishonest. You're telling them they are wrong, and they shouldn't play the game that way. But they might find that they don't like the style that is more mechanically focused, and might decide that D&D or RPGs aren't for them. You're not wrong for wanting to play in a game where DMs aren't allowed to fudge or alter the rules. But we're not wrong for enjoying playing in one either. 

The book allows point buy. We don't use point buy at my table. The book allows fudging, and you don't allow that at your table. Fair enough. But there are a lot of people who still prefer to allow the DM a lot more leeway in adjudication of the game, including altering die rolls when they feel necessary. If those at the table all agree, then it is not cheating. They are not dishonest. They are not unethical. They are not playing in bad faith, and they are not breaking the rules. They just enjoy a different playstyle than you. 

Your example about jaywalking is irrelevant. Because the law (rules) don't say you can jaywalk. This isn't a question of ignoring something that somebody is doing wrong. It's about setting a specific rule (even if it's a house rule) that says it is allowed. That is, it is legal. If they change the law to read "you can cross the street anywhere you damn well please" then there is literally no such thing as jaywalking anymore. Because jaywalking is, literally, crossing the street illegally. 

If the paragraph in 5e wasn't there to allow DMs to fudge, then they could have simply written, "don't fudge the dice." They didn't need to put anything at all in the rules regarding it, and Gary Gygax certainly didn't need to in AD&D. Although in his case it wasn't, " lets you fudge the dice if you want to," it was "You do have *every right* to overrule the dice *at any time*" and there is literally no reason to add that line of text to any game unless it's something that you're allowed to do in the game. That's not ambiguous or mincing words. Have you ever seen any other game other than an RPG explicitly tell you that you can overrule the dice? There is absolutely no need to do that unless it's something that you can do. If you want to, and if the table agrees.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Who's being hoity-toity?
> 
> Gygax talks repeatedly about _skilled play_. The closing words of his PHB say that, if you think AD&D is worth playing, you'll find it doubly so if played _well_. And the preceding two pages of text tell us what _playing well_ means in this context, as do the passages  [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have quoted from the DMG: it means preparing sensibly, having a plan of attack in relation to the dungeon, not being distracted by the GM's lures and wandering monsters, etc, in rulebooks that I think don't even use the word "story".
> 
> ...




So I've mentioned several times that I really don't care what Gygax wrote, or any of the later books. I only really care what works for us at our table.

Having said that, I think that the White Wolf "golden rule" arose out of the play styles of the day. Just like we still debate the nature and methods of play today, so they did then. The golden rule didn't arise out of nothing, and frankly if it did I think it wouldn't have taken hold anyway. If the prevailing style of play was strictly by the rules, and no fudging allowed, and the focus was on skilled play, then I highly doubt the golden rule would have arisen, and I don't think it would have been written into any rule books. There must have been a receptive audience for that message to start, and I think that's because the message was largely consistent with what we already knew about playing the game. It was just more considered and a more fully developed explanation.

Skilled play is a bit of a moving target I think, too. What do you consider skilled play? Is min/maxing skilled play? How do you measure the skill of role-playing? Why would you measure skilled play at all? Again, I get that when you have a tournament, that it's fun to compare how your group did compared to others. But are they really measuring skilled play (unless you're talking about who got the farthest the fastest? Don't most people talk about the cool things that happened, rather than focus on things like mechanics? Isn't the "winner" in these comparisons usually the one that comes up with a more creative approach or resolution? Is having a 3-hour immersive interaction with the king skilled play even if there were no rules engaged or dice thrown?


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that houseruling new rules for the table is one thing, but that fudging the rules you supposedly follow is another. And I don't think that we should speak as if these the two matters equate with each other.




There are at least 4 editions in which they do equate, though.  Gygax himself spoke of the DM being able to alter die rolls.  That he used them in a specific context doesn't negate the fact that he also gave DMs the leeway to ignore any context or advice he gives, so altering die rolls as the DM sees fit was part of the 1e and 2e rules.  5e specifically tells the DM he can alter die rolls as a rule with no limitations given.  

3e says this about altering die rolls.

"Do you cheat?  The answer: The DM really can't cheat.  You're the umpire and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly."


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There are at least 4 editions in which they do equate, though.  Gygax himself spoke of the DM being able to alter die rolls.  That he used them in a specific context doesn't negate the fact that he also gave DMs the leeway to ignore any context or advice he gives, so altering die rolls as the DM sees fit was part of the 1e and 2e rules.  5e specifically tells the DM he can alter die rolls as a rule with no limitations given.
> 
> 3e says this about altering die rolls.
> 
> "Do you cheat?  The answer: The DM really can't cheat.  You're the umpire and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly."



You are speaking of fudging, but that does not say that houserules equates to fudging.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that houseruling new rules for the table is one thing, but that fudging the rules you supposedly follow is another. And I don't think that we should speak as if these the two matters equate with each other.




Yes, they are different. But the point is that if a rule allows fudging, then fudging is not cheating. It's simply a rule that states, "use the dice as a tool to help adjudicate resolutions. Most of the time the dice are the right answer, and most of the times you use them, the results of the dice are the right answer too." And it's not that these rules are "supposedly followed." The rule essentially states that most (perhaps 90%+) of the time the die roll is what is used. But there are times when it's not. It could be 99%, it could be a lot less. Note that no matter what, it also has to make sense within the fiction, at least in my game. That is, there should be consequences.

So the rule to allow fudging is important, even if it is a house rule.

Probably the most common circumstance for fudging is the unexpected roll that would result in the death of a character. This is also a specific situation that Gary called out. My take on that passage has always been simple: the game isn't designed to provide a rule for every possible outcome. In AD&D, you were either dead or not. No maiming, no list of possible alternatives to death when you're dead. Here Gary is specifically pointing out that there _are_ alternatives. And the DM has the right to alter that result from death to something else. The recommendation is that there should be consequences. And I personally think that's the major precept he's talking about. It's not about how sacred the die rolls are. It's about the consequences of their actions, and if the normally prescribed consequence (death) isn't appropriate, then substitute a similar severe consequence. Consequences are important, but they don't always have to be the same consequences.

This goes along with another major precept that grew into the golden rule; that the DM is the arbitrator, the referee, and adjudicator. That they are empowered to take into account the circumstances, and this isn't only about the in-game circumstances. In his commentary on overruling character death he specifically calls out, "It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well."

Something that I will point out again, though, is that it's the table that must agree on the rule. Whether the rule is in play or not should not be a secret. Whether the situations where it is engaged are secret is up to the group. I have players that really just don't want to know about anything that goes on behind the screen. All they want is for things to play out in an enjoyable way for them. Other players are DMs and they want to know more about what I'm doing. I'm happy to share any of it. It's open and honest.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You are speaking of fudging, but that does not say that houserules equates to fudging.




I'm saying that altering die rolls is part of the rules for 4 of the last 5 editions.  In 1e and 2e, there is some advice on when to do it, but there is the power of the DM to ignore such advice.  Only in 1e and 2e was the DM going against the advice(not a rule) of Gygax in altering die rolls.  In 3e and 5e, the rules specifically allow the DM to alter the die rolls, and in 3e they let you know that doing so isn't cheating at all.

4e I'm not sure about, as I didn't play it very much and didn't DM it at all.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 23, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Something that I will point out again, though, is that it's the table that must agree on the rule. Whether the rule is in play or not should not be a secret. Whether the situations where it is engaged are secret is up to the group. I have players that really just don't want to know about anything that goes on behind the screen. All they want is for things to play out in an enjoyable way for them. Other players are DMs and they want to know more about what I'm doing. I'm happy to share any of it. It's open and honest.




If it's written into the DMG like altering die rolls is for 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e, then it can be assumed to be in play like every other rule unless stated otherwise.  I don't see a need to go through every rule one by one and get the table to agree to it.  If the players have an issue with a rule, they can come to me and we can all discuss it.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Jaywalking does not become legal just because most law enforcement looks the other way or finds it beneath their trouble.
> 
> Now if the DM and players decide that cheating is permissible, presumably within limits of some social contract, then it does not mean that cheating has ceased being cheating, but that certain forms of cheating has become permissible within play at that table.




Jaywalking was not illegal anywhere until Big Auto pushed for the right for cars to careen down streets at ridiculous speeds.* The social contract changed, such that what once was a place for horse and people to share was now the primary property of the car.  Even now, there are places where you can walk anywhere you want and most cars are forbidden, be it large parts of campuses or wilderness areas or the centers of certain cities, especially those built pre-car.

Jaywalking is an arbitrary restriction on what people can do, set into place by law and social custom. At tables that aren't organized play, there's just the players, bound by social contract and any formal rules (law, basically) they chose to bind themselves do. Like jaywalking, it's not cheating if it's not forbidden by that social contract or law.

* https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> If it's written into the DMG like altering die rolls is for 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e, then it can be assumed to be in play like every other rule unless stated otherwise.  I don't see a need to go through every rule one by one and get the table to agree to it.  If the players have an issue with a rule, they can come to me and we can all discuss it.




I think that it’s only fair, in today’s broad range of play styles, that the more controversial rules are agreed upon up front. Of all the rules, this one in particular is important because it clearly poisons the well for those of us that prefer the style when people who don’t like it (including those that don’t even know they don’t like it) find out that it has been used and they feel cheated. 

Even in AD&D days it probably would have been wiser to ensure that everybody was on the same page, because there is no mention of it outside the DMG. Actually, that may be the case in 5E too. 

The reality is, for people coming from other games, it’s reasonable to assume that everybody is following the same rules. That does not mean a rule that allows fudging is wrong. But it is different from what many might expect. And if something is different that what somebody’s expectations are, it’s good to clear that up out front.

For example, I also make it clear that monster stats and abilities don’t necessarily match what’s in the MM. That’s an important distinction for a lot of players, because many expect them to be used as written. 

Even clarifying that I don’t utilize the standard CR system or design encounters based on the party’s level, and that they need to pay attention and be prepared to run.

There are so many different ways to play I just think that setting proper expectations and determining whether there are any serious disagreements on play style. I might not change the play style depending on the circumstances, but I also would hope that somebody will give it a chance and I will be as transparent as possible. It’s a table decision, though and we can’t always accommodate everybody. 

I exert more control in my home game. For a public game It varies. But the table has to agree, and the only way that happens is we have to talk about it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 23, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> I think that it’s only fair, in today’s broad range of play styles, that the more controversial rules are agreed upon up front. Of all the rules, this one in particular is important because it clearly poisons the well for those of us that prefer the style when people who don’t like it (including those that don’t even know they don’t like it) find out that it has been used and they feel cheated.
> 
> Even in AD&D days it probably would have been wiser to ensure that everybody was on the same page, because there is no mention of it outside the DMG. Actually, that may be the case in 5E too.
> 
> ...




This is one of those rules, perhaps the only rule, where I can't bring it up.  Before [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or someone comes in screaming, "Because they would think it's cheating!," that has nothing to do with it.  Even if they were all okay with it, I would have to stop altering die rolls so as not to cause bad feelings if I don't alter rolls when a player thinks I should have.  Beyond that, I don't want the players thinking that I will keep their PCs alive.  I don't alter die rolls for that purpose.  There's no point in bringing up a rule that if brought up, won't be used.

As I mentioned multiple times earlier in this thread, I will only alter rolls in two circumstances.  The first circumstance is if they PCs are going to be wiped out or lose members due purely to horrible luck.  If my dice are hot and theirs are not, and things are grim, I will alter a roll here and there to even things up a bit.  They could, and sometimes still do lose, but at least it won't be because the dice gods said so.  If they are in a bad way due to bad decisions, no die altering will happen.  The second time I will alter rolls is if they are trouncing the BBEG.  I will never alter rolls to give the BBEG a chance to win, but only to survive long enough to not be a completely disappointing fight.  I will also never alter die rolls if he is being trounced due to good planning on the part of the players.  I'm not going to invalidate the players.

The above circumstances are very rare.  They only come about anywhere from 0-2 times a campaign, and since the results of the die altering are not obvious, or even perceivable to the players, nobody ever knows.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> This is one of those rules, perhaps the only rule, where I can't bring it up.  Before [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or someone comes in screaming, "Because they would think it's cheating!," that has nothing to do with it.  Even if they were all okay with it, I would have to stop altering die rolls so as not to cause bad feelings if I don't alter rolls when a player thinks I should have.  Beyond that, I don't want the players thinking that I will keep their PCs alive.  I don't alter die rolls for that purpose.  There's no point in bringing up a rule that if brought up, won't be used.
> 
> As I mentioned multiple times earlier in this thread, I will only alter rolls in two circumstances.  The first circumstance is if they PCs are going to be wiped out or lose members due purely to horrible luck.  If my dice are hot and theirs are not, and things are grim, I will alter a roll here and there to even things up a bit.  They could, and sometimes still do lose, but at least it won't be because the dice gods said so.  If they are in a bad way due to bad decisions, no die altering will happen.  The second time I will alter rolls is if they are trouncing the BBEG.  I will never alter rolls to give the BBEG a chance to win, but only to survive long enough to not be a completely disappointing fight.  I will also never alter die rolls if he is being trounced due to good planning on the part of the players.  I'm not going to invalidate the players.
> 
> The above circumstances are very rare.  They only come about anywhere from 0-2 times a campaign, and since the results of the die altering are not obvious, or even perceivable to the players, nobody ever knows.




And this will just feed the fire for those who say it should never happen.

If your players don’t trust you to be a good judge of when to use a discretionary tool, then you probably shouldn’t be using it. 

I get what you’re saying, nobody knows that you’re using it. But that goes squarely against my assertion that it is not dishonest. If they think you aren’t using it, but you are, I would consider that a problem.

In the end we all have to do what were comfortable with. And it is written into the rules of most editions, although I think that this debate clearly shows that we don’t all interpret those rules the same way. I guess to me that’s just not the sort of slippery slope I want to play on. 

Like so many approaches and techniques, I find that when I start paying attention to how I run the game that I am often a lot less aware of what I actually do than I thought. I give the players a lot more free reign when it comes to authoring the fiction than I thought I did. I modify encounters more than I thought I did. I make exceptions to my “hard and fast rules” more than I thought I did. 

I suspect that other DMs would find a lot of surprises if they objectively studied their actual play. I find these discussions enlightening and have made many changes to my DM style over the last few years of being involved in them. I’ve also worked hard to be more transparent to my players, although that has proven to be unnecessary.

As it turns out, the players I attract are not the ones that are rules or mechanics focused, and as we have discussions about stuff here, I present the questions as posted here and get their response. It just happens to turn out that we tend to be on the same page. 

That’s great, because it makes it easier for me. Because it’s what I’m used to. But it is nice to know that my approach to DMing won’t interfere with their enjoyment of the game. So while some of the tools allow me to keep secrets from the players/characters, the tools themselves will never be a secret.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 23, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> And this will just feed the fire for those who say it should never happen.
> 
> If your players don’t trust you to be a good judge of when to use a discretionary tool, then you probably shouldn’t be using it.
> 
> I get what you’re saying, nobody knows that you’re using it. But that goes squarely against my assertion that it is not dishonest. If they think you aren’t using it, but you are, I would consider that a problem.




I don't know what they think, but I doubt that they don't know about the rule and if they had a problem with it, they presumably would have brought it up before now.  It has been a part of the game for more than 30 years and 1 player has been playing that entire time, two have been playing for about 20 years, the last for about 12.  They really ought to know about it by now.



> Like so many approaches and techniques, I find that when I start paying attention to how I run the game that I am often a lot less aware of what I actually do than I thought. I give the players a lot more free reign when it comes to authoring the fiction than I thought I did. I modify encounters more than I thought I did. I make exceptions to my “hard and fast rules” more than I thought I did.
> 
> I suspect that other DMs would find a lot of surprises if they objectively studied their actual play. I find these discussions enlightening and have made many changes to my DM style over the last few years of being involved in them. I’ve also worked hard to be more transparent to my players, although that has proven to be unnecessary.




As I said above, I am very aware of when I alter rolls and only do so in very specific, very rare circumstances.  It's not as if these things can happen without my knowing about it.  There are some years where it never happens.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I don't know what they think, but I doubt that they don't know about the rule and if they had a problem with it, they presumably would have brought it up before now.  It has been a part of the game for more than 30 years and 1 player has been playing that entire time, two have been playing for about 20 years, the last for about 12.  They really ought to know about it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said above, I am very aware of when I alter rolls and only do so in very specific, very rare circumstances.  It's not as if these things can happen without my knowing about it.  There are some years where it never happens.




That’s a bit different. My campaign has been running for about the same length of time, but sadly, people moving has meant that over the years I’ve had complete turnover.

I also start new players on a regular basis, some just new to the campaign, many new to D&D as a whole. I also occasionally run public campaigns at local stores.

I’d have said the same thing about knowing how I DM, and you may very well know every time you modify a roll and do it that rarely. I’m just saying that in my experience, especially having done this for so long, I’ve found that when I actually make a point of trying paying closer attention to it, that I don’t do things quite the way I thought I did.

This shouldn’t surprise me, since I’m a process analysis and design guy by trade (in part) and one of the things that is consistent in that business is that when you start analyzing a process, most people really don’t understand exactly what it is they do. Which is why guys like me have a job. The same thing applies to me!


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 23, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Again, this is where I disagree with   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and you.ere are a couple of definitions of cheating:
> 
> _Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination. "she always cheats at cards"_
> 
> ...



And as it turns out "fudging" is a synonym with "cheating," "lying," "fraud," and "dishonesty." You are just endorsing a rose by any other name... And while the sense of "cheating" may not apply to your authority as GM, it does not erase the others that do apply, such as being dishonest, unethical, or playing falsely. So how is this not what  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] referred to as a "feel good" semantics game? 



> The problem I have with folks continuing to call this cheating within the context of a game where it is explicitly allowed by the people playing the game. It's really not about what's in the rules, but what the people sitting at the table agree to. *You're calling people dishonest.* You're telling them they are wrong, and they shouldn't play the game that way. But they might find that they don't like the style that is more mechanically focused, and might decide that D&D or RPGs aren't for them. You're not wrong for wanting to play in a game where DMs aren't allowed to fudge or alter the rules. But we're not wrong for enjoying playing in one either.



But you _are_ being dishonest and fradulent; that is literally the definition of what "fudging" is. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too just because you dislike feeling morally offended by use of the word "cheating" to describe "cheating." 



> The book allows point buy. We don't use point buy at my table. The book allows fudging, and you don't allow that at your table. Fair enough. But there are a lot of people who still prefer to allow the DM a lot more leeway in adjudication of the game, including altering die rolls when they feel necessary. If those at the table all agree, then it is not cheating. They are not dishonest. They are not unethical. They are not playing in bad faith, and they are not breaking the rules. They just enjoy a different playstyle than you.



I'm fine if you and your table agrees that cheating is okay, but I just hate the song-and-dance evasion about fudging not being GM cheating. 



> If the paragraph in 5e wasn't there to allow DMs to fudge, then they could have simply written, "don't fudge the dice." They didn't need to put anything at all in the rules regarding it, and Gary Gygax certainly didn't need to in AD&D. Although in his case it wasn't, " lets you fudge the dice if you want to," it was "You do have *every right* to overrule the dice *at any time*" and there is literally no reason to add that line of text to any game unless it's something that you're allowed to do in the game. That's not ambiguous or mincing words. Have you ever seen any other game other than an RPG explicitly tell you that you can overrule the dice? There is absolutely no need to do that unless it's something that you can do. If you want to, and if the table agrees.



I don't think that sentence exists in isolation, but is instead couched in a section on the GM choosing to roll dice for the players. So that sentence does not appear to be about fudging but about the GM being able to control pacing and perspective through deciding when, how, and who can roll dice. 

Furthermore, I don't think that Gygax advocates changing the die result when it comes to a character death. Instead, he appears to be advocating a prototype for a fiction first approach, such that the consequences and interpretation of the die results should follow from the fiction. The dice roll itself does not change; its imparted meaning within the context of the rules does. This idea becomes more explicit in Fate, for example: if you - as a player or GM - "take out" an opponent, then you get to dictate what happens to them: e.g., death, captured, injured, etc. 



Ilbranteloth said:


> I think that it’s only fair, in today’s broad range of play styles, that the more controversial rules are agreed upon up front. Of all the rules, this one in particular is important because it clearly poisons the well for those of us that prefer the style when people who don’t like it (including those that don’t even know they don’t like it) find out that it has been used and they feel cheated.
> 
> Even in AD&D days it probably would have been wiser to ensure that everybody was on the same page, because there is no mention of it outside the DMG. Actually, that may be the case in 5E too.
> 
> The reality is, for people coming from other games, it’s reasonable to assume that everybody is following the same rules. That does not mean a rule that allows fudging is wrong. But it is different from what many might expect. And if something is different that what somebody’s expectations are, it’s good to clear that up out front.



XP for this. Because it is this sentiment that truly lies behind the first formulation that actually referred to itself as "Rule Zero" (3rd Edition): 


> 0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
> Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.



Rule Zero was "check with your dungeon master."


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> And as it turns out "fudging" is a synonym with "cheating," "lying," "fraud," and "dishonesty." You are just endorsing a rose by any other name... And while the sense of "cheating" may not apply to your authority as GM, it does not erase the others that do apply, such as being dishonest, unethical, or playing falsely. So how is this not what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] referred to as a "feel good" semantics game?




A synonym is only a word that is similar and might mean the same thing as the other word, depending on circumstances.  With synonyms one word doesn't equal the other.  In the case of fudging, it's just a term that someone came up with because they weren't cheating, but was doing something similar.  The reality is that a DM altering a die roll is doing only that, altering a die roll.  No fudging or cheating is really going on.



> But you _are_ being dishonest and fradulent; that is literally the definition of what "fudging" is. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too just because you dislike feeling morally offended by use of the word "cheating" to describe "cheating."




There is no dishonesty or fraud involved in altering a die roll.  It's part of the rules.



> I'm fine if you and your table agrees that cheating is okay, but I just hate the song-and-dance evasion about fudging not being GM cheating.




I've stopped using the term fudging as I am not fudging or cheating when I alter die rolls.  I am simply engaging a rule that has been present in 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e.  And perhaps 4e, but I really don't know.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 23, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Note that he doesn't say "don't alter the rules,"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What it really comes down to from my perspective is how my importance you place on the rules themselves, and things like the dice.



As I've repeatedly posted, this focus on _rules_ is a red herring.

Classic D&D has relatively few rules. There are combat rules, rules for interacting with doors, and spell descriptions. There's not much beyond that. So if a player, for instance, wants his/her PC to jump across a chasm, the GM has to make something up. Gygax's DMG doesn't give much advice on how to do this, but Moldvay Basic has quite a bit.

But the issue of changing the rules, or coming up with a resolution procedure where the game doesn't specify one, has little in common with fudging/cheating. For instance, a GM who takes the Moldvay approach of assigning a percentage possibility to an outcome is making up a new resolution procedure. But that is not the same thing as ignoring the outcome of the percentile dice once they've been rolled!



Ilbranteloth said:


> For me, all we need is a set of rules that gives us a basic resolution mechanic, and some guidelines on how to set up difficulties, and that takes care of the majority of the resolutions. If it takes care of 90%+, and I have to adjust on the fly the rest, I'm good to go. I'm not worried about a rule set that can handle every situation without error, because it requires too many rules. I like the general rule structure and game structure of D&D.



I don't see how this relates to the issue of fudging either, to be honest.

Classic D&D doesn't fit your description - it has no basic resolution mechanic - but plenty of more modern RPGs do (eg Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, 5e D&D if you ignore the combat rules). But I don't see how that bears upon chnging or ignoring dice rolls once they have been made.



Ilbranteloth said:


> in an RPG I see at least two points where a player's sense of accomplishment can be attained (and they aren't mutually exclusive). One is in the master of the rules, that is, the mechanics. We entered this dungeon, and through good play (including playing the mechanics), we conquered the dungeon. This is particularly important in organized and the old tournament play, where every table is playing the same adventure. Even if it isn't an official tournament, there is a satisfaction of being able to compare your group to others.
> 
> But in another approach, it's about the characters' accomplishments more than the players'.



Your second approach I don't follow as you describe it - you don't say what contribution the players are expected to make to the shared fiction of the game, but presumably they are meant to contribute something!

I don't agree with your characterisation of classic D&D and the old tournaments. Mechanical mastery is part of what those games test, but only a part of it. The main thing they are meant to test is the ability of the players to skilfully engage the fiction.



Ilbranteloth said:


> Skilled play is a bit of a moving target I think, too. What do you consider skilled play? Is min/maxing skilled play? How do you measure the skill of role-playing? Why would you measure skilled play at all?



I can tell you what Gygax's AD&D rulebooks present as skilled play, because he describes it in some detail, especially in the PHB: it means sensible preparation (spell load outs; equipment, including magic items; party composition, which of course factors into the preceding considerations); having a goal in the dungeon (generally, either scouting or raiding); mapping well; sticking to the goal and not getting distracted/sidetracked; etc. The fact that XP are awarded for taking gold out of the dungeon, and also that those XP can be modified downwards if there was less than full-fledged challenge in getting that gold (see PHB p 106 and DMG p 85), reinforces this element of skilled play - because these skills are precisely those that will lead to treasures being recovered!

In the PHB (pp 18, 106) Gygax also explains the core functions of each class, and the latter of those pages, plus the discussion of training in the XP section of the DMG (p 86), indicate that an element of player skill also includes _playing in accordance with ones' chosen class_. Playing in accordance with one's chosen alignment is a further element of skill, emphasised more in the DMG than the PHB.

To reiterate what I have already posted upthread: I don't play Gygaxian D&D. I am not very good at it and don't especially enjoy it. (Those two things may be related!, although I don't think the second is just a consequence of the first.) But I think his AD&D rulebooks spell out a pretty clear picture of how to play the game. It's a type of wargaming, but in which (i) the player controls and in some sense inhabits a single protagonist, rather than controlling a whole force at a more abstracted level of engagement; and (ii) the player can play the fiction directly without mechanical mediation.

If someone is playing AD&D differently from this - eg they don't care about the supposed functions of character classes, and so eg disagree with Gygax that "Clerics who refuse to help and heal . . . are all clear examples of a POOR rating" (DMG p 86) - then they shold just ignore all Gygax's stuff that suggest PC progression should be connected to how well you play your character class. If someone thinks that alignment fidelity doesn't matter, then it would be silly to follow Gygax's advice that breaking or changing alignment can lead to level loss.

Or supose you have players who don't care about XP. In Gygaxian D&D, that is like a chess player who doesn't care about being checkmated - it makes the game break. If you have players who don't care about XP, then it makes no sense for the game to have an XP system where XP are a reward for playing well. (4e is an edition of D&D which exemplifies this - XP in 4e aren't a reward for playing well, but are earned simply by playing - at the rate of about a level's worth every 10 to 12 hours of play - and hence are simply a pacing device to manage PC progression.)

The weirdness of AD&D 2nd ed is that it preserves nearly all the Gygaxian system, yet clearly is written to be used for something very different from skilled play as his rulebooks define it. It's notionally a game of stories of epic herosim, yet it has all these stupid rules about opening doors and fighting to the death. That's why it needs a fudging option - to compensate for the mismatch between system and intended play experience.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> A synonym is only a word that is similar and might mean the same thing as the other word, depending on circumstances.  With synonyms one word doesn't equal the other.



And thankfully when you constantly shift those goal posts, those meanings can change to help you evade being a "cheater," right?  



> In the case of fudging, it's just a term that someone came up with because they weren't cheating, but was doing something similar.  The reality is that a DM altering a die roll is doing only that, altering a die roll.  No fudging or cheating is really going on.



Could you please stop with the evasive double-speak? 



> There is no dishonesty or fraud involved in altering a die roll.  It's part of the rules.



Regardless of whether it is part of the rules or not, _you are being dishonest_ about the die results to the players. If you were not being dishonest about the dice result, then you would not need a GM screen to alter the die results. Or do you follow the idea that it is only cheating when you get caught? 



> I've stopped using the term fudging as I am not fudging or cheating when I alter die rolls.  I am simply engaging a rule that has been present in 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e.  And perhaps 4e, but I really don't know.



You have stopped using the term, but the game system does not, and it refers to it as "fudging." So you would be fudging regardless of whether you use the term to describe your actions or not when you engage that rule. 

It's all a smoking gun that points back to "cheating" or when it's "okay" to cheat.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> And as it turns out "fudging" is a synonym with "cheating," "lying," "fraud," and "dishonesty." You are just endorsing a rose by any other name... And while the sense of "cheating" may not apply to your authority as GM, it does not erase the others that do apply, such as being dishonest, unethical, or playing falsely. So how is this not what  @_*Hussar*_ referred to as a "feel good" semantics game?
> 
> But you _are_ being dishonest and fradulent; that is literally the definition of what "fudging" is. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too just because you dislike feeling morally offended by use of the word "cheating" to describe "cheating."




Umm, just because that's a synonym for the word, doesn't mean that's what I'm doing. Perhaps "fudging" is the wrong word? How about altering?

Because, I'd like you to explain just how, when my players know that I might use this rule, and they all agree that the rule is OK, and they are welcome to know exactly when I use it if they'd like, that I'm being dishonest, unethical, playing falsely, or being fraudulent.

How about some specific rules. These aren't necessarily from any particular game, we'll say they are house rules. 

*Lucky*: Some characters and monsters have a lucky die. At any time, they can choose to roll a lucky die if they don't like their original roll. This alters the result of the original die roll.
*Inspiration*: Some characters and monsters have an Inspiration die. They can choose to roll an Inspiration die if an ally rolls poorly. This alters the result of the original die roll.
*Death*: The DM can opt, if the circumstances warrant (their discretion), to impose another serious consequence instead of death should the dice indicate it is so. This alters the result of the original die roll.
*Circumstances*: The DM can apply bonuses or penalties to the die roll should circumstances warrant. Anything that might grant advantage or disadvantage can potentially alter the roll. This can be applied before or after the roll, and the amount of modification is up to the DM, but is typically between a -5 and +5. This alters the result of the original roll.
*Narrative*: This is similar to death and circumstances. The DM can, at any time, and at their discretion, alter the results of the die for the benefit of the fiction/narrative. This should not be used to seriously injure or kill the PCs, but it should not eliminate consequences either. Being fair also means being fair to the monsters.

All of these are rules that alter the dice, and they have specific guidelines and/or triggers as to when they occur. The fact that in some cases the guidelines are very broad do not alter the fact that they; 1) Are rules; 2) Alter the die rolls; 3) are not dishonest, fraudulent, or unethical; 4) are not cheating.

The major difference between something like Lucky and the DM altering the result of the dice is that the DM has a lot more latitude in making the decision. They have been given permission to look at the circumstances as a whole (oops, I made this too difficult; Oops, it's too easy; Oops, this would kill a player's favorite character in a non-fun way; wow, my dice are brutal tonight; this result would be far more interesting in the fiction) to make those decisions. The player facing rules are usually based on limitations so as not to alter the balance between players/characters. 

Yes, it means that the DM is granted more power over deciding what is "best" for the game in the moment. I totally get that there are a lot of people that don't want to grant them that much power. Fair enough. But that doesn't suddenly make following the rules at my table cheating. It just means that you choose to use different rules than we do.

Cheating is doing something that is not within the rules. We misuse the word all the time, and that's part of the problem. For example, you'll find lots of articles on "How to legally cheat on your taxes." It's not cheating if it's legal. Proper wording would be "Maximizing your use of tax loopholes." 

My exact point has been that the wrong term is being used, and if "fudging" is the same as "cheating" then it too is the wrong term. Although I'm not fond of the term, DM Fiat is far a more appropriate term than cheating. And Gary's term (overruling the dice) is better than fudging.

Why? Because cheating. That is, actually playing dishonestly, lying to the other players, and breaking the rules to gain benefits is (and should be) universally condemned. It's wrong. And lumping GMs that are using a rule openly, honestly, and the full approval of their players is wrong. They are not part of that group.

This has nothing about being a "feel good" semantics game (although as Gene Simmons said, "I'm not anti-semantic"). The terms being used are flat out wrong. You're calling me a dishonest, lying, fraud when I've done none of those things. I'm open and honest about the rules we follow, and the scope and implementation of those rules. A rule that allows a DM to alter the results of the die by "DM discretion," simply has an very open set of triggering circumstances.

In this case, the dice are there to inform the DM and help adjudicate resolution. If the results are inappropriate (at the DM's discretion), then they are overruled. The example of changing death to something else is a prime example. The circumstances (which he described in detail, and extended to player attachment to characters), indicate that if it is inappropriate for _this_ roll to result in death, then change it. 

Although I'm sure I'll get a lot of disagreement, the DM opting to not require a roll is really the same thing. The rules call for the PC (or the DM) to roll the dice to do something like search for secret doors. Again, this is an example Gary calls out. The advice (which is sound) is that the DM should just skip rolling the dice, especially if it leads to something "exciting." The point in time that the DM overrides the rules is irrelevant. If he doesn't think about it, rolls a secret door check, and then realizes that they really should find that secret door anyway, then he overrules it after the roll (which has the same effect as adding a modifier to the roll to ensure success). 

Combat is not a special case. The DM rolls two criticals in a row, and decides the PC target doesn't deserve that much punishment in this encounter. So he alters the result. Changing it from critical to not critical is the same as changing it from 20 to 19. I've called this out in my games. "Wow, just rolled another critical. That seems a bit harsh." Although in my case, I often choose to let the player decide the consequences. I've used my discretion to decide that it's not an appropriate result, i.e. I've altered or "fudged" the roll. But the player can decide what's an appropriate substitute consequence/punishment.



Aldarc said:


> I'm fine if you and your table agrees that cheating is okay, but I just hate the song-and-dance evasion about fudging not being GM cheating.
> 
> I don't think that sentence exists in isolation, but is instead couched in a section on the GM choosing to roll dice for the players. So that sentence does not appear to be about fudging but about the GM being able to control pacing and perspective through deciding when, how, and who can roll dice.
> 
> ...




Yes that sentence is in the middle of a section that mentions rolling the dice for characters, but the words he chose are far more inclusive, especially in the context of the entire section and the fact that in that section he only later singles out one die roll as a roll that should never be changed. More importantly, there's a vastly different thing between rolling the dice for the players, and _overruling_ the dice (again, "fudging"). 

So if the dice indicate death (because that's the only option in the rules), and he advocates altering that result to something else, how is that _not_ altering the result of the dice (i.e. "fudging")? You're supposed to die. The DM decided you didn't.

The fiction first approach is "fudging" or altering the dice enshrined in rules. At least that one specific example. It's taking what Gary (and others) recognized, and codifying it in a different way. White Wolf went one direction, Fate and other games addressed it in a different manner. It's recognizing that a valid reason for the DM altering the results of the die is for the narrative. Instead of saying you have every right of changing it, they suggest that other options are valid besides just death. By providing other options and suggestions, it still leaves it up to the GM's discretion as to what the result is, but the guidelines are more specific, and the circumstances are more limited. Many of the games take it farther and put the control in the hands of the players too.

The thing is, this sort of flexibility, the recognition that there are other alternatives, is something I like about many of the more modern game systems. I also find that I was already giving the players a lot more control over the fiction, and that codifying that made sense too. That's something from a lot of the story now approach I like, even if I don't like the overall mechanics.

If most of the time the dice work just fine, and the rest of the time the DM can make an informed judgement call and address it on the fly, that works just fine. In reality, my players get to "fudge" the dice too. For the same reason - fiction first. For example, it's tied up in our critical hit and miss rules. If you score a critical hit, you decide the hit location, and often the results of that hit. The DM might make some of that decision, and I do have mechanics written to help as well. But most of the time we skip the mechanics and go with what is right for the moment. If the player rolls a critical miss, they decide what that means. Again, I have guidelines about the sort of thing that might happen, but they decide and I, as the DM, approve (and really, so does the table). Sometimes it means that nothing different happens. It's just a miss, or just a hit. 

But I also think that DM discretion is there for a reason. I'm taking the responsibility to make this game exciting, fun, challenging, etc. for the players and the characters. If I find that I'm missing the mark, then I reserve the right to use whatever means I need to get it back on track. With the table's permission, of course. The more I've been studying how we play, the more I see it's a blend of all sorts of different rules approaches that have been developed over the years.

How is any of this lying, fraudulent, or dishonest? So no, it's not just a "feel good" discussion and not just semantics. I believe that the assertion that what we are doing is dishonest or fraudulent to be wrong.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Regardless of whether it is part of the rules or not, _you are being dishonest_ about the die results to the players. If you were not being dishonest about the dice result, then you would not need a GM screen to alter the die results. Or do you follow the idea that it is only cheating when you get caught?




I rarely roll dice behind the screen, and attack rolls pretty much never. Secrecy is a red herring here, there are lots of other rules that use secrecy from the players, in this and other games.

Even being "dishonest" is a bit of a red herring, as games can codify that into their rules as well. For example, is bluffing in poker cheating? 

I put dishonest in quotes because there is a difference between being dishonest in a way that is cheating, and one that isn't. Oh, wait, that difference would be defined in the rules wouldn't it? That is, any dishonesty that is allowed is not cheating.

But the reality is, I don't think that all DMs that alter rolls are being dishonest anyway. I certainly don't see how overruling a die I've rolled that everyone can see is dishonest.

I need a DM screen to keep things that need to be secret for the time being, secret. The reality is, altering a die roll almost never needs to be secret as far as I'm concerned. The only die rolls that I think have any potential benefit in being secret are those where the player/character wouldn't know that failure is the result of performing a skill poorly (a low roll), or that there is nothing there (such as a search for a secret door). Even those, in reality, I think are largely unnecessary. Knowing that you've searched thoroughly (a good roll) and not found anything is a good indication that there's nothing to be found. Having a nagging sense that you might have missed something is not a bad thing. I'm not going to say I never roll dice for the characters, but I can't remember when I last did it. I can't think of a reason when I would, even though I understand the reasoning why others might (and I'm not condemning it as bad, just a different approach).

So suffice to say, there are assumptions being made here that aren't 100% correct. In a game that the table rules allow the DM to alter rolls, it can be done in the open, with all rolls visible.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Or supose you have players who don't care about XP. In Gygaxian D&D, that is like a chess player who doesn't care about being checkmated - it makes the game break. If you have players who don't care about XP, then it makes no sense for the game to have an XP system where XP are a reward for playing well. (4e is an edition of D&D which exemplifies this - XP in 4e aren't a reward for playing well, but are earned simply by playing - at the rate of about a level's worth every 10 to 12 hours of play - and hence are simply a pacing device to manage PC progression.)




Umm, we played AD&D without XP, at least without using it in the way it was originally designed, with XP for treasure and killing monsters. We leveled up at what we felt were appropriate times. Didn't seem to break the game.  I guess you'd say we did reward XP for playing well, but used an entirely different system than what was provided.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 23, 2018)

On cheating:
- It is functionally impossible for the DM to cheat in a game with a Rule 0.
- On rules that allow you to cheat.  This is silly without context as if there is a rule that allows you to cheat, then there is no basis for cheating in the first place.  No one can cheat in this circumstance without defining the context of the rule.  I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned something like this already but I can see where [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is coming from provided there's context.

Regardless, using the term "cheat" in any context that would "allow someone to cheat" is a bastardization of the English language.  Technically, every time you get a feat, you get to do something that someone else can't so there's a difference between "cheating" and "doing something special".  Doing something special, should never be called "cheating" 

- On skilled play - 

I've grown differing opinions on this over the years.  When I was younger I considered Gary's words as he was advocating for a style of play where people thought through their actions, build outs and equipment ahead of time and did smart things during game play that exhibited that kind of engagement.  This was considered "good" play and as such XP was given.

At some point "skilled play" turned into optimization which isn't the same thing as simply being smart about what you're doing.  Optimized characters could still be played in such a way that skilled play under the original definition wasn't happening, but folks would still take down enemies and earn XP.  This was also considered "good play".

Oversimplifying some more, at some point "skilled play" as a definition went away in favor of "immersive" or "story first" play.  In this case XP were given for hours spent playing or hitting milestones instead of killing things.  This is a function of political correctness as much as it is changing tastes.  In a world where participation trophies exist (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) the concept of "skilled play" vs. "play" is less important.

The game Gary played and advocated for isn't the modern game; unless you and your table want it to be.  Ultimately it doesn't matter but I don't see much reason in explaining differences or invoking what was, without understanding that it's not coming back into style for the mainstream.  As popular as the game was in the 80s, that's a formula to kill the game in the 2020s.

Enjoy what you will such that you harm none with vitriol.  Forums ahoy.

KB


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 23, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> In this case XP were given for hours spent playing or hitting milestones instead of killing things.  This is a function of political correctness as much as it is changing tastes.  In a world where participation trophies exist (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) the concept of "skilled play" vs. "play" is less important.




I don't see any way to define political correctness in this context such that it's not just a subset of changing tastes. As a child of the 1980s, I got participation trophies; that means even if Gygax didn't get participation trophies, it was his generation (or a previous one) that invented them or started handing them out in great numbers.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'm saying that altering die rolls is part of the rules for 4 of the last 5 editions.  In 1e and 2e, there is some advice on when to do it, but there is the power of the DM to ignore such advice.  Only in 1e and 2e was the DM going against the advice(not a rule) of Gygax in altering die rolls.  In 3e and 5e, the rules specifically allow the DM to alter the die rolls, and in 3e they let you know that doing so isn't cheating at all.
> 
> 4e I'm not sure about, as I didn't play it very much and didn't DM it at all.




I totally agree with you here.

So does the article.

They institutionalized cheating.  And then rebranded it as "fudging".  Doesn't mean that it isn't cheating.  It just means that you have bought into the branding.

I cheat from time to time.  Or, to use your vernacular, I fudge from time to time.  Rarely, but, it is done.

I just don't try to pretend that it's something that it isn't.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> > 0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
> > Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.
> 
> 
> ...





Kobold Boots said:


> It is functionally impossible for the DM to cheat in a game with a Rule 0.



Aldarc quoted "rule zero" from the 3E books. I don't see how that rule makes it impossible for the GM to cheat.



Kobold Boots said:


> at some point "skilled play" as a definition went away in favor of "immersive" or "story first" play.  In this case XP were given for hours spent playing or hitting milestones instead of killing things.  This is a function of political correctness as much as it is changing tastes.



This is total nonsense. Pacing character progression to generate a form of story arc - which is how, say, 4e works - is not a political decision of any form. It's an aesthetic decision.

Not everyone plays RPGs as wargames. This is probably the only point on which [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have something in common in our RPGing.



Ilbranteloth said:


> Umm, we played AD&D without XP, at least without using it in the way it was originally designed, with XP for treasure and killing monsters. We leveled up at what we felt were appropriate times. Didn't seem to break the game.  I guess you'd say we did reward XP for playing well, but used an entirely different system than what was provided.



You seem to have misunderstood my point. You aren't using Gygax's AD&D rules with players who don't care about XP, thereby breaking the game. Because you've got players who don't care about XP, you've changed the rules of the game from those that Gygax published.

That was exactly what I said in my post. (Contrast 2nd ed AD&D, which doesn't change the rules - though it does make XP for gp optional - and hence gets tangled up in knots.)

I would add: a D&D game that does not use XP has moved a _long_ way from the sort of game Gygax talked about in his AD&D books, even if it still uses the same chart for bend bars/lift gates rolls.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> And thankfully when you constantly shift those goal posts, those meanings can change to help you evade being a "cheater," right?




I've not once shifted any goalposts in this discussion.



> Could you please stop with the evasive double-speak?




There is no double speak.  The reality IS that the only thing the DM is doing is altering a die roll via the rules.  It's no different than a player engaging a feat to do so.



> Regardless of whether it is part of the rules or not, _you are being dishonest_ about the die results to the players. If you were not being dishonest about the dice result, then you would not need a GM screen to alter the die results. Or do you follow the idea that it is only cheating when you get caught?




It's not cheating no matter what.  It fails to meet any definition of cheating AND the rules allow the die rolls to be changed.



> You have stopped using the term, but the game system does not, and it refers to it as "fudging." So you would be fudging regardless of whether you use the term to describe your actions or not when you engage that rule.




Excellent!  What is written is absolute and there's nothing we can do to change it.  Understood.  So I have to accept that I'm fudging, and per official writing by WotC you have to accept that the DM can't cheat.  Both are written.  If you don't have to accept their official statement that the DM can't cheat, I don't have to call altering die rolls fudging.  I'll let you pick which one we do.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I totally agree with you here.
> 
> So does the article.
> 
> They institutionalized cheating.  And then rebranded it as "fudging".  Doesn't mean that it isn't cheating.  It just means that you have bought into the branding.




It's great that you accept that the rules allow the DM to alter die rolls, as they do for the players, though in a different way.  The problem is that the act of altering die rolls doesn't even rise to the level of cheating by definition.  I'm not doing it for any kind of advantage or gain, or do trick the players, or in violation of a rule.  None of the definitions of cheat fit what I do.



> I just don't try to pretend that it's something that it isn't.




No you just accuse others of doing something that they aren't.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Not everyone plays RPGs as wargames. This is probably the only point on which [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have something in common in our RPGing.
> 
> You seem to have misunderstood my point. You aren't using Gygax's AD&D rules with players who don't care about XP, thereby breaking the game. Because you've got players who don't care about XP, you've changed the rules of the game from those that Gygax published.
> 
> ...




Sigh. You said “it breaks the game.” My experience says otherwise. That was my only point.

And again, I don’t think the various options in 2e appeared out of thin air. We were not the only ones using alternate rules for XP, and while I honestly don’t recall at this point, I would guess there are some Dragon magazine articles between the release of both that cover the topic as well. I particularly remember many disliking the idea that you get XP for gold.

On a side note, not only do I think we have a lot in common, I have also either come to understand my style of play, or have outright changed it because of your posts. The main difference I see is that there is a certain flow and approach to mechanics that I really like in AD&D/D&D, that you don’t. On the flip side, there are similar things in Story Now games that I don’t like. I’m finding that to a large degree we’re looking to solve a similar “problem,” we just prefer a different set of core rules as our starting point.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is total nonsense. Pacing character progression to generate a form of story arc - which is how, say, 4e works - is not a political decision of any form. It's an aesthetic decision.



Seen from a certain angle, it can easily (and I'm half-tempted to sadly say correctly) taken as a socio-political decision hidden under aesthetics.  Not so much in the intentional pacing of character progression (i.e. you'll be level x here in the story, level x+1 by the time you get there in the story) but in the sense that a) everyone has to be the same level* and thus equal and b) xp or levels are awarded largely if not entirely just for showing up, regardless what you actually do once there.

Contrast this with earlier editions where xp were awarded individually based on what the character did (or how much loot it scooped, same idea) and if you-as-character didn't do anything in the game you got no xp for it.

It does follow the participation-medal model, like it or not.

* - at least 5e has tried to break away from this a bit, in that by design it supports a variable-level party much better than 3e and 4e did.



> You seem to have misunderstood my point. You aren't using Gygax's AD&D rules with players who don't care about XP, thereby breaking the game. Because you've got players who don't care about XP, you've changed the rules of the game from those that Gygax published.



We did away with xp-for-g.p. ages ago as one of a boatload of changes we made to the Gygax game but we still see ourselves as playing the Gygax game in spirit, even if our rules are almost a complete rewrite of what 1e started out as.



> I would add: a D&D game that does not use XP has moved a _long_ way from the sort of game Gygax talked about in his AD&D books, even if it still uses the same chart for bend bars/lift gates rolls.



Agreed.  Not using xp at all is a bridge too far.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I totally agree with you here.
> 
> So does the article.
> 
> ...




So if the game has a mechanic like Inspiration where you can recollect the die cheating? 

How about an ability that allows a creature to choose to succeed at a saving throw they failed when they rolled the die?

What about one that allows a creature to roll a die and apply that as a positive or negative modifier after the first die has been rolled?

Are any of these cheating by your definition?


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> And again, I don’t think the various options in 2e appeared out of thin air. We were not the only ones using alternate rules for XP, and while I honestly don’t recall at this point, I would guess there are some Dragon magazine articles between the release of both that cover the topic as well. I particularly remember many disliking the idea that you get XP for gold.



Agreed.  I'm not sure I knew of any game back in the day that used xp for g.p. as written, with the exception of brand-new DMs just starting out who were playing right by the book.  Most if not all dropped it outright, while a few modified it to greatly reduce the proportion of xp that treasure could represent.

But dropping xp entirely and replacing with a level-up (or "milestone") system?  Not sure I knew any who did that; to me that's only something I heard about after I joined up here, long after the 1e era.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Aldarc quoted "rule zero" from the 3E books. I don't see how that rule makes it impossible for the GM to cheat.




So, um.  I'm sure you'll agree that 3.0 is directly superceded by 3.5 and 3.5 was the errata to clean up 3.0.

*D&D 3.5 states in several places that the DM can treat any rule as a mere suggestion at any time. Examples: bottom of page 64, Player's Handbook (Access to Skills), and most directly in the DMG on page 6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."*

Lets' not get into trivium or defining specific scenarios to support a point to support someone's preference.  Rule zero has meant what it's meant since early D&D, though it's been stated in multiple ways.  DM's can not cheat.  They can however do things that cause them to lose players.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> So, um.  I'm sure you'll agree that 3.0 is directly superceded by 3.5 and 3.5 was the errata to clean up 3.0.
> 
> *D&D 3.5 states in several places that the DM can treat any rule as a mere suggestion at any time. Examples: bottom of page 64, Player's Handbook (Access to Skills), and most directly in the DMG on page 6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."*
> 
> Lets' not get into trivium or defining specific scenarios to support a point to support someone's preference.  Rule zero has meant what it's meant since early D&D, though it's been stated in multiple ways.  DM's can not cheat.  They can however do things that cause them to lose players.




The 3.5 DMG in the section talking about die rolling specifically says that the DM can't cheat.  It's in explicit black and white.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ignores things like that, though.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> They institutionalized cheating.




If someone has a character with the Luck domain (Pathfinder), is it cheating if they use their power to reroll a d20?



> I cheat from time to time. Or, to use your vernacular, I fudge from time to time. Rarely, but, it is done.




The fact that you cheat in friendly games is disturbing; what makes you think it's okay? If you want to define it as cheating, then you shouldn't be doing it.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Agreed.  I'm not sure I knew of any game back in the day that used xp for g.p. as written, with the exception of brand-new DMs just starting out who were playing right by the book.  Most if not all dropped it outright, while a few modified it to greatly reduce the proportion of xp that treasure could represent.
> 
> But dropping xp entirely and replacing with a level-up (or "milestone") system?  Not sure I knew any who did that; to me that's only something I heard about after I joined up here, long after the 1e era.




Well, in general when playing published adventures you could only go up a level when you returned to town. And you could only go up one level at a time. So most adventures were worth one level, or at least that’s the simple solution. Instant milestone leveling, which was made more concrete in 2e if I recalled.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> So if the game has a mechanic like Inspiration where you can recollect the die cheating?
> 
> How about an ability that allows a creature to choose to succeed at a saving throw they failed when they rolled the die?
> 
> ...




Of course they are.  How can they not be?  You are altering the outcome of dice based on a particular aesthetic.  5e has simply institutionalized cheating.  It's adopted cheating into the rules in order to create a particular outcome.  

The only difference here is that you have the veneer of respectability because it's "in the rules".  One doesn't suddenly stop lying when playing Liars Dice just because the game expects you to lie and is entirely based on your ability to lie convincingly.  You're still lying and it's a lot of fun.

I'm not attaching any value judgement here.  That's other people's schtick.  That it's cheating, well, who cares?  Of course it's cheating.  But, so what?  You are achieving a particular goal, that goal is seen as a good thing, so, where's the problem.

The issue here, that I see, is that people are getting all bent out of shape because it's being called "cheating".  Like I said, I don't buy into the rebranding of fudging, or "altering a die roll" or whatever phrase tickles your fancy.  It's cheating but that doesn't make it BAD.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Of course they are.  How can they not be?  You are altering the outcome of dice based on a particular aesthetic.  5e has simply institutionalized cheating.  It's adopted cheating into the rules in order to create a particular outcome.
> 
> The only difference here is that you have the veneer of respectability because it's "in the rules".  One doesn't suddenly stop lying when playing Liars Dice just because the game expects you to lie and is entirely based on your ability to lie convincingly.  You're still lying and it's a lot of fun.
> 
> ...




Yeah, well when I look at the definition of cheating it’s being dishonest, fraudulent, it is by its ver definition a bad thing. So yes, I do object because none of those rules qualify.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Sigh. You said “it breaks the game.” My experience says otherwise. That was my only point.



No. I said _using Gygaxian XP_ with players who don't care about XP will break the game. You replied - and I quote - "we played AD&D without XP". So why would I think that your experience would be other than it was?

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood my point, and somehow see it as an attack on you rather than a prediction  - as it turns out, a correct prediction - about what your game would look like, namely, one that doesn't use Gygaxian XP.



Ilbranteloth said:


> I don’t think the various options in 2e appeared out of thin air.



Who asserted that they did? My point is that [edit for clarity: 2nd ed] AD&D uses a wargaming XP system (XP for monsters, plus a few other bits and pieces on the side) yet presents the goal of play as something other than wargaming. That's just one of the ways in which 2nd ed adheres to a Gygaxian mechanical legacy that is at odds with the play experience it (at least notionally) is offering.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Seen from a certain angle, it can easily (and I'm half-tempted to sadly say correctly) taken as a socio-political decision hidden under aesthetics.  Not so much in the intentional pacing of character progression (i.e. you'll be level x here in the story, level x+1 by the time you get there in the story) but in the sense that a) everyone has to be the same level* and thus equal and b) xp or levels are awarded largely if not entirely just for showing up, regardless what you actually do once there.



What socio-political decision does this reveal?

I can certainly tell you, as a cold hard fact, that both rather left wing and rather right wing posters on this board have enjoyed 4e. (I am not going to identify said posters, as that would violate board rules, but my judgements of political affiliation are not speculative but based rather on PM correspondence.)

In any event, to reiterate and elaborate: the decision is aesthetic. It is a decision that levelling is not a reward of play, but rather a pacing device.

It is comparable to the way Pendragon handles time: whereas in Gygax's AD&D time is a resource, to be used sensibly (or squandered foolishly) in improving one's position as a player (see his DMG p 38), in Pendragon one adventure occurs each year. Time in Pendragon is not a resoure, or a reward, but rather the passage of time is a backdrop to the unfolding events of play.

So, in 4e, the increasing prowess and reputation of the PCs ia a backdrop to the unfolding events of play.

These are decisions about game design, with the aim of producing a particular experience. They are not political manifestos. 



Lanefan said:


> It does follow the participation-medal model, like it or not.



No. A medal is an award for achievement. In 4e XP are not an award for achievement as a player (unless you count playing the game as an achievement). They are a pacing device.

Which goes back to my point that not everyone plays RPGs as competitions or wargames.



Lanefan said:


> We did away with xp-for-g.p. ages ago as one of a boatload of changes we made to the Gygax game but we still see ourselves as playing the Gygax game in spirit, even if our rules are almost a complete rewrite of what 1e started out as.



If there is no XP awarded for successful dungeon exploration (ie extraction of gold and other treasure) then I don't really see how the game is Gygaxian in sprit.



Lanefan said:


> Not using xp at all is a bridge too far.



I used XP in my first 4e campaign because that was the default in the rulebooks. In future I wouldn't bother. Levelling when everyone at the table things it would be fun, or make sense, to level up would be just as effective (maybe moreso) and require less bookkeeping.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> No. I said _using Gygaxian XP_ with players who don't care about XP will break the game. You replied - and I quote - "we played AD&D without XP". So why would I think that your experience would be other than it was?
> 
> I think you have fundamentally misunderstood my point, and somehow see it as an attack on you rather than a prediction  - as it turns out, a correct prediction - about what your game would look like, namely, one that doesn't use Gygaxian XP.
> 
> Who asserted that they did? My point is that AD&D uses a wargaming XP system (XP for monsters, plus a few other bits and pieces on the side) yet presents the goal of play as something other than wargaming. That's just one of the ways in which 2nd ed adheres to a Gygaxian mechanical legacy that is at odds with the play experience it (at least notionally) is offering.




I’d agree I don’t understand your point, but that’s ok. And no, I didn’t take it as an attack. I guess I just think it’s simpler than that. Im not really sure what you mean that the mechanical legacy is at odds with the play experience. 

I started following the XP rules, but it was really just a lot of math, and that isn’t my strong suit. Since after doing all the math at the end of an adventure raised us 1 level, it just seemed to make sense to skip the math bit. 

It didn’t seem to change the way the game played at all. I suppose you could say we were still following the XP system, but as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] pointed out, AD&D didn’t have symmetrical leveling. We more or less did, but since we had new characters coming in fairly frequently, we did have parties of different level characters. 

So I’m not sure how far you’d say we strayed from Gygaxian XP. 

But my comment was still an objection with the statement that it would “break the game.” It certainly never felt broken. 

If you’re referring to the style of play of my games being related to whether we use XP or not? I certainly don’t think so. The style of our games was based largely on Ed Greenwood’s articles in Dragon magazine and how we thought his games worked. The Ecology of... articles and the lengthy lore given for things like spell books. There were other authors as well at the time, but he was by far the most influential. Oddly coupled with Tomb of Horrors, Keep on the Borderlands, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Descent into the Depths of the Earth, Village of Hommlet, and Queen of the Demonweb Pits as my models for dungeon and adventure design. Somehow we skipped Vault of the Drow.

We loved the wilderness sections, the town sections, I think we must have spent three or four sessions in the keep before ever heading out to the wilderness. And several more there (this was back in the day when we could do marathon sessions several times a week...) 

Most of the adventures were homebrew, but those probably influenced me the most. Of course we played nearly every adventure that came out (except the Vault...).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

This repeated claim that GMs, as such, _cannot_ cheat - that they have carte blanche to declare at any time that the content of the shared fiction is X, or that the outcome of some resolution process is Y, where X and Y can be whatever the GM wants - is just bizarre.

Perhaps there are some RPG groups, somewhere, who play like that. But there are very many who do not.

In that sort of game, what is the function of the players? To make suggestions to the GM as to what should be allowed as part of the shared fiction? In what sense is that even _roleplaying_, if even the truth in the fiction of statements about what a PC thinks or does is entirely dependent upon the discretion of the GM?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> I’d agree I don’t understand your point, but that’s ok. And no, I didn’t take it as an attack. I guess I just think it’s simpler than that. Im not really sure what you mean that the mechanical legacy is at odds with the play experience.
> 
> I started following the XP rules, but it was really just a lot of math, and that isn’t my strong suit. Since after doing all the math at the end of an adventure raised us 1 level, it just seemed to make sense to skip the math bit.
> 
> ...




Ahh, wait. I think I just got it. You mean if the DM wants to use Gygaxian XP and the players don’t. 

Got it. 

Yeah, that sounds a lot like a DM being willing to alter rolls and the players not. Or the DM rolling secretly or for the players when the players want it in the open. Or pretty much any time the DM and players are playing different games even though they think it’s the same.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The 3.5 DMG in the section talking about die rolling specifically says that the DM can't cheat.  It's in explicit black and white.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ignores things like that, though.



It's good to see that you would never stoop to insults or name calling!

As it happens I can't reply to [MENTION=1727]kobold[/MENTION] Boots, because s/he has put me on ignore following the reply.

But in any event, all I was doing was pointing out what _rule zero_ was in 3E. It was a rule that one must check with one's GM. Not a rule that the GM can, at any time, do whatever s/he wants to the state of the shared fiction or to a resolution process.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> If you’re referring to the style of play of my games being related to whether we use XP or not? I certainly don’t think so. The style of our games was based largely on Ed Greenwood’s articles in Dragon magazine and how we thought his games worked.



For what it's worth, your posts convey to this reader that you are still playing very much in that style.

Playing in that style, I would say that Gygax's advice on pp 107-9 of his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures, is largely irrelevant if not actually unhelpful. Just as one example, Gygax says that part of effective preparation for a session includes making sure that "we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?" But in a Greenwood style a higher priority (I would have thought) would be that a PC's spell selection reflects the inclinations and idiosyncracies of that PC, even if it means that the party is less than optimally prepared for uncertain eventualities.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Well, in general when playing published adventures you could only go up a level when you returned to town. And you could only go up one level at a time. So most adventures were worth one level, or at least that’s the simple solution. Instant milestone leveling, which was made more concrete in 2e if I recalled.



Assuming of course there was enough xp in the adventure to level you up...usually true at low levels, not always true at higher.

And with the variable progression by class in 0-1-2e the Thief would bump long before the MU did - a balancing mechanism that milestone levelling does away with.  In an adventure with enough xp to get a MU from 1st to 2nd the Thief - if she went back to town and trained up halfway through - would be almost to 3rd with the same xp.

I don't remember milestone levelling being a thing in 2e at launch, and if it came in later I missed it: I pretty much ignored most of the last half of the 2e era.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I'm not attaching any value judgement here.



Actually yes you are, in that the word "cheating" carries with it a very strong negative connotation (and therefore implies a clear value judgment) yet you seem determined to keep applying it to these situations.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> For what it's worth, your posts convey to this reader that you are still playing very much in that style.
> 
> Playing in that style, I would say that Gygax's advice on pp 107-9 of his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures, is largely irrelevant if not actually unhelpful. Just as one example, Gygax says that part of effective preparation for a session includes making sure that "we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?" But in a Greenwood style a higher priority (I would have thought) would be that a PC's spell selection reflects the inclinations and idiosyncracies of that PC, even if it means that the party is less than optimally prepared for uncertain eventualities.




Spell selection is whatever the PCs feel is most beneficial for the matter at hand. They’d select different spells for an underground adventure than a heist or hunting down a band of thieves at a noble’s villa vs a trek across the desert.

The spells available to them follows the Gygax (and Greenwood) model: random determination at 1st level, and then whatever you find and learn or research. Keep in mind that the original Forgotten Realms setting followed the AD&D rules without significant alterations (as opposed to say, Dragonlance). Ed just created in-world reasons why elves and dwarves were more rare, for example. 

The main difference was a much greater level of lore than Gygax/Greyhawk provided. It was also more focused on the everyday life of the people of the world as a way to ground things and pull things together. The focus was also on the setting as a place for the DM to write their own adventures, rather than adventures to place within the DM’s setting. Sourcebooks were far more common than adventures in the Realms. Where Greyhawk, and especially Dragonlance, were adventure driven, albeit with Dragonlance in an epic story approach, and Greyhawk in a more generic and unconnected manner.

Perhaps the Greenwood model is more focused on the characters rather than the rules. Or at least the rules that are within the character’s realm in that mastery would be measured by role-playing the character (not always the same as “acting”), rather than mastery of mechanical rules. But I never felt that Gygax was focused on the mechanics as a measuring stick.

If anything, then, maybe it was a broader concept of experience, or the rejection of combat/treasure as the sole measure in the game. I’m not sure I’d attribute that to Ed though, or the Forgotten Realms. 

It seems to me that the real hallmark is immersion in the characters and setting, primarily through lore, including highlighting the mundane aspects of life. This doesn’t preclude utilizing any of Gygax’s approaches, and can build on them. At least that’s the sense I always had.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My point is that AD&D uses a wargaming XP system (XP for monsters, plus a few other bits and pieces on the side) yet presents the goal of play as something other than wargaming.



In 2e, possibly.

In 1e as written, the vast majority of earned xp (at least in published modules of the era) comes from recovery of treasure; assuming the PCs are the least bit efficient at scooping the loot they find.  [MENTION=3854]Quasqueton[/MENTION] did a bunch of detailed analyses years and years ago on just this; the threads he started to discuss the results are buried in here somewhere if you want to dig 'em up.



> What socio-political decision does this reveal?
> 
> I can certainly tell you, as a cold hard fact, that both rather left wing and rather right wing posters on this board have enjoyed 4e. (I am not going to identify said posters, as that would violate board rules, but my judgements of political affiliation are not speculative but based rather on PM correspondence.)
> 
> ...



It's odd, but I agree with the last line of this for my own preferences (I prefer level-up to be a side effect of play rather than the reason for playing) while greatly disagreeing with the logic and points that got you there.

The way I see it, xp (or levels if using a non-xp model) have moved from a reward for individual PC achievement to a reward for collective player participation.



> These are decisions about game design, with the aim of producing a particular experience. They are not political manifestos.



In and of themselves, no; but they are reflecting a societal shift towards rewarding participation for its own sake rather than rewarding achievements within that participation.



> No. A medal is an award for achievement. In 4e XP are not an award for achievement as a player (unless you count playing the game as an achievement). They are a pacing device.



You call it a pacing device, I call it a reward for showing up, and it's the same thing - as long as you're at the table every week you get the xp regardless of what your PC does in the game.

Which means there's no game-mechanical incentive for your PC to do anything special, or to go above and beyond; while there is a mechanical incentive (you'll get the xp anyway) for hanging back and letting others take the risk.



> If there is no XP awarded for successful dungeon exploration (ie extraction of gold and other treasure) then I don't really see how the game is Gygaxian in sprit.



Ah, but there is.   We have a thing we call "dungeon bonus" given out at the end of each adventure, reflecting a combination of mission achievement or success (which means if the mission failed they get less!) and xp for all the little class-based things a typical character does every day that don't otherwise get tracked.  We brought it in when we took out xp-for-g.p. as a vague wave at a replacement, though the dungeon bonus is nowhere near the amount of xp that treasure-based would have been.



> I used XP in my first 4e campaign because that was the default in the rulebooks. In future I wouldn't bother. Levelling when everyone at the table things it would be fun, or make sense, to level up would be just as effective (maybe moreso) and require less bookkeeping.



See above re incentives and disincentives.  Also doesn't account for things done by just one PC, or by a split party.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Spell selection is whatever the PCs feel is most beneficial for the matter at hand.



But presumably if a player decides that his/her PC really likes fire spells, and so always memorises fireball ahead of lightning bolt even when expecting to be in some tight places, you wouldn't regard that as bad play?

Whereas Gygax, on those pages of his PHB, _does_ describe that as bad play.



Ilbranteloth said:


> Perhaps the Greenwood model is more focused on the characters rather than the rules. Or at least the rules that are within the character’s realm in that mastery would be measured by role-playing the character (not always the same as “acting”), rather than mastery of mechanical rules. But I never felt that Gygax was focused on the mechanics as a measuring stick.
> 
> If anything, then, maybe it was a broader concept of experience, or the rejection of combat/treasure as the sole measure in the game. I’m not sure I’d attribute that to Ed though, or the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> *It seems to me that the real hallmark is immersion in the characters and setting*, primarily through lore, including highlighting the mundane aspects of life. This doesn’t preclude utilizing any of Gygax’s approaches, and can build on them. At least that’s the sense I always had.



I think a notion of "character vs rules" is unhelpful here, because rules aren't a big deal for Gygax. His system doesn't have many of them, and the emphasis is on (i) players making effective plans, including equipment and spell load outs, and (ii) players playing the fiction well, so that (iii) they are able to beat the dungeon and recover the treasure. Eg knowing how to use a 10' pole and a flying thief on a rope to beat the Tomb of Horrors isn't about mastering rules; it's about building up a certain repertoire of ways for engaging with the GM's fiction and having one's character survive that.

I have highighted your sentence that I would say _is_ true of the Greenwood approach, and distinguishes it from Gygax's AD&D books.

And I think it does preclude using Gygax's approaches. Unless all the characters your players play are incredibly one-dimensional, then your players will have reason to ignore Gygax's advice about how to play "well" because they will instead want to make the sorts of decisions they feel fit with their conceptions of their characters.

The point of the above paragraph is not to criticise you. Nor is to criticise Gygax. It's to make the point that there are different approaches to RPGing, and those differences aren't always minor and nor are they always confined to boutique groups or contexts. They're extensive and widespread. And it hinders rather than helps communication to try and homogenise things as if there are no interesting or important differences in the ways people approach this hobby.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Assuming of course there was enough xp in the adventure to level you up...usually true at low levels, not always true at higher.
> 
> And with the variable progression by class in 0-1-2e the Thief would bump long before the MU did - a balancing mechanism that milestone levelling does away with.  In an adventure with enough xp to get a MU from 1st to 2nd the Thief - if she went back to town and trained up halfway through - would be almost to 3rd with the same xp.
> 
> ...




Yep, although they called it Story Goals. It awards XP for “fun,” improvement (as a player), survival, and story goals. None of these had specific values tied to them. They had monsters, although it didn’t require killing them, and individual character goals such as using special abilities. It was both enlightening and confusing. The pace of advancement was left up to DM, group decision.

And yes, some classes might fluctuate between the same level and a level ahead of some others. That largely went away when we dropped the math. And yes too in that we didn’t always level up after a single adventure, but since by then it was more home-brew adventures that didn’t always have a clear beginning or end, it became more free-form.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> In 2e, possibly.



I was referring to 2nd ed AD&D. I hoped the context made that clear.



Lanefan said:


> The way I see it, xp (or levels if using a non-xp model) have moved from a reward for individual PC achievement to a reward for collective player participation.
> 
> In and of themselves, no; but they are reflecting a societal shift towards rewarding participation for its own sake rather than rewarding achievements within that participation.
> 
> You call it a pacing device, I call it a reward for showing up, and it's the same thing - as long as you're at the table every week you get the xp regardless of what your PC does in the game.



It's not a reward. No one thinks that playing the game is, per se, hard.

If every week you turn up and get to eat chips with your friends while RPGing, does that make the chips a participation trophy?

It's a device for ensuring that the campaing progresses, in a way that everyone knows in advance, through the tiers of play (Heroic, Paragon, Epic) culminating in the PCs realising their epic destinies. That these things will occur is a default assumption of 4e RPGing.

The _rewards_ for play are found elsewhere.



Lanefan said:


> Which means there's no game-mechanical incentive for your PC to do anything special, or to go above and beyond



All this tells me is that you've never played 4e, or thought seriously about how it works as a system. Nearly every mechanical feature of the game is designed to incentivise just this.



Lanefan said:


> while there is a mechanical incentive (you'll get the xp anyway) for hanging back and letting others take the risk.



And this suggests that there are a whole lot of games you haven't seriously thought about!

For instance, when playing five hundred or bridge socially, partners win or lose together. But I've never played a hand of five hundred where my partner "hung back". I have played with partners who were not very good - if that's because of inexperience, then it's polite to let it pass; if that's because a good player is being careless or reckless, then it can be legitimate grounds for irritation! But one doesn't need a system of individual merit or demerit points to generate incentives to participate in a social activity one has volunteered to be part of.

More generally, and building on that point: why would anyone turn up to play a game of 4e and then choose not to play (in your words, to "hang back")? The fun of the game is in playing one's PC and thereby impacting the fiction, whether in the combat or non-combat context. That's what every feature of the PC is set up to enable.

Your whole set of assumptions and reasoning here is (i) ignoring the actual design of 4e, and (ii) ignoring the possibility that people might play a RPG as something other than a wargame, and that a game might be designed to help them do that.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Of course they are.  How can they not be?  You are altering the outcome of dice based on a particular aesthetic.  5e has simply institutionalized cheating.  It's adopted cheating into the rules in order to create a particular outcome.
> 
> The only difference here is that you have the veneer of respectability because it's "in the rules".  One doesn't suddenly stop lying when playing Liars Dice just because the game expects you to lie and is entirely based on your ability to lie convincingly.  You're still lying and it's a lot of fun.
> 
> ...



Agreed! 



Ilbranteloth said:


> Yeah, well when I look at the definition of cheating it’s being dishonest, fraudulent, it is by its ver definition a bad thing. So yes, I do object because none of those rules qualify.



Well you are being dishonest with dice rolls and using your authority to break with the rules at certain junctures. I will echo Hussar's remark that I am not really imparting a value judgment here when I say that this is "cheating." It is what it is, and my preference is honesty about what it is rather than pretending that it something than it's not. 

And we can get into an argument of semantics about whether this constitutes "cheating," as we have for many pages, but that this seems to be understood in common parlance as cheating. There are lots of D&D advice videos on YouTube, for example, that variously titled along the lines of "should you cheat as a GM?" or "when should you cheat as a GM?" Many videos do not hide behind double-speak such as "the GM can't cheat!" or "fudging is not cheating." The act is called for what it is. Regardless of whether the GM has authority or not, the nature of the act is implicitly recognized as institutionalized cheating. 



Ilbranteloth said:


> So if the game has a mechanic like Inspiration where you can recollect the die cheating?
> 
> How about an ability that allows a creature to choose to succeed at a saving throw they failed when they rolled the die?
> 
> ...



I think there are legitimate reasons to argue as such, but I would also say that one of the critical differences between these mechanics and our discussion of GM fiat to fudge, is that the former constitute delineated mechanics while the latter is not. In order for this to be equivalent, the GM would need their own mechanic, such as a limited token pool for when they could cheat or fudge dice. Fate provides the GM with a limited amount of fate points when they run a scene. Or something akin to the GM Intrusion mechanic from the Cypher System that makes the "fudge" transparent and "honest" about when it occurs. 



pemerton said:


> For what it's worth, your posts convey to this reader that you are still playing very much in that style.
> 
> Playing in that style, I would say that Gygax's advice on pp 107-9 of his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures, is largely irrelevant if not actually unhelpful. Just as one example, Gygax says that part of effective preparation for a session includes making sure that "we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?" But in a Greenwood style a higher priority (I would have thought) would be that a PC's spell selection reflects the inclinations and idiosyncracies of that PC, even if it means that the party is less than optimally prepared for uncertain eventualities.



I wonder if this distinction of playstyles is this what pushed Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk in D&D's gaming culture? Players increasingly preferred an Ed Greenwood way of gameplay? But that discussion is perhaps for another day. 



Lanefan said:


> Actually yes you are, in that the word "cheating" carries with it a very strong negative connotation (and therefore implies a clear value judgment) yet you seem determined to keep applying it to these situations.



It doesn't help that many of the people against the word "cheating" still invite this moral judgment to themselves when they admit that they are behaving dishonestly when altering the die results or secretly diverging from the rules. If you are worried that the word "duck" carries too strong of a negative connotation - we can call it something else like "Ente" or "Waterfowl" - but it is still looks, walks, and quacks like a duck. 



Lanefan said:


> In and of themselves, no; but they are reflecting a societal shift towards rewarding participation for its own sake rather than rewarding achievements within that participation.
> 
> You call it a pacing device, I call it a reward for showing up, and it's the same thing - as long as you're at the table every week you get the xp regardless of what your PC does in the game.



So like a team sport such as Fußball, Football, or Basketball where a victory trophy results from uneven contributions from the team?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But presumably if a player decides that his/her PC really likes fire spells, and so always memorises fireball ahead of lightning bolt even when expecting to be in some tight places, you wouldn't regard that as bad play?
> 
> Whereas Gygax, on those pages of his PHB, _does_ describe that as bad play.
> 
> ...




I agree that there are differences in people’s play styles, but my approach has always felt quite inclusive of Gygax and Greenwood to this day that I have a hard time separating the two. 

Generally I would find a player that always favors fireball over lightning bolt because it’s “in character” as more one dimensional and playing poorly, although I’m not sure I’d call it out. Most times that somebody justifies a decision be saying “it’s in character” it’s a red flag to me.

People are complex. I would be hard pressed to identify somebody like a wizard that was that shortsighted. Trying to account for intelligence is one thing. But that’s not typically a spell selection thing.

And I like the mental exercise of trying to figure out the different decisions that creatures make with different Intelligence and Wisdom. In the reaction rules I’ve been working on I’ve come to the conclusion that there are three primary factors - instinct vs reason (Intelligence), and irrationality, usually as a result of emotion. Wisdom is a poor substitute for that. Basically, though, we often make poor, irrational, or rash decisions because our emotions are overriding our reason. 

Yes, we don’t always make optimal decisions, but I’m not a big fan of trying to “play suboptimal.” Having said that, even Gary states in the PHB that you should play within the limits of your character. I guess I see the personality/character as an additional layer of complexity on top of the framework created in the PHB. 

I’m not trying to homogenize things, but on the other hand so also don’t think things are always as exclusive as they might seem.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I was referring to 2nd ed AD&D. I hoped the context made that clear.



It didn't, and just saying "AD&D" could mean either and usually means 1e IME.



> It's not a reward. No one thinks that playing the game is, per se, hard.
> 
> If every week you turn up and get to eat chips with your friends while RPGing, does that make the chips a participation trophy?



Not quite sure it's an apt comparison, but whatever...  And if nobody brings chips that week?



> It's a device for ensuring that the campaing progresses, in a way that everyone knows in advance, through the tiers of play (Heroic, Paragon, Epic) culminating in the PCs realising their epic destinies. That these things will occur is a default assumption of 4e RPGing.



That characters will progress through various levels is a default assumption of any level-based RPG but not all RPGs build into that assumption that you'll make it to the end stage.



> All this tells me is that you've never played 4e, or thought seriously about how it works as a system. Nearly every mechanical feature of the game is designed to incentivise just this.
> 
> And this suggests that there are a whole lot of games you haven't seriously thought about!
> 
> For instance, when playing five hundred or bridge socially, partners win or lose together. But I've never played a hand of five hundred where my partner "hung back". I have played with partners who were not very good - if that's because of inexperience, then it's polite to let it pass; if that's because a good player is being careless or reckless, then it can be legitimate grounds for irritation!



An almost completely different thing.

In bridge (no idea about five hundred, whatever that is) you and your partner are by skill - and no small amount of metagaming e.g. bid systems, signals, etc. - trying to defeat your opponents in a fixed-length game of 13 tricks.

In an RPG you and your party are trying to accomplish goals of some sort, usually, in an open-ended-length game; but above that you as a PC are trying to survive the various risks and challenges posed by the game.  The best way to survive is obvious: minimize the risks overall and then further minimize the risks you specifically take as opposed to anyone else.  If everyone gets equal xp all the time then the system is rewarding this type of play; to the point where I could easily see a situation where every potentially-trapped door, for example, results in a Canadian standoff - "After you."  No, you first, I insist."

But if there's an individual reward - i.e. xp - for taking the risk (whether the risk turns out to be real or not to the PCs) then people will be more inclined to just get on with it.



> More generally, and building on that point: why would anyone turn up to play a game of 4e and then choose not to play (in your words, to "hang back")?



Simple - they're more likely to be able to come back next week and play the same character again.  And this doesn't just apply to 4e, it's true of any system that has PC death as a possible outcome.



> The fun of the game is in playing one's PC and thereby impacting the fiction, whether in the combat or non-combat context. That's what every feature of the PC is set up to enable.



Agreed, but if the system rewards playing your PC cautiously while in effect hoping others don't, how is that any good?



> Your whole set of assumptions and reasoning here is (i) ignoring the actual design of 4e, and (ii) ignoring the possibility that people might play a RPG as something other than a wargame, and that a game might be designed to help them do that.



Though 4e is the game you were referring to to start with, what I'm saying applies to any xp-based or level-based game: levels and-or xp are a reward no matter how you look at it, and if they're not a reward for what one's PC actually does in the game and just given out equally regardless of what a PC does then IMO the incentive provided is in fact a negative one in that it discourages heroic play and individual PC bravery and instead encourages over-caution or even individual PC cowardice.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> So like a team sport such as Fußball, Football, or Basketball where a victory trophy results from uneven contributions from the team?



Yes, though in all those sports there's still the incentive to be the Most Valuable Player or the Man of the Match or whatever; an individual award designed to incent better play from each individual.

And this analogy can go another useful step: sure every player on the team gets the same thrill of winning the cup, but come contract negotiation time those individual MVP and MotM awards are gonna count for a lot, with money here vaguely equating to xp in the game in that the players who contribute the most get the most...or at least that's how it should work.

Lan-"I've never heard of a pro sports team where every player gets paid the same"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Generally I would find a player that always favors fireball over lightning bolt because it’s “in character” as more one dimensional and playing poorly, although I’m not sure I’d call it out. Most times that somebody justifies a decision be saying “it’s in character” it’s a red flag to me.



Yet if you want them to play in character, why would simply doing what the character would do raise any kind of flag at all?  AFAIC that's exactly what I want - play the character as the character.

One of my currently-in-the-wings PCs is a fire mage - batcrap crazy, considered evil by most (but not, obviously, by herself) in that in her eyes everything would be so much better if it was on fire.  And yeah, pretty much every spell she memorizes is either a fire spell or something that'll help her to cast fire spells (or to escape), unless the situation clearly dictates otherwise.



> And I like the mental exercise of trying to figure out the different decisions that creatures make with different Intelligence and Wisdom. In the reaction rules I’ve been working on I’ve come to the conclusion that there are three primary factors - instinct vs reason (Intelligence), and irrationality, usually as a result of emotion. Wisdom is a poor substitute for that. Basically, though, we often make poor, irrational, or rash decisions because our emotions are overriding our reason.



I'd add a fourth factor in there: stress.

People - and other creatures - will often make vastly different decisions under stress than they would otherwise.

Lanefan


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Yes, though in all those sports there's still the incentive to be the Most Valuable Player or the Man of the Match or whatever; an individual award designed to incent better play from each individual.
> 
> And this analogy can go another useful step: sure every player on the team gets the same thrill of winning the cup, but come contract negotiation time those individual MVP and MotM awards are gonna count for a lot, with money here vaguely equating to xp in the game in that the players who contribute the most get the most...or at least that's how it should work.



D&D is rife with ample ways to award those things, with things such as Titles, Magic Items, or other in-game perks of actual value apart from treating XP as a metacurrency. My own sense of XP is similar to pemerton's in that I think that it primarily acts as a pacing mechanic.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I wonder if this distinction of playstyles is this what pushed Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk in D&D's gaming culture? Players increasingly preferred an Ed Greenwood way of gameplay? But that discussion is perhaps for another day.



I wondered the same things (as your first sentence - I'm disregarding your second sentence!).

Another (related) possibility: TSR, being aware of the change, promoted FR over GH.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> D&D is rife with ample ways to award those things, with things such as Titles, Magic Items, or other in-game perks of actual value apart from treating XP as a metacurrency. My own sense of XP is similar to pemerton's in that I think that it primarily acts as a pacing mechanic.



Titles, yes.

Magic items, not so much.  Sure a DM can chuck magic items out there to be found, but how they and the rest of the treasure get divided is entirely up to the players-as-PCs and - with rare exceptions such as direct gifts - I-as-DM can't decide or even have much if any input as to who ends up getting what; never mind what gets kept at all as opposed to being sold off.

In fact using magic items like this can very easily backfire and end up rewarding exactly the wrong PCs.  I'll leave for you the small challenge of working out how this is.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I wondered the same things (as your first sentence - I'm disregarding your second sentence!).
> 
> Another (related) possibility: TSR, being aware of the change, promoted FR over GH.



Maybe because by the time FR came out EGG was pretty much persona non grata at TSR, or soon would be - of course they're going to promote someone else's setting over his!


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> even Gary states in the PHB that you should play within the limits of your character.



I thought you might be referring to something on pp 7 or 8, but with a quick scan couldn't find what you had in mind. But I did find this (on p 8):

Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they are doing, i.e. they have an objective. They co-operate - particularly at lower levels or at higher ones when they must face some particularly stiff challenge - in order to gain their ends. Superior players will not fight everything they meet, for they realize that wit is as good a weapon as the sword or the spell. When weakened by wounds, or nearly out of spells and vital equipment, a clever party will seek to leave the dungeons in order to rearm themselves. (He who runs away lives to fight another day.) When faced with a difficult situation, skilled players will not attempt endless variations on the same theme; when they find the method of problem solving fails to work, they begin to devise other possible solutions.​
We get more indications here of what constitutes skillful play. And unsurprisingly, there is no reference to "inhabiting" or realising the character. It takes author (or even pawn) stance for granted.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Agreed!
> 
> Well you are being dishonest with dice rolls and using your authority to break with the rules at certain junctures. I will echo Hussar's remark that I am not really imparting a value judgment here when I say that this is "cheating." It is what it is, and my preference is honesty about what it is rather than pretending that it something than it's not.
> 
> ...




If the rules (even a house rule) states the GM, at their discretion, can alter a roll, then it is just as defined as fate points or the GM Intrusion mechanic. It is very broad, but it defines who (the GM), when (at their discretion), and what (can alter or overrule the dice). These criteria are even in the AD&D DMG. 

You are not breaking a rule, any more than the concept that specific rules overrule general rules. You are engaging a rule that overrides another rule. It is an exception. 

Take baseball. When you break down the structure of the rules it works like this:

If the batter hits the ball, they may move to 1st base.
Unless the ball is foul, in which case it is a strike.
Or if a player catches it before it touches the ground, then they are out.
Or if the ball is thrown to first base before you reach it, then they are out.
Or if somebody tags you before you reach first base, then they are out.

Or AD&D:

The result of the die rolled is as shown;
Unless there are modifiers due to abilities, magic, or other circumstances such as cover.
Or if the GM overrules the roll for any reason.

The structure of the rule is the same. This is the result unless one of these other circumstances apply. One of the circumstances happens to be entirely up to the discretion of the GM. 

This is not altered by additional rules, such as:

The GM can roll the dice in secret if desired or appropriate.
The result of the die rolled is as shown;
Unless there are modifiers due to abilities, magic, or other circumstances such as cover.
Or if the GM overrules the roll for any reason.

Secrecy isn’t a defining factor. Other things can be secret but not alter the results. 

Deception as well, which is different than fraudulent or secret. Bluffing in poker isn’t cheating. 

A rule that overrides another rule isn’t cheating either. Stealing a base in baseball isn’t cheating. The rule is you can’t just run from one base to the next. That is overruled by the rule that states you can as long as you best the ball to that base.

The fact that people incorrectly use the term is also irrelevant. We should be championing the use of proper terminology. Not perpetuating the wrong terminology, especially when that terminology has negative connotations.

Overruling a die roll is not being dishonest. Especially in cases like mine where the die is out in the open for all to see. But even when it’s not, it’s not dishonest. 

There is no requirement for such a rule to be equivalent to the rules the PC uses. The mechanic is clear: the GM makes a decision, they overrule the dice. No other mechanic other than defining the rule is needed.

You might want a more restrictive rule, and that’s fair. You might want a rule that doesn’t include all of the criteria of: at will; at their discretion; hidden; deceptive. 

But none of these criteria, alone or together, constitute cheating. Only in the absence of a rule to allow them, is it cheating.

Cheating cannot by definition be institutionalized. If it’s allowed by the rules it is not cheating.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> That characters will progress through various levels is a default assumption of any level-based RPG but not all RPGs build into that assumption that you'll make it to the end stage.



It's not a default assumption in Moldvay basic that a character will progress through levels. Many, perhaps most, PCs will die young; and even for those that don't die, there's the possibility of not finding much treasure (through bad luck or bad play) and hence not levelling.

In Moldvay Basic, levels have to be _earned_ (in the sense that a player has to play well to earn the XP to level his/her PC). That's not the case in 4e. Levels aren't something you earn, any more than turning up to a session is something that is earned.



Lanefan said:


> In an RPG you and your party are trying to accomplish goals of some sort, usually, in an open-ended-length game; but above that you as a PC are trying to survive the various risks and challenges posed by the game.  The best way to survive is obvious: minimize the risks overall and then further minimize the risks you specifically take as opposed to anyone else.  If everyone gets equal xp all the time then the system is rewarding this type of play
> 
> <snip>
> 
> they're more likely to be able to come back next week and play the same character again.  And this doesn't just apply to 4e, it's true of any system that has PC death as a possible outcome.



All I can do is repeat - not all RPGing is wargaming.

Starting with the last sentence - in some RPGs PC death is a possibility, but only if the player deliberately stakes it. In those systems there is no generic risk of death, and hence the only way the player might risk not being able to play the same character is if s/he choose to put that on the table.

And then turning to the main thesis: it's simply not true that, in 4e, _you as a PC are trying to survive the various risks and challenges posed by the game_. It's not a wargame. It's not a survival game. It's a game about impacting the (imagined) world. If you don't play your PC, there is no payoff. If someone wants to turn up week-on-week and just sit in the corner I'm not going to begrudge them the oxygen. If they want to write on a bit of paper that they're a 20th level oxygen-breather, well they can be my guest in respect of that also.

In the meantime, the rest of us will actually be playing the game.



Lanefan said:


> if the system rewards playing your PC cautiously while in effect hoping others don't, how is that any good?



4e does not reward playing your PC cautiously, any more than it rewards sitting on the couch watching TV.

You know all those people who complained that they don't like 4e because it incentivises gonzo action of over-the-top heroics? I don't share their aesthetic preferences, but they're right about what the game incentivises.



Lanefan said:


> Though 4e is the game you were referring to to start with, what I'm saying applies to any xp-based or level-based game: levels and-or xp are a reward no matter how you look at it



This is mere assertion, and false at that.

Alll levelling is in changing the numbers on your sheet, and changing the content of the story that is being told about your PC. Is that a reward? Yes, if it's hard to get and people you hang out with value the skill of getting it - which is how it seems to have worked at Gygax's table. No, if the number on your sheet is just a proxy for the number of sessions you've attended, and if it's part of the plan from the get-go that the story will change in those sorts of ways.

Instead of trying to fit all RPGs into some procrustean framework, look at how they actually work. Instead of insisting that something that is not a reward is one, why not ask what the actual reward is, what the payoff is, for playing 4e?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Yet if you want them to play in character, why would simply doing what the character would do raise any kind of flag at all?  AFAIC that's exactly what I want - play the character as the character.
> 
> One of my currently-in-the-wings PCs is a fire mage - batcrap crazy, considered evil by most (but not, obviously, by herself) in that in her eyes everything would be so much better if it was on fire.  And yeah, pretty much every spell she memorizes is either a fire spell or something that'll help her to cast fire spells (or to escape), unless the situation clearly dictates otherwise.
> 
> ...




Good point.

I don’t know your character, but adding in insanity is a different factor altogether. For a non-insane (or otherwise impaired) character the majority of the time I hear a player justify “it’s in character,” there’s usually a thin justification.

I have an impaired condition that requires you to make a Wisdom check or make a poor decision. Insanity in my campaign usually has a triggering a check. Most people aren’t consistently crazy and always make a poor decision.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I thought you might be referring to something on pp 7 or 8, but with a quick scan couldn't find what you had in mind. But I did find this (on p 8):
> 
> Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they are doing, i.e. they have an objective. They co-operate - particularly at lower levels or at higher ones when they must face some particularly stiff challenge - in order to gain their ends. Superior players will not fight everything they meet, for they realize that wit is as good a weapon as the sword or the spell. When weakened by wounds, or nearly out of spells and vital equipment, a clever party will seek to leave the dungeons in order to rearm themselves. (He who runs away lives to fight another day.) When faced with a difficult situation, skilled players will not attempt endless variations on the same theme; when they find the method of problem solving fails to work, they begin to devise other possible solutions.​
> We get more indications here of what constitutes skillful play. And unsurprisingly, there is no reference to "inhabiting" or realising the character. It takes author (or even pawn) stance for granted.




Pg 7:

“You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Folstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!”

This also touches on personality, but admittedly it’s a small part of the book.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Magic items, not so much.  Sure a DM can chuck magic items out there to be found, but how they and the rest of the treasure get divided is entirely up to the players-as-PCs and - with rare exceptions such as direct gifts - I-as-DM can't decide or even have much if any input as to who ends up getting what; never mind what gets kept at all as opposed to being sold off.
> 
> In fact using magic items like this can very easily backfire and end up rewarding exactly the wrong PCs.  I'll leave for you the small challenge of working out how this is.



Sure, but this is not a problem that I would likely encounter given that I generally use milestones anyway. Nor have I ever encountered the timid playstyle from milestones that you fearfully predict that this engenders. But there are ways to create character and campaign-specific milestones and milestone rewards. 

Dungeon World for examples rewards XP via the Bond/Alignment System. Does your character achieve what they are wanting to achieve or embrace a particular aspect of their character? 

Players in Fate have an array of milestone rewards: short-term (~end of a session), medium-term (~end of a scenario/plot event), and long-term (~end of a campaign arc). And they can "advance" their character in different ways depending upon the milestone (e.g., rewritting their aspects, getting a new Fate point/stunt, etc.). 

Meanwhile, the Cypher System (primarily Numenera) attaches XP to discovery (e.g., ancient relics, creatures, community-building, etc.) and accepting GM Intrusions. It would be odd for XP to reflect your personal contribution in such a framework. 

As an aside to the entire discussion, I increasingly find it peculiar - though it makes sense as a relic of XP = gold - that XP charts use such high number values. Why couldn't or doesn't D&D just deflate the values, even if just one decimal place? Both in terms of what is required and what monsters selflessly sacrifice for player advancement. For example, why does a baboon (challenge rating 0) need be worth 10 XP? Why not make that 1 XP?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but this is not a problem that I would likely encounter given that I generally use milestones anyway. Nor have I ever encountered the timid playstyle from milestones that you fearfully predict that this engenders. But there are ways to create character and campaign-specific milestones and milestone rewards.
> 
> Dungeon World for examples rewards XP via the Bond/Alignment System. Does your character achieve what they are wanting to achieve or embrace a particular aspect of their character?
> 
> ...




I was thinking maybe some sort of backward compatibility, but it doesn’t look like that works. Why have CRs less than
1 for that matter? Pathfinder has 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/8. Seems like starting with the lowest at 1 and working up from there would make sense.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Pg 7:
> 
> “You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Folstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!”
> 
> This also touches on personality, but admittedly it’s a small part of the book.



When you say it touches on peronality, do you mean the reference to alignment?



Ilbranteloth said:


> Why have CRs less than 1 for that matter? Pathfinder has 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/8. Seems like starting with the lowest at 1 and working up from there would make sense.



I'm not sure about PF, but in 5e I think it's to preserve a type of equivalence of CR to PC level - ie CR1 foes are apt, in some distinctive way, to be used as opposition for 1st level PCs. CRs below 1 then show that such creatures lack the relative aptness.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> When you say it touches on peronality, do you mean the reference to alignment?




Well, that’s one thing. But more the explicit statement that you aren’t yourself, you are this character.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> If the rules (even a house rule) states the GM, at their discretion, can alter a roll, then* it is just as defined as fate points or the GM Intrusion mechanic.* It is very broad, but it defines who (the GM), when (at their discretion), and what (can alter or overrule the dice). These criteria are even in the AD&D DMG.



No, it's not. In the cases of Fate and Cypher, the GM engages particular mechanics. 



> You are not breaking a rule, any more than the concept that specific rules overrule general rules. You are engaging a rule that overrides another rule. It is an exception.



But this is not engaging a delineated _mechanic_, which is my point. It is about the GM's ability to _ignore_ delineated mechanics in a way that is detached from the mechanics. These are not equivalent scenarios. 



> Take baseball. When you break down the structure of the rules it works like this:
> 
> *The structure of the rule is the same.* This is the result unless one of these other circumstances apply. One of the circumstances happens to be entirely up to the discretion of the GM.



Only superficially so IMHO. 



> Bluffing in poker isn’t cheating.



This seems like a false equivalence. 



> The fact that people incorrectly use the term is also irrelevant. *We should be championing the use of proper terminology.* Not perpetuating the wrong terminology, especially when that terminology has negative connotations.



Oh, and here I was trying to purposefully propagate what I consider improper terminology.  



> But none of these criteria, alone or together, constitute cheating. Only in the absence of a rule to allow them, is it cheating.
> 
> Cheating cannot by definition be institutionalized. If it’s allowed by the rules it is not cheating.



You seem to be under the impression that if you repeat something often enough then it becomes true or that I will suddenly believe it. And this often appears true for people persistent in the idea that the DM can't cheat. But maybe your sanity will prevail if you repeat the same act over and over again while expecting different results? Perhaps it is time for us to agree to disagree because I do not see us coming to agreement or consensus over this. Will I walk away from your post and still regard fudging as institutionalized cheating? Yes. 



Ilbranteloth said:


> I was thinking maybe some sort of backward compatibility, but it doesn’t look like that works. Why have CRs less than 1 for that matter? Pathfinder has 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/8. Seems like starting with the lowest at 1 and working up from there would make sense.



Agreed.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> No, it's not. In the cases of Fate and Cypher, the GM engages particular mechanics.
> 
> But this is not engaging a delineated _mechanic_, which is my point. It is about the GM's ability to _ignore_ delineated mechanics in a way that is detached from the mechanics. These are not equivalent scenarios.
> 
> ...



This seems like a false equivalence. 

Oh, and here I was trying to purposefully propagate what I consider improper terminology.  

You seem to be under the impression that if you repeat something often enough then it becomes true or that I will suddenly believe it. And this often appears true for people persistent in the idea that the DM can't cheat. But maybe your sanity will prevail if you repeat the same act over and over again while expecting different results? Perhaps it is time for us to agree to disagree because I do not see us coming to agreement or consensus over this. Will I walk away from your post and still regard fudging as institutionalized cheating? Yes. 

Agreed.[/QUOTE]

The poker thing is to point out that there are rules that permit deception in games.

I’m still wondering about how I’m being deceptive when I roll the dice in the open and everybody knows when I overrule them.

We can agree to disagree, but I’m still curious if you’re willing to answer. 

If the rule states that a GM has 3 times that they can overrule the dice during a session, or adventure, is that cheating?


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This repeated claim that GMs, as such, _cannot_ cheat - that they have carte blanche to declare at any time that the content of the shared fiction is X, or that the outcome of some resolution process is Y, where X and Y can be whatever the GM wants - is just bizarre.



Bizarre or not, it's the rules.  Many groups play that way.



> Perhaps there are some RPG groups, somewhere, who play like that. But there are very many who do not.




Not "perhaps some," but many groups play that way.  And as you note, many don't and that's okay.  The vast majority of groups don't play 100% by the rules, and that's just one rule you don't use.



> In that sort of game, what is the function of the players? To make suggestions to the GM as to what should be allowed as part of the shared fiction? In what sense is that even _roleplaying_, if even the truth in the fiction of statements about what a PC thinks or does is entirely dependent upon the discretion of the GM?



It's traditional RPG.  The function of players is what Gygax started in 1e.  Gygax stated in 1e that the purpose of RPG is roleplaying, yet told the players in the PHB that the DM controls everything and their only recourse if they don't like it is to quit.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But in any event, all I was doing was pointing out what _rule zero_ was in 3E. It was a rule that one must check with one's GM. Not a rule that the GM can, at any time, do whatever s/he wants to the state of the shared fiction or to a resolution process.



3e gives the DM the power to alter the rules as he sees fit.  Call it rule 0, rule .5, rule 1 or whatever.  The DM can do it.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

First, I apologize that I screwed up the text formatting. I tried fixing it, but evidently not before you replied. 



Ilbranteloth said:


> The poker thing is to point out that there are rules that permit deception in games.



In poker, the deception and bluffing is a metagame byproduct of the rules as written that has developed. The deception of bluffing is permitted largely in the game's culture because it is regarded as a sign of skilled play (or dumb luck). 



> I’m still wondering about how I’m being deceptive when I roll the dice in the open and everybody knows when I overrule them.



I have here in mind the cultural practice in the hobby on the whole rather than your table, though I would still consider this cheating. And I say this as someone who has fudged out in the open in front of their players within the past month as well. There is an awareness that you are breaking with the rules, though it is informally allowed. 



> We can agree to disagree, but I’m still curious if you’re willing to answer.



I'm admittedly losing the will to answer because I fear that we are just running around in circles at this point due to some fundamental differences. 



> If the rule states that a GM has 3 times that they can overrule the dice during a session, or adventure, is that cheating?



I would call it a system of institutionalized cheating but one more conducive to my own play preferences as it creates a mechanical delineation that places a cap or check on the GM's autocratic powers. It also forces the GM to make their own choices as to what times and occasions warrant their expenditure of a "cheat point," a "GM intrusion," or a "mulligan." I also think that this is more psychologically acceptable for players, as this preserves their sense of accomplishments. The only issue that I could see arising is if players get upset that the cheat point was not used to preserve their character. I also think that this is a mechanic that would benefit GMs and players. 

And this is something potentially worth considering. If the primary justification GMs make for fudging is for the sake of the players' jollies - to prevent an untimely death, unhappy string of bad luck rolls, etc - why can't some of this "fudging power" become apportioned to players instead such that _they_ can decide when it serves _their own_ jollies when it pertains to _their_ character? As I have also said as much before somewhere in the first half of this thread where I noted that I have encountered less cheating from players in systems that provide "mechanisms for the player to not only positively influence the story in their favor but also to mitigate harmful circumstances produced by botched rolls or the GM's narrative framing."


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2018)

prosfilaes said:


> If someone has a character with the Luck domain (Pathfinder), is it cheating if they use their power to reroll a d20?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you cheat in friendly games is disturbing; what makes you think it's okay? If you want to define it as cheating, then you shouldn't be doing it.




Yup.  It's institutionalised cheating.  It's altering the outcomes of random generation.  

It's okay because, in RPG's, it's expected.  It's no different than lying in Liar's Dice or bluffing in Poker.  It's expected and generally accepted as perfectly fine.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still cheating.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> /snip
> 
> If the rule states that a GM has 3 times that they can overrule the dice during a session, or adventure, is that cheating?




YES IT IS.  Good grief, this is the third time I've answered this question.

If you are changing the results of a random generation AFTER THE FACT, then it's cheating.  How is it not?  This would be called cheating in every single other circumstance.  The only reason that it's not called cheating in RPG's is because people get all hot and bothered by the term.  So, it's called fudging, or reroll mechanics or whatever other doublethink term people need to use to avoid calling a duck a duck.

Embrace it.  We started out cheating in RPG's from pretty much day 1.  The only thing that's change from the 70s to now is that we've incorporated cheating into the rules and called it something else.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Yup.  It's institutionalised cheating.  It's altering the outcomes of random generation.
> 
> It's okay because, in RPG's, it's expected.  It's no different than lying in Liar's Dice or bluffing in Poker.  It's expected and generally accepted as perfectly fine.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that it's still cheating.




Yes, actually.  It does.

You can not cheat by using a function of the game the way it's written and intended to be used.  

"Instituationalized cheating" does not mean what you think it means to at least me, but I'd wager a large number of people once presented with logic wouldn't agree with your interpretation.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> YES IT IS.  Good grief, this is the third time I've answered this question.
> 
> If you are changing the results of a random generation AFTER THE FACT, then it's cheating.  How is it not?  This would be called cheating in every single other circumstance.  The only reason that it's not called cheating in RPG's is because people get all hot and bothered by the term.  So, it's called fudging, or reroll mechanics or whatever other doublethink term people need to use to avoid calling a duck a duck.
> 
> Embrace it.  We started out cheating in RPG's from pretty much day 1.  The only thing that's change from the 70s to now is that we've incorporated cheating into the rules and called it something else.




Changing the results of a random generation happens in nearly every D20 roll in D&D.  Hit rolls have modifiers.  Damage rolls have modifiers.  Skill checks have modifiers.  All of these modifiers are codified in the rules system.  Therefore it's not cheating and it's not called cheating because it's built into the rules.

Using this logic, then any DM judgment that affects random generation is also not cheating; because it's allowed in the rules set.  The only cheating inherent in the rules system is when players do things with their die rolling or results that is not codified in the rules via modifier and those things are not blessed by the DM as being valid.

Like you Hussar, I fail to see why this has to be restated a bunch of times.  It's not like we're debating something that isn't widely supported by every version of the rules since the dawn of time and it's not just you doing it.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Yes, actually.  It does.
> 
> You can not cheat by using a function of the game the way it's written and intended to be used.
> 
> ...




What does it mean to you?  I am using it to mean that the cheats that we did fairly commonly in earlier editions have been rolled into the game mechanics.  Instead of cheating or fudging or whatever, now you are doing exactly the same thing, but, it's part of the rule set.  

And, somehow, through some mental gymnastics I can't quite wrap my head around, that suddenly makes it not cheating.  If I, as a player, not the DM, rerolled a roll in 2e, that would flat out be cheating.  ((Granted, 2e has a LOT of rules, so, I'm going with my fuzzy memory that there weren't reroll mechanics in the game, so, I might be wrong but, work with me here))  

But, in actual play, allowing rerolls became fairly common practice in many circumstances.  So, what was cheating was incorporated into the game.  Thus, institutionalized cheating.

Is that clearer?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Changing the results of a random generation happens in nearly every D20 roll in D&D.  Hit rolls have modifiers.  Damage rolls have modifiers.  Skill checks have modifiers.  All of these modifiers are codified in the rules system.  Therefore it's not cheating and it's not called cheating because it's built into the rules.
> 
> Using this logic, then any DM judgment that affects random generation is also not cheating; because it's allowed in the rules set.  The only cheating inherent in the rules system is when players do things with their die rolling or results that is not codified in the rules via modifier and those things are not blessed by the DM as being valid.
> 
> Like you Hussar, I fail to see why this has to be restated a bunch of times.  It's not like we're debating something that isn't widely supported by every version of the rules since the dawn of time and it's not just you doing it.




Please don't be obtuse.  When I say, "changing the results of random generation", that obviously doesn't doesn't apply to modifiers to the roll since the random generation INCLUDES the modifier.  It doesn't matter if I roll a d20+4 or d20+14.  The cheating is changing the d20 roll after the roll.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> What does it mean to you?  I am using it to mean that the cheats that we did fairly commonly in earlier editions have been rolled into the game mechanics.  Instead of cheating or fudging or whatever, now you are doing exactly the same thing, but, it's part of the rule set.
> 
> And, somehow, through some mental gymnastics I can't quite wrap my head around, that suddenly makes it not cheating.  If I, as a player, not the DM, rerolled a roll in 2e, that would flat out be cheating.  ((Granted, 2e has a LOT of rules, so, I'm going with my fuzzy memory that there weren't reroll mechanics in the game, so, I might be wrong but, work with me here))
> 
> ...




Yes. But I think there's a difference between what the rules allow (DMs can't cheat) and what I'd consider cheating. (My opinion follows)

1. If a player re-rolled without the blessing of the DM, that's cheating.
2. If the DM re-rolls without the blessing of the player, in order to avoid negative outcomes for the player, that's not cheating.
3. If the DM re-rolls without the blessing of the player, in order to screw the player over, that's cheating in my book.

Technically, both two and three are not cheating according to the rules in every edition.  Even Basic D&D in 1980 had a line where players needed to understand that the DM was the final arbiter of all rules and the rules were guidelines.  

However, because of that, if you were to ask my opinion I'd say that my role as DM is to ensure everyone has the right level of challenge that they like in order to have fun.  If I'm intentionally trying to screw the player, which means I don't care about his or her enjoyment, then I'm cheating.  If I know that the player likes harder games and wants to overcome the harder game, then it may not be cheating. 

But that's for my game, I'm the DM and as an extension of the rules which as written is my right, I'm not cheating so long as my players are happy.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Please don't be obtuse.  When I say, "changing the results of random generation", that obviously doesn't doesn't apply to modifiers to the roll since the random generation INCLUDES the modifier.  It doesn't matter if I roll a d20+4 or d20+14.  The cheating is changing the d20 roll after the roll.




Being obtuse wasn't the point.  Being logical was.  Appreciate the difference from your side though.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The 3.5 DMG in the section talking about die rolling specifically says that the DM can't cheat.  It's in explicit black and white.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ignores things like that, though.




Which is the reason he's spent more time on my ignore list than any other person on the forums by at least a factor of 3.  I do clean out my list every month or two, but he's definitely a repeat visitor.

Which only speaks to how passionate he is about what he's talking about.  It's a credit to him; but when we're on opposite sides of a discussion, I'm far better off not seeing his stuff as I can be just as passionate about logic.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Embrace it.  We started out cheating in RPG's from pretty much day 1.  The only thing that's change from the 70s to now is that we've incorporated cheating into the rules and called it something else.



Part of it entails, or so I imagine, a growing recognition of the extenuating circumstances of play in the randomization element of die resolution mechanics. If the game was designed with the expectation that the randomness of the die result should result in the PCs succeeding 70 percent of the time, but the players' die results actually generate a 30 percent success rate (or lower), then that can throw a giant wrench into how smoothly the game runs. And so we are dealing with decades of mechanics and rules about how to patch or autocorrect this design flaw/feature. And clearly many people are happy in this thread with the answer that props up their own power and authority: "DM, DM über alles, über alles in dem Spiel..."


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Part of it entails, or so I imagine, a growing recognition of the extenuating circumstances of play in the randomization element of die resolution mechanics. If the game was designed with the expectation that the randomness of the die result should result in the PCs succeeding 70 percent of the time, but the players' die results actually generate a 30 percent success rate (or lower), then that can throw a giant wrench into how smoothly the game runs. And so we are dealing with decades of mechanics and rules about how to patch or autocorrect this design flaw/feature. And clearly many people are happy in this thread with the answer that props up their own power and authority: "DM, DM über alles, über alles in dem Spiel..."




Well, I'd suppose that folks are happy with it for two reasons.

1. It would end up happening anyway.  
2. The rules since inception have been written in support of it.  (1977 onward)

.. why German?.. what are you trying to connote?  Be careful.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Well, I'd suppose that folks are happy with it for two reasons.
> 
> 1. It would end up happening anyway.



Possibly. 



> 2. The rules since inception have been written in support of it.  (1977 onward)



Yeah, the "it's always just been this way" defense. But I generally don't find this compelling or satisfying. 



> .. why German?.. what are you trying to connote?  Be careful.



Because the opening lyrics of "Das Deutschlandlied" captures a bit of the attitude I am alluding to. Because I have been living in Vienna, Austria for the past years. And because a host of other reasons apart from the one you are tiptoeing around.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Possibly.
> 
> Yeah, the "it's always just been this way" defense. But I generally don't find this compelling or satisfying.
> 
> Because the opening lyrics of "Das Deutschlandlied" captures a bit of the attitude I am alluding to. Because I have been living in Vienna, Austria for the past years. And because a host of other reasons apart from the one you are tiptoeing around.




1. I'm "tiptoeing" because I don't want to assume and because it would be really offensive if you were aiming that way intentionally.
2. "it's always been this way defense". 

I wouldn't call it a defense.  It is what it is.  When the designers of the game decide to reverse course and put something in the rules that says "The DM has to do things this way", then I'll be the first person to jump on the "no changing die rolls" bandwagon.  If anything, the people who actually read the rulebook should be attacking the "DM cheats" position a few people are stumping with venom.  

But here's the funny thing - They don't have to.  The rules do it for them.  That's why it doesn't need a defense.  Logic, an amazing thing.

The only thing illogical from my perspective is that I'm replying in this thread.  But that's more my weakness because I can't stand seeing nonsense (regardless of whether or not I agree with it) being posted without a retort.

Sometimes its better to just turn off wifi.
KB


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Yup.  It's institutionalised cheating.  It's altering the outcomes of random generation.
> 
> It's okay because, in RPG's, it's expected.  It's no different than lying in Liar's Dice or bluffing in Poker.  It's expected and generally accepted as perfectly fine.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that it's still cheating.




In the definition of "cheating" in my idiolect, if it's "expected and generally accepted as perfectly fine", it can't be cheating. Fine, your idiolect is different. That doesn't mean that we're doublethinking anything.

Someone who cheats is a filthy, low-down, good-for-nothing cheat.  Is it doublethink to disagree with that, or is it just a different definition of the word cheat?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> YES IT IS.  Good grief, this is the third time I've answered this question.
> 
> If you are changing the results of a random generation AFTER THE FACT, then it's cheating.  How is it not?  This would be called cheating in every single other circumstance.  The only reason that it's not called cheating in RPG's is because people get all hot and bothered by the term.  So, it's called fudging, or reroll mechanics or whatever other doublethink term people need to use to avoid calling a duck a duck.
> 
> Embrace it.  We started out cheating in RPG's from pretty much day 1.  The only thing that's change from the 70s to now is that we've incorporated cheating into the rules and called it something else.




I know what you think. I wasn’t asking you at this point. You obviously believe any mechanic that refills a die is cheating. Okidoki. I will forever disagree with that. At this point I’m trying to get to the finer points that others besides you who believe that some rules allowing rerolling the dice is actually following the rules which is, you know, not cheating.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> I know what you think. I wasn’t asking you at this point. You obviously believe any mechanic that refills a die is cheating. Okidoki. I will forever disagree with that. At this point I’m trying to get to the finer points that others besides you who believe that some rules allowing rerolling the dice is actually following the rules which is, you know, not cheating.




I'm past the point where I think he actually believes what he's saying and well into the territory where he's committed to an argument and supporting it just so he dies on the hill.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> First, I apologize that I screwed up the text formatting. I tried fixing it, but evidently not before you replied.
> 
> In poker, the deception and bluffing is a metagame byproduct of the rules as written that has developed. The deception of bluffing is permitted largely in the game's culture because it is regarded as a sign of skilled play (or dumb luck).
> 
> ...




Ok, I’m not trying to exasperate you. Your definition of cheating seems to mirror (if not exactly perhaps) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s in that any modification of the die after it is thrown is “cheating.” I would think that an advantage mechanic where two dice are thrown and you pick the better is not to either of you, but I’m not 100% sure on that guess.

To answer your other point I’ve already stated that I do that. It’s built into our critical miss rule in particular. If a player rolls a crit miss, they decide what happens, albeit with my approval, although I’m not sure I’ve ever vetoed it. Even when I do choose to overrule the dice, I usually learn them decide what the alternate bad stuff is. In the example I gave when the character was hit with acid gas when triggering the trap, their answer was, “no, I was right there, my face inches away from it. I’m an idiot, and I’m taking the full hit.”

The result was death, but it played out over more than 24 hours as they tried to save her.

The bottom line for us is that, like Gary stated, we don’t want to slavishly abide to a freakish roll of the die. The dice are “right” the majority of the time. So much so that while we could use a different mechanic, the downsides would be too numerous. So we simply acknowledge that the rule of dice isn’t perfect and adjust where we need to. We don’t question them on every death, just the ones that seem out of place.

I thought of another rule that I’m curious about. I’m sure [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] considers this cheating so he need not answer unless I’m wrong.

Was the 3e mechanic to confirm a critical hit, or just an alternate method of testing a skill. For that matter, the 4e skill test mechanic is more or less an extension of that mechanic, in that one roll of the die is not accepted without a second.

While I understand the reasoning behind the confirmation roll (and to me it’s 100% not cheating), I don’t like the mechanic because of the way is affects the play, and it adds die rolls. We, instead, require a critical hit to be 5 or more needed to hit. It addresses the specific problems the confirmation roll did, without the let down or extra roll. You pretty much know when you can’t make or take a critical hit, but also that circumstances can alter that chance.

I also think it’s a decent example of the sort of thing we’re talking about. There’s what I’ll call a soft “cheat” or fudge, in that it’s allowed, but alters the play experience, and the hard “Cheat” which is somebody breaking the rules for their benefit in a way that’s not allowed in the rules, and is in bad faith. 

If we’re saying that the “common” terminology must rule, even when I believe that it is improper usage of the dictionary defined term, than so be it. I think it’s both insulting and actually makes disgusting the merit of various “legal cheat” rules more difficult to use the term in that manner. 

I will say that I have no doubt that you, and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] don’t mean it an insulting way, but that doesn’t change the fact that use of the term in that manner will offend some.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> And this is something potentially worth considering. If the primary justification GMs make for fudging is for the sake of the players' jollies - to prevent an untimely death, unhappy string of bad luck rolls, etc - why can't some of this "fudging power" become apportioned to players instead such that _they_ can decide when it serves _their own_ jollies when it pertains to _their_ character?



 Of course, there are plenty of mechanics in games, especially RPGs, to allow just that.  Re-rolls, for instance.  Or limited-use bonuses you can apply after a roll.   They're like 'fudging power,' but part of the rules, and limited in how much you can do them.  

They don't serve quite the same purpose as fudging, nor have the same foundation in the privileged role of GM.  They do let the player override a result in the name of fun (where fun is equated to success, anyway), but they do so within the rules.  Fudging is the GM saving the game from itself. When the rules fail, the GM prevails.



Ilbranteloth said:


> I also think it’s a decent example of the sort of thing we’re talking about. There’s what I’ll call a soft “cheat” or fudge, in that it’s allowed, but alters the play experience, and the hard “Cheat” which is somebody breaking the rules for their benefit in a way that’s not allowed in the rules, and is in bad faith.



 I think a lot of the bristling over "cheat" is that it connotes bad faith.  You can 'break' the rules of the game, especially in the role of GM, in good faith, to make it a better game.  You can follow the rules of the game to the letter, to gain an unfair benefit for yourself, in bad faith, too, especially from the player side.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but this is not a problem that I would likely encounter given that I generally use milestones anyway. Nor have I ever encountered the timid playstyle from milestones that you fearfully predict that this engenders.



I've seen it from certain players even in an xp-based system, and it annoys me to no end particularly when my character is the one who ends up dying because of it.

Milestones or auto-levelling would only make it worse.



> But there are ways to create character and campaign-specific milestones and milestone rewards.
> 
> Dungeon World for examples rewards XP via the Bond/Alignment System. Does your character achieve what they are wanting to achieve or embrace a particular aspect of their character?



The achieve-your-goal bit sounds good.  The embrace-your-character-aspect bit worries me in that it comes down to DM judgement, much like 1e's (rather awful) business where the DM has to determine how well you played your character through each level.  Wide open to favouritism and argument.  Bad design.



> Players in Fate have an array of milestone rewards: short-term (~end of a session), medium-term (~end of a scenario/plot event), and long-term (~end of a campaign arc). And they can "advance" their character in different ways depending upon the milestone (e.g., rewritting their aspects, getting a new Fate point/stunt, etc.).



Not quite sure how this works.  Does the character who gets involved in every combat get more of these milestone rewards than the character who stays back and does little or nothing (all other things being equal)?  If yes, then fine.  If no, still has problems.



> Meanwhile, the Cypher System (primarily Numenera) attaches XP to discovery (e.g., ancient relics, creatures, community-building, etc.) and accepting GM Intrusions. It would be odd for XP to reflect your personal contribution in such a framework.



Interesting.  The xp could still be varied, though, based on who contributed what toward making each discovery - though this might come down to DM judgement again, depending how it was implemented.



> As an aside to the entire discussion, I increasingly find it peculiar - though it makes sense as a relic of XP = gold - that XP charts use such high number values. Why couldn't or doesn't D&D just deflate the values, even if just one decimal place? Both in terms of what is required and what monsters selflessly sacrifice for player advancement. For example, why does a baboon (challenge rating 0) need be worth 10 XP? Why not make that 1 XP?



One word answer for that: granularity.  One baboon might be worth 10 xp but the next one, a bit weaker, might only be worth 8.  A particularly tough one might be worth 23.

Oftentimes, granularity is good and - within reason - more granularity is better.  A fine example: many things in 1e that used d% to resolve were put to a d20 in 3e - nowhere near as granular and thus impossible to fine-tune to the extent that 1e allowed.

Where you really need the granularity in xp is at the very low levels.  At later levels, whether a Hill Giant is worth 2350 xp or 2400 xp - who really cares.  But at 1st level, whether an Orc is worth 22 xp or 26 xp can, in not too long, add up to a significant difference.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> It's not a default assumption in Moldvay basic that a character will progress through levels. Many, perhaps most, PCs will die young; and even for those that don't die, there's the possibility of not finding much treasure (through bad luck or bad play) and hence not levelling.
> 
> In Moldvay Basic, levels have to be _earned_ (in the sense that a player has to play well to earn the XP to level his/her PC). That's not the case in 4e. Levels aren't something you earn, any more than turning up to a session is something that is earned.



So in each case the default assumption is that they will try to progress through the levels; with the major difference being likelihood of success.



> All I can do is repeat - not all RPGing is wargaming.
> 
> Starting with the last sentence - in some RPGs PC death is a possibility, but only if the player deliberately stakes it. In those systems there is no generic risk of death, and hence the only way the player might risk not being able to play the same character is if s/he choose to put that on the table.



I do my best to ignore the existence of systems like that, and 4e as written is not such a system.  I don't believe in plot-protection or system-protection of PCs - if the PCs can kill the monsters then the monsters have to have a chance of killing the PCs, otherwise a bunch of things - immersion, realism, believability to name a few - go right out the window.



> And then turning to the main thesis: it's simply not true that, in 4e, _you as a PC are trying to survive the various risks and challenges posed by the game_. It's not a wargame. It's not a survival game. It's a game about impacting the (imagined) world.



The way you play it, maybe; but that's only your own house and your own style. As written it is a survival game.  In every published module there's monsters and traps and big set-piece encounters that are, in the end, trying to kill off the PCs; and that 4e maybe gives the PCs an overall better chance of surviving each of these doesn't mean survival isn't a goal.



> If you don't play your PC, there is no payoff. If someone wants to turn up week-on-week and just sit in the corner I'm not going to begrudge them the oxygen. If they want to write on a bit of paper that they're a 20th level oxygen-breather, well they can be my guest in respect of that also.



Fair enough.  I'm more talking about the player who is just as engaged in the game as everyone else but who *actively* plays their character out of harm's way at every opportunity, leaving others to take the heat. 



> 4e does not reward playing your PC cautiously, any more than it rewards sitting on the couch watching TV.
> 
> You know all those people who complained that they don't like 4e because it incentivises gonzo action of over-the-top heroics? I don't share their aesthetic preferences, but they're right about what the game incentivises.



From the 4e modules etc. I've run I don't see it as specifically incentivizing the gonzo but more as providing lots of excellent opportunities for it to happen - one of 4e's better notions.

My point is that if four players at the table want to embrace the gonzo while one player keeps their character back, and yet all get the same xp or milestones all the time, the cautious player's PC will in the end survive longer, become wealthier, and - if the DM allows such - become higher level than everyone else; simply because attrition has caught up with the others.



> This is mere assertion, and false at that.
> 
> Alll levelling is in changing the numbers on your sheet, and changing the content of the story that is being told about your PC. Is that a reward? Yes, if it's hard to get and people you hang out with value the skill of getting it - which is how it seems to have worked at Gygax's table. No, if the number on your sheet is just a proxy for the number of sessions you've attended, and if it's part of the plan from the get-go that the story will change in those sorts of ways.
> 
> Instead of trying to fit all RPGs into some procrustean framework, look at how they actually work. Instead of insisting that something that is not a reward is one, why not ask what the actual reward is, what the payoff is, for playing 4e?



Because if I ask, you'll 99% likely tell me the payoff and reward is in effect simply getting to play - which in theory is true for all RPGs if not all games in general.

However, the mechanical system of many (most?) RPGs - and a boatload of online RPGs and RPG-like games - also builds in xp and-or levelling as a reward; a measure of advancement or improvement.  It's how this reward is allocated and what it's given for that I'm talking about here.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> /snip
> 
> But that's for my game, I'm the DM and as an extension of the rules which as written is my right, I'm not cheating so long as my players are happy.




So, as long as you keep it a secret from the players, and the players are happy, then it's not cheating? 

I don't really buy that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> /snip
> 
> I also think it’s a decent example of the sort of thing we’re talking about. There’s what I’ll call a soft “cheat” or fudge, in that it’s allowed, but alters the play experience, and the hard “Cheat” which is somebody breaking the rules for their benefit in a way that’s not allowed in the rules, and is in bad faith.
> 
> ...




See, you keep saying that you understand my point and then completely miss it.  Makes me think that you do not actually understand what I'm saying.  Why would I have a problem with confirmation dice or extended skill challenges?  At what point are you changing any results after the fact?  Yes, you rolled a 20.  Cool, you hit.  Until you roll that second die, you haven't critted.   If you hit with that second die, then you deal additional damage.  Ok. No problem.

In what way is that altering any die rolls?  In what way is that altering any results?  Heck, even your house rule isn't cheating in any way.  You aren't altering any results.  Simply changing the nature of the die roll itself is fine.  

In what way, though, is it somehow not cheating to hide what your doing from your players and alter the dice after the fact?  I don't really care that it's become part of the rules or not.  All that did is make it, as you say, less offensive to some people.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> See, you keep saying that you understand my point and then completely miss it.  Makes me think that you do not actually understand what I'm saying.  Why would I have a problem with confirmation dice or extended skill challenges?  At what point are you changing any results after the fact?  Yes, you rolled a 20.  Cool, you hit.  Until you roll that second die, you haven't critted.   If you hit with that second die, then you deal additional damage.  Ok. No problem.
> 
> In what way is that altering any die rolls?  In what way is that altering any results?  Heck, even your house rule isn't cheating in any way.  You aren't altering any results.  Simply changing the nature of the die roll itself is fine.
> 
> In what way, though, is it somehow not cheating to hide what your doing from your players and alter the dice after the fact?  I don't really care that it's become part of the rules or not.  All that did is make it, as you say, less offensive to some people.




Because you’ve said that an Inspiration die is cheating. Which is the exact same mechanic as confirming a critical.

It’s a critical, wait, not it’s not. 

It’s a hit, wait no it’s not.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Because you’ve said that an Inspiration die is cheating. Which is the exact same mechanic as confirming a critical.
> 
> It’s a critical, wait, not it’s not.
> 
> ...



Doesn't Inspiration confer Advantage? As in, you roll 2d20 _at the same time_ and take the higher of the two results? 

That seems like a different dice mechanic from rolling a 20 on a d20 and then getting the option for a critical hit if you make a second successful roll.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, as long as you keep it a secret from the players, and the players are happy, then it's not cheating?
> 
> I don't really buy that.




So two answers to this.

The RAW answer: DMs can't cheat.  It doesn't matter what you buy in that case.
My opinion: If my players come back to the table, enjoy their time enough to bring others and I enjoy them, then it can't be cheating.

Your answers are different.  If you can say the same about your players and I can't effect your game such that you don't enjoy yourself, then your answers are right too.

KB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, as long as you keep it a secret from the players, and the players are happy, then it's not cheating?
> I don't really buy that.



 If you have ever been in a really successful D&D game with a really good DM behind the screen, you probably have bought it.

It's like magicians and their tricksillusions.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would call it a system of institutionalized cheating but one more conducive to my own play preferences as it creates a mechanical delineation that places a cap or check on the GM's autocratic powers. It also forces the GM to make their own choices as to what times and occasions warrant their expenditure of a "cheat point," a "GM intrusion," or a "mulligan." I also think that this is more psychologically acceptable for players, as this preserves their sense of accomplishments. The only issue that I could see arising is if players get upset that the cheat point was not used to preserve their character. I also think that this is a mechanic that would benefit GMs and players.




Rules, even rules that break other rules, are not cheating.  By the logic you and @_*Hussar*_ are using, a human wizard who casts fly on himself has a cheater for a player.  The rules are that humans can't fly, and according to you guys, engaging rules that break other rules is cheating.  So is a fighter using power attack or great weapon master.  The rules are that you do weapon damage plus strength bonus as your damage.  Breaking that rule by lowering your to hit and raising your damage is cheating.

The two of you have rendered cheating meaningless with the logic you are using.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> YES IT IS.  Good grief, this is the third time I've answered this question.
> 
> If you are changing the results of a random generation AFTER THE FACT, then it's cheating.  How is it not?  This would be called cheating in every single other circumstance.




You can repeat that until you are blue in the face and you still won't be correct.  Engaging a rule, even one that changes or breaks other rules, is not cheating.  It never has been.  It never will be.  Or do you really think that you've been a cheater every time you play checkers and your King breaks the rules by moving backwards?


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Which is the reason he's spent more time on my ignore list than any other person on the forums by at least a factor of 3.  I do clean out my list every month or two, but he's definitely a repeat visitor.
> 
> Which only speaks to how passionate he is about what he's talking about.  It's a credit to him; but when we're on opposite sides of a discussion, I'm far better off not seeing his stuff as I can be just as passionate about logic.




Yes,  he's passionate.  If he just didn't invent new definitions, ignore things that are written, and put down other styles, he'd have a lot more success in discussions.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a lot of very interesting ideas that I'd love to see discussed, but when he engages those tactics he self-destructs his own posts and threads.  People will argue strongly against things that are obviously wrong.  I really wish that he would just present his ideas straight up.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Doesn't Inspiration confer Advantage? As in, you roll 2d20 _at the same time_ and take the higher of the two results?
> 
> That seems like a different dice mechanic from rolling a 20 on a d20 and then getting the option for a critical hit if you make a second successful roll.




That would be cheating by the logic you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are using.  The rule is to roll 1 d20 only, so using a second d20 would be cheating as it breaks the rules.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 25, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I cheat from time to time.  Or, to use your vernacular, I fudge from time to time.  Rarely, but, it is done.
> 
> I just don't try to pretend that it's something that it isn't.




Gawd man, get hold of yourself!  Dont say that, they will come for your DM card!


----------



## Hussar (Jul 25, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Because you’ve said that an Inspiration die is cheating. Which is the exact same mechanic as confirming a critical.
> 
> It’s a critical, wait, not it’s not.
> 
> ...




Actually yeah. I think I got ahead of myself. I forgot that inspiration isn’t a reroll. My bad. We tend to use it as a reroll and I got my house rules mixed in. 

Heck, for a long time we used the fighter defense style as a reroll too. 

Yup. We cheat.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Rules, even rules that break other rules, are not cheating.  By the logic you and @_*Hussar*_ are using, a human wizard who casts fly on himself has a cheater for a player.  The rules are that humans can't fly, and according to you guys, engaging rules that break other rules is cheating.  So is a fighter using power attack or great weapon master.  The rules are that you do weapon damage plus strength bonus as your damage.  Breaking that rule by lowering your to hit and raising your damage is cheating.
> 
> The two of you have rendered cheating meaningless with the logic you are using.




Show me the rule that states humans can’t fly. 

If we want to play silly buggers pedantic games. 

And again, what post hoc change is being made by casting fly?  How is casting fly fudging?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 25, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I've seen it from certain players even in an xp-based system, and it annoys me to no end particularly when my character is the one who ends up dying because of it.
> 
> Milestones or auto-levelling would only make it worse.
> 
> The achieve-your-goal bit sounds good.  The embrace-your-character-aspect bit worries me in that it comes down to DM judgement, much like 1e's (rather awful) business where the DM has to determine how well you played your character through each level.  Wide open to favouritism and argument.  Bad design.



This is another of those cases where I want to ask, have you actually played or even read the rules for the game you're talking about?

And do you have any actual evidence?

Have you played 4e? Or played with the sort of "milestone" systems [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is talking about? If not, how do you know what affect those games and those systems have on player behaviour?

Do you know how Dungeon World awards XP for "embracing an aspect of one's character"? Here is the relevant text (from p 78 of the rulebook):

End of Session
When you reach the end of a session, choose one of your bonds that you feel is resolved (completely explored, no longer relevant, or otherwise). Ask the player of the character you have the bond with if they agree. If they do, mark XP and write a new bond with whomever you wish.

Once bonds have been updated look at your alignment. If you fulfilled that alignment at least once this session, mark XP. Then answer these three questions as a group:

• Did we learn something new and important about the world?
• Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy?
• Did we loot a memorable treasure?

For each “yes” answer everyone marks XP.​
No favouritism. No GM discretion required. And (with respect to bond XP) a strong incentive to character-focused interaction between players so as to reach mutual agreement that bonds are being fully explored and resolved.

There are RPGs out there which are more than just rehashes of Gygax's D&D with slightly differnt dice rolling conventions.



Lanefan said:


> So in each case the default assumption is that they will try to progress through the levels; with the major difference being likelihood of success.



No. In 4e there is no default assumption that players will _try_ to progress through levels. It's not something you have to try to do; it's a side effect of playing the game. Likewise AD&D no one has to _try_ to make gametime pass - the marking off of turns, hours and days is something the GM does as part of the course of play.



Lanefan said:


> From the 4e modules etc. I've run I don't see it as specifically incentivizing the gonzo



I'm talking about PC build.



Lanefan said:


> 4e as written is not such a system.  I don't believe in plot-protection or system-protection of PCs - if the PCs can kill the monsters then the monsters have to have a chance of killing the PCs, otherwise a bunch of things - immersion, realism, believability to name a few - go right out the window.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Have you played 4e? Have you undertaken a systematic consideration of how the system works?

The goal in 4e is _not_ survival. The goal is to impact the fiction. Player characters have an extreme depth of resources for both survival purposes (healing surges, and various abilities to unlock them) and active purposes (skill bonuses, various powers, etc). Expending the former is simply a means to an end.

And those healing surges etc are not evenly allocated. The game assumes that some PCs will "take the heat" and other won't. If a player wants to play a character who doesn't "take the heat", then s/he builds a rogue or a ranger (of a certain sort) or a wizard. But someone who builds (say) a fighter or a warlord or a paladin and then tries to avoid "taking the heat" is just dealing him-/herself out of the game.

Not to mention, that a big part of both the encounter design in 4e, and the mechanical design of opponents (both monsters/NPCs and traps/hazards), is to allow the GM to bring the heat to the players. And then the players themselves have resources to respond to that, to defend one another if they want to, or to expose others to risk if they want to.



Lanefan said:


> My point is that if four players at the table want to embrace the gonzo while one player keeps their character back, and yet all get the same xp or milestones all the time, the cautious player's PC will in the end survive longer, become wealthier, and - if the DM allows such - become higher level than everyone else; simply because attrition has caught up with the others.



Less important point: that person will not become higher level than everyone else. The default in 4e is that everyone is the same level.

More important point, and reiteration: if, in 4e, I want to play a "cautious character" then I just build one. A rogue or ranger would be a good start, or certain sorts of warlock. But the play of the game is not going to make me safer than anyone else. _Caution_ is an aspect of PC colour and personality and method, not a power-gaming tactic. Which goes back to the point that not all RPGs are wargames.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 25, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Show me the rule that states humans can’t fly.




It's right there in black and white.  They have a land speed, but no fly speed.



> If we want to play silly buggers pedantic games.
> 
> And again, what post hoc change is being made by casting fly?  How is casting fly fudging?




It's not pedantic.  It's your logic.  Altering or breaking a rule with another rule is cheating.  You don't get to cherry pick which rules that break other rules are cheating.  All are, or none are.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> By the logic you and @_*Hussar*_ are using,...
> 
> The two of you have rendered cheating meaningless with the logic you are using.





Maxperson said:


> That would be cheating by the logic you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are using.  The rule is to roll 1 d20 only, so using a second d20 would be cheating as it breaks the rules.



Any argument or counterargument that appeals to the buzzwords "by your logic" is a red flag that tells where the argumentative fallacy where to land. There are much better ways of arguing and debating than falling back on "by your logic" points that attempt to rudely misconstrue the reasoning of others. So remember that every time you say "by your logic," your inane reasoning kill an innocent kitten. 



Lanefan said:


> Not quite sure how this works.  Does the character who gets involved in every combat get more of these milestone rewards than the character who stays back and does little or nothing (all other things being equal)?  If yes, then fine.  If no, still has problems.



Pemerton has addressed some of my points already. So I will just focus on some of the other ones. 

Fate is a more player/narrative-driven game. Combat is not the end-all-be-all of the game. Character advancement is not necessarily about improving your combat effectiveness nor should your success as a character be measured in combat or the accumulation of experience thereof. Does that mean that characters will shy away from combat? For your groups? Maybe. In my actual experience running Fate? Hell no! 

So just for an example. A minor milestone reward may include renaming one of your non-High Concept aspects. So you could rename your "Disheveled by Brother's Unsolved Murder" aspect to "Sworn Enemy of Cobra Cult" after finding out who did it during play. So now your aspect invokes/compels will work towards the latter now that the former has been made irrelevant through completing an arc wherein you discovered that Cobra Cult was responsible for your brother's death. And just as a quick refresher, when you invoke an aspect, you spend one of your fate points generally either to re-roll your results or to gain a +2 bonus to the dice results for a given action. But you can only invoke that aspect when that aspect is relevant to the narrative fiction. So you may only get that +2 bonus or re-roll when you are dealing with Cobra Cult in some way, whether that is combat or investigating a scene they are likely involved. 



> Interesting.  The xp could still be varied, though, based on who contributed what toward making each discovery - though this might come down to DM judgement again, depending how it was implemented.



(1) If you are making a discovery as a group, as is the case more often then not, then you get XP as a group. 

(2) XP in Numenera tends to be given in incredibly small gradients: 1-2 XP. 

Numenera is composed of Six Tiers/Levels. So in order to level up, you need to spend 4 XP on each of the four requirements for each level-up: effort, edge, skill, 4 points to your stat pools. You don't need to know what these do for our discussion, but I thought I would list them. So 16 XP per tier for 5 tiers or 80 XP total to get from Tier 1 to Tier 6. But there is not really a need to be in a mad rush to Tier 6 as the power curve is not as pronounced as it is in D&D. 

XP is not just meant to be hoarded, but also used. XP is also spent in other ways, such as 1 XP for a short-term benefit (e.g., re-rolls, rejecting GM Intrusions), 2 XP for a medium-term benefit (e.g., localized skill, jury-rigging a one use magical item from multiple other ones), and 3 XP for long-term benefits (e.g., contacts, familiarity [+1 to rolls for a certain task]). But players may still want to hoard their XP for leveling. 

The general rule of thumb that I have often seen floated among GMs of Numenera online is that players should be saving only half of their XP and actually be spending the other half. I have not looked too closely into Numenera 2, which has just been released within the past 2 two weeks, about whether this issue gets addressed. 



> One word answer for that: granularity.  One baboon might be worth 10 xp but the next one, a bit weaker, might only be worth 8.  A particularly tough one might be worth 23.
> 
> Where you really need the granularity in xp is at the very low levels.  At later levels, whether a Hill Giant is worth 2350 xp or 2400 xp - who really cares.  But at 1st level, whether an Orc is worth 22 xp or 26 xp can, in not too long, add up to a significant difference.



One word reply: unconvinced. Why not just make the weak baboon worth 0 XP because you just defeated a weak baboon, which should probably be worthless to begin with, and then make the strong baboon worth 2 XP? Nigel Tufnel: "...but these [baboons] go to 23 XP."


----------



## pemerton (Jul 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Part of it entails, or so I imagine, a growing recognition of the extenuating circumstances of play in the randomization element of die resolution mechanics. If the game was designed with the expectation that the randomness of the die result should result in the PCs succeeding 70 percent of the time, but the players' die results actually generate a 30 percent success rate (or lower), then that can throw a giant wrench into how smoothly the game runs. And so we are dealing with decades of mechanics and rules about how to patch or autocorrect this design flaw/feature. And clearly many people are happy in this thread with the answer that props up their own power and authority: "DM, DM über alles, über alles in dem Spiel..."



To build on what you've posted: I think it's directly connected to the question of whether the game is a wargame, or something else in which story and character are more prominent.

In a wargame, 30% success rates, and hard failures, are acceptable. If you lose, then you lose - and reset the board and try again, using the experience you've gained to improve your odds by playing the ficton better, using better tactics, etc.

But if the focus of play is character and/or story, then 30% success rates and hard failures lead to total fiasco, as story fails to develop, characters are not heroes we might admire but hopeless bumblers, etc.

One mode of mitigation is to change the success rates: 4e does this by reworking the maths. Another is to eliminate hard failures: Burning Wheel does this, via "fail forward". Another is just to punt it all to the GM, who manipulates outcomes and consequences as necessary to generate story, appropriately foreground the PCs, etc - 2nd ed AD&D does this, as do many other games of that era and played in that style.



Aldarc said:


> If the primary justification GMs make for fudging is for the sake of the players' jollies - to prevent an untimely death, unhappy string of bad luck rolls, etc - why can't some of this "fudging power" become apportioned to players instead such that _they_ can decide when it serves _their own_ jollies when it pertains to _their_ character? As I have also said as much before somewhere in the first half of this thread where I noted that I have encountered less cheating from players in systems that provide "mechanisms for the player to not only positively influence the story in their favor but also to mitigate harmful circumstances produced by botched rolls or the GM's narrative framing."





Tony Vargas said:


> They don't serve quite the same purpose as fudging, nor have the same foundation in the privileged role of GM.  They do let the player override a result in the name of fun (where fun is equated to success, anyway), but they do so within the rules.  Fudging is the GM saving the game from itself. When the rules fail, the GM prevails.



The notion of "the privileged role of GM", and also of "the GM saving the game from itself" because "the rules fail", are symptomatic (in my view) of a certain approach to D&D, and especially AD&D, that - whenver it first began (I would guess in the mid-through-late 70s) - had become mainstream, perhaps predominant, by the early 80s.

The _privileged role of GM_ in a dungeoneering, "skilled play" wargame of the sort set out (incompletely) in the original D&D books, and then set out and advocated for by Gygax in the AD&D books, is in _establishing the fiction_ (ie the players have no authority over the dungeon map or its contents), _adjudicating the fiction_ (ie the GM is the one who decides whether you can surf doors removed from their hinges down the frictionless corridor in WPM, thereby avoiding the super-tetanus pits) and - if necessary - _establishing the die roll needed for success where the rules themselves provide no obvious or applicable answer_ (eg maybe the answer to the door-surfing question is "Yes, provided you roll less than 20+3*DEX on percentile dice"). A further thing which is really a combination of the second and third is imposing adjustments to rule-mandated checks where the fiction suggests they should apply (eg if a Ring of Fire Resistance grants +4 to save vs fireballs and the like, then standing chin-deep in water should give at least a +2).

But when the focus turns to story/character, this extent control over the fiction fairly naturally bleeds into a control over scene-framing, over outcomes (you can't pre-plan scene framing if you don't control outcomes to some extent), etc. That leads to a "golden rule"-style imperative to fudge.

At the same time, there is a reasonable expectation that in a character-focused game characters won't die too often. But the wargame rules produce quite a bit of PC death, especially at low levels. So we get the need to "save the game from itself" - again, we see a "golden rule"-style imperative to fudge.

None of this is part of any "natural" theory of the role of the GM. I think it's the result of a widespread, perhaps predominant mode of play within the context of the dominant ruleset.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Any argument or counterargument that appeals to the buzzwords "by your logic" is a red flag that tells where the argumentative fallacy where to land. There are much better ways of arguing and debating than falling back on "by your logic" points that attempt to rudely misconstrue the reasoning of others. So remember that every time you say "by your logic," your inane reasoning kill an innocent kitten.




This is an Argument from Fallacy.  Rather than accuse someone of a fallacy and leave it at that.  How about you address the argument?  You have argued that for one rule to alter another is to cheat, as there is no functional difference between using the rules to alter a die roll, and using the rules to alter a human's inability to fly.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> This is an Argument from Fallacy.  Rather than accuse someone of a fallacy and leave it at that.  How about you address the argument? *You have argued* that for one rule to alter another is to cheat, as there is no functional difference between using the rules to alter a die roll, and using the rules to alter a human's inability to fly.



Wrong. I have not done that, and that is why I didn't bother addressing your "argument"; it spoke from false premises so its substance was irrelevant.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Wrong. I have not done that, and that is why I didn't bother addressing your "argument"; it spoke from false premises so its substance was irrelevant.




You may not have intended it, but that is in fact where you argument goes when you take it to it's logical conclusion.  Again, there is no functional difference between a DM using the rules to alter a die roll, and a player using the rules to alter a human's inability to fly.  You can attempt to counter my argument, or continue to Argue from Fallacy. Your avoidance doesn't change the fact that your argument can be functionally applied to any other rule that also alters other rules.  If it's cheating to use the rules to alter the rule about die rolling, then it is also cheating to use the rules to alter the rule about human's not having the ability to fly.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You may not have intended it, but that is in fact where you argument goes when you take it to it's logical conclusion.



You were wrong about my argument and then persist in falsely construing it as my argument or its logical conclusion? There is little point engaging this further.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> You were wrong about my argument and then persist in falsely construing it as my argument or its logical conclusion? There is little point engaging this further.



 When you fight so hard to avoid responding to an argument, it becomes pretty clear to those looking that you really have no way to refute it.  So we can not engage further if you want, but...


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 25, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Show me the rule that states humans can’t fly.
> 
> If we want to play silly buggers pedantic games.
> 
> And again, what post hoc change is being made by casting fly?  How is casting fly fudging?




If it were legal for characters to fly without a rules modification, then there would be no need for a fly spell to allow it.  The fly spell is a legal rules modification dependent on a character's class and following the rules and conditions to learn or obtain the spell.

If it were legal for characters to do anything that required a feat to accomplish, then there would be no need to purchase the feat.  The feat is a rules modification dependent on a character's class and following the rules and conditions to learn or obtain the feat.

Whether or not you call certain rules post-hoc changes is based on your preferred language and context for describing how rules work.  Most games work this way, even checkers (you can't move backwards and forwards without obtaining a king, you need to get a checker to the back rank to have it become a king)

Note: At the point where a conversation devolves to the point where people are debating the English language, someone is standing on a hill with a big target waiting to die on it.

I've made the decision that like you.  This is why I'm trying to explain it.  

Thanks
KB


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> When you fight so hard to avoid responding to an argument, it becomes pretty clear to those looking that you really have no way to refute it.  So we can not engage further if you want, but...



I am asking that you respect what I wrote and what I have argued. I don't know why you feel obligated to be obtuse about showing a modicum of human decency and common courtesy here. So how about this? How about you come back with an argument that actually engages and respects what I am arguing as opposed to what you imagine I am arguing, and then I will engage that? Adopting that approach going forward does seem more in line with the board's rules and etiquette.



Kobold Boots said:


> Note: At the point where a conversation devolves to the point where people are debating the English language, someone is standing on a hill with a big target waiting to die on it.



It seems like that point has already passed long into days of yore when people argued that by definition GMs can't cheat.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 25, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But if the focus of play is character and/or story, then 30% success rates and hard failures lead to total fiasco, as story fails to develop, characters are not heroes we might admire but hopeless bumblers, etc.
> 
> One mode of mitigation is to change the success rates, Another is to eliminate hard failures,  Another is just to punt it all to the GM, who manipulates outcomes and consequences as necessary to generate story...



 Sure.



> The notion of "the privileged role of GM", and also of "the GM saving the game from itself" because "the rules fail", are symptomatic (in my view) of a certain approach to D&D, and especially AD&D, that - whenver it first began (I would guess in the mid-through-late 70s) - had become mainstream, perhaps predominant, by the early 80s.



 I would go with "mid-70s," prettymuch the moment 0D&D was published, if not during the playtest & development process.  You could play D&D as a wargame, but the glimpses we have of the pre-publication games point to EGG already assuming that privileged take on the DM role, in contrast to the wargaming role of judge.  



> The _privileged role of GM_ in a dungeoneering, "skilled play" wargame of the sort set out (incompletely) in the original D&D books, and then set out and advocated for by Gygax in the AD&D books, is in _establishing the fiction_, _adjudicating the fiction_  and - if necessary - _establishing the die roll needed for success where the rules themselves provide no obvious or applicable answer_



 Maybe establishing a die roll, maybe just ruling what happened when the rules didn't explicitly cover - and, in that period, there was /plenty/ the rules didn't begin to cover (let alone cover unambiguously, so, really, whenever he wanted). 



> But when the focus turns to story/character, this extent control over the fiction fairly naturally bleeds into a control over scene-framing, over outcomes (you can't pre-plan scene framing if you don't control outcomes to some extent), etc. That leads to a "golden rule"-style imperative to fudge.



 I think the impetus to override the system is already there in the above, it's just to a slightly different end.



> At the same time, there is a reasonable expectation that in a character-focused game characters won't die too often. But the wargame rules produce quite a bit of PC death, especially at low levels. So we get the need to "save the game from itself" - again, we see a "golden rule"-style imperative to fudge.



 Yep.

The commonality isn't in the imperative to 'fudge,' it's in the need to do so, because the system has failed.



> None of this is part of any "natural" theory of the role of the GM. I think it's the result of a widespread, perhaps predominant mode of play within the context of the dominant ruleset.



 There is a lot of that in the hobby, sure.  But, if the assumption is the GM chooses the system, that implies modding the system, which implies doing so on the fly to fix problems as they occur.  
The exception would be if the assumption were that choosing the system were mutual - that a group first agrees to game together, then builds a consensus on what system to use, how to mod it, & deals with system failure in play by consensus, as well - then the GM position (if it existed) would not be privileged in that sense.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> It seems like that point has already passed long into days of yore when people argued that by definition GMs can't cheat.




I hear what you're saying there and to some extent agree. 

 However, the key difference is that I'm actually supported by RAW and arguing a point because those who aren't supported by anything other than personal opinion continue to die on the hill.  

Be well
KB


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> It seems like that point has already passed long into days of yore when people argued that by definition GMs can't cheat.




I'm not sure that's the end point of the argument. Getting the definitions straight should be the first part of the argument. Then actual discussion can happen, instead of absurd claims like "it is a fact that this is cheating". A dictionary definition of cheating is "To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation."; under that definition, someone not violating the rules can't be cheating, and someone using that definition and making the claim that someone not violating the rules is not cheating is being entirely factual. Arguing about the definition of cheating is pointless, and if its emotional power is too strong to use, then any semantic arguments should be makeable using another word. When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] argues that using fudging instead of cheating is doublethink, that's a sign that there's no logical discussion to be had, he just wants to use the word with the emotional weight he wants.

It is a principle in mathematics given by David Hilbert that "One must be able to say at all times--instead of points, straight lines, and planes--tables, chairs, and beer mugs" and the theorems still follow from the axioms. That's a hard line to take in general argument, but if one can't rephrase your argument without using the word "cheat", it's not a meaningful discussion.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 25, 2018)

prosfilaes said:


> When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] argues that using fudging instead of cheating is doublethink, that's a sign that there's no logical discussion to be had, he just wants to use the word with the emotional weight he wants.



Not sure why Hussar is getting singled-out for something that he alone has not put forth. I have said as much as well. But retreading that argument seems pointless when there is already a back catalog of pages on that point.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 25, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Not sure why Hussar is getting singled-out for something that he alone has not put forth. I have said as much as well. But retreading that argument seems pointless when there is already a back catalog of pages on that point.




So you want to claim the credit for attacking people for using the dictionary definition of "cheat", but decline to explain why that was reasonable, or why you didn't use yourself as an example of people arguing over the definition of English words?


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Sure they are.  The table makes the rules.  Official rules aren't sacred.  They can be altered or removed without it being cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> They can't be.  An outside observer may not understand, but if everyone at the table is doing it, the outside observer can't call it cheating and be correct.




If it's part of organized play, it absolutely can and should be called cheating to not use the rules.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It's right there in black and white.  They have a land speed, but no fly speed.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not pedantic.  It's your logic.  Altering or breaking a rule with another rule is cheating.  You don't get to cherry pick which rules that break other rules are cheating.  All are, or none are.




No, altering a DIE ROLL AFTER THE FACT is cheating.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 25, 2018)

prosfilaes said:


> So you want to claim the credit for attacking people for using the dictionary definition of "cheat", but decline to explain why that was reasonable, or why you didn't use yourself as an example of people arguing over the definition of English words?




So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?

You have a quite different definition of cheating from me.  It's:

a) dishonest in nature because you are keeping the activity secret from the players
b) self-serving because you are attempting to create a specific outcome that you think is better.

In what way is this not cheating?  Oh, right, it's not cheating because it's allowed by the rules which have been changed over the years to rebrand cheating as "fudging".  

Ok.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 26, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> If it's part of organized play, it absolutely can and should be called cheating to not use the rules.



 In the current D&D organized play program, AL, the rules in question are 5e, and in 5e the most basic rule for resolution is that the DM decides success or failure, calling for a roll only if he judges the outcome uncertain (and setting the DC).  So the DM is within his rights to not even call for a roll.  It's not much of a stretch to call for (or make behind the screen) a 'placebo' roll, or call for a roll and realize "nah, that wasn't uncertain, afterall..."  The broader 5e philosophy embraces 'Rulings, not Rules," so yeah, it's not cheating to overrule the rules, it's just following the rules, that say, in essence, the DM decides what the rules really are.  FWIW.  

Obviously, D&D isn't the only organized play program out there, and there are certainly less permissive systems out there, too.  



Hussar said:


> No, altering a DIE ROLL AFTER THE FACT is cheating.



 Not if the rules gave you the option of deciding the result without consulting the die in the first place, or explicitly gave you the option to alter said die roll.  RPGs are often pretty wide-open in the authority they give GMs.  Those that aren't, can always be modified by the GM.  "Do you use any variants?" "Oh, sure, a few..."



Hussar said:


> So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?



 Correct.  It's making a ruling notwithstanding the system.  



> You have a quite different definition of cheating from me.  It's:
> 
> a) dishonest in nature because you are keeping the activity secret from the players



 Keeping secrets is not dishonest when the role you've assumed requires it and there's an expectation that you will do so.  Any RPG where you traditionally put up a DM screen certainly qualifies.  


> b) self-serving because you are attempting to create a specific outcome that you think is better.



...that you think is better, _for the players' experience of the game_, so it's altruistic, not self-serving.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Because you’ve said that an Inspiration die is cheating. Which is the exact same mechanic as confirming a critical.
> 
> It’s a critical, wait, not it’s not.



In fairness, it's the other way around: "It's not a critical, wait, yes it is!"


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> /snip
> 
> Correct.  It's making a ruling notwithstanding the system.




More semantic gymnastics...



> Keeping secrets is not dishonest when the role you've assumed requires it and there's an expectation that you will do so.  Any RPG where you traditionally put up a DM screen certainly qualifies.




You use a DM's screen because you don't want the players seeing your notes.  Using it to alter outcomes after the fact just makes it easier to che.... err... make a ruling notwithstanding the system.



> ...that you think is better, _for the players' experience of the game_, so it's altruistic, not self-serving.




Ok, fine boys and girls.  I should have given this up long ago but it was just too much fun watching the knots people will tie themselves in to avoid the word cheat.  

I'm out.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> More semantic gymnastics...



 A legitimate GM function in some systems.



> You use a DM's screen because you don't want the players seeing your notes.



 Because you're keeping secrets.  Lot's of 'em.  In the context of GMing, keeping secrets is not dishonest.  That can include keeping details of a resolution method secret.



> Ok, fine boys and girls.  I should have given this up long ago *but it was just too much fun* watching the knots people will tie themselves in to avoid the word cheat.
> I'm out.



 Hey, if we didn't like facilitating other people's fun, we wouldn't run games - and fudge results in them - so much.  Glad you had a good time.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is another of those cases where I want to ask, have you actually played or even read the rules for the game you're talking about?
> 
> And do you have any actual evidence?
> 
> ...



And a strong incentive to metagame, as a probably unintended side effect.

On first glance that's actually a cool-sounding system.  But I stop and think about the game I play in and - knowing the people involved - how it'd work there if implemented.  There's 6 players (plus the DM).  Two of them would for sure find reasons to make bonds only with each other about 95% of the time and would find a way to fulfill them every time, or at least say they were fulfilled.  Another two would to a lesser extent do likewise - they'd almost always bond with each other but the fulfillment would be more genuine.  And the remaining two - of which I'd be one - would be kinda stuck, as our characters don't often get along that well. 

I do like the three group questions.  Were it me, of course, I'd add a corollary question to each one: who (as PC) actually took part in that activity e.g. did we all help in finding that significant treasure or was it just done by the Rogue on her own?



> No. In 4e there is no default assumption that players will _try_ to progress through levels. It's not something you have to try to do; it's a side effect of playing the game.



Until you don't, or can't, because your PC has died or otherwise been rendered unfit to continue.



> Likewise AD&D no one has to _try_ to make gametime pass - the marking off of turns, hours and days is something the GM does as part of the course of play.



Time passes and is marked off, but the "speed" of that time passage is up to the players.  If they want to do every little bit of downtime activity in great detail that next three game-time weeks will take a lot longer to play out at the table than if they just tell me "we take the next three weeks off for some R&R".



> I'm talking about PC build.



Where I'm talking about what I'm familiar with: the modules as designed.



> Have you played 4e? Have you undertaken a systematic consideration of how the system works?



For these purposes, neither is necessary.  A simple basic read-over of the rulebooks (the first round) and some of the modules tells me all I need to know: the game is, at its root, still out to kill the PCs.



> The goal in 4e is _not_ survival.



Survival is a goal that must be achieved before any other goal even becomes relevant.



> The goal is to impact the fiction.



Knowing the type of games you like I can see why you'd say this - but remember you're looking at it through your fiction-coloured glasses. 

One could say that "to impact the fiction" is more or less the goal of any RPG...except unless the system does not allow PC death at all it's always a secondary goal to survival.  Which I guess means I'd better ask: do you allow PC death in your games that the player doesn't see coming and-or hasn't pre-approved?

If yes, we can carry on.

If no, we might as well quit here because I'm talking about apples while you're talking about motorboats.



> Player characters have an extreme depth of resources for both survival purposes (healing surges, and various abilities to unlock them) and active purposes (skill bonuses, various powers, etc). Expending the former is simply a means to an end.



Yes, I already mentioned that 4e as designed makes it easier for the PCs to survive.  But there's a yawning gulf between easier (the game's out to kill you but it probably won't) and guaranteed (the game can't kill you unless you let it, or at all).

As soon as the game can kill your PC without your-as-player pre-approval, the basic goal is survival.



> And those healing surges etc are not evenly allocated. The game assumes that some PCs will "take the heat" and other won't. If a player wants to play a character who doesn't "take the heat", then s/he builds a rogue or a ranger (of a certain sort) or a wizard. But someone who builds (say) a fighter or a warlord or a paladin and then tries to avoid "taking the heat" is just dealing him-/herself out of the game.



This is true of all editions.  In 1e arcane casters were expected to stay well clear of the heat, for example.

But I've seen far too many supposedly rough tough PCs head for cover when danger nears and leave their less-sturdy comrades to take the heat to not consider it a problem.



> Not to mention, that a big part of both the encounter design in 4e, and the mechanical design of opponents (both monsters/NPCs and traps/hazards), is to allow the GM to bring the heat to the players. And then the players themselves have resources to respond to that, to defend one another if they want to, or to expose others to risk if they want to.



The encounter design in 4e, from what I've seen of it through running various modules, is generally quite good; and it does bring the heat and it does try to kill PCs.  A DM running those encounters in such a way as to spare the PCs is kinda letting the game down.



> Less important point: that person will not become higher level than everyone else. The default in 4e is that everyone is the same level.



I'm aware that's the default, and it's one of the major reasons I would never run 4e as written.  There's a whole bunch of very logical and organic in-game reasons* why the characters in a party would, over time, tend towards not always being the same level; and I don't want to arbitrarily over-write that.

* - some of which can cause problems of their own, which are what I'd rather be trying to solve



> More important point, and reiteration: if, in 4e, I want to play a "cautious character" then I just build one. A rogue or ranger would be a good start, or certain sorts of warlock. But the play of the game is not going to make me safer than anyone else. _Caution_ is an aspect of PC colour and personality and method, not a power-gaming tactic. Which goes back to the point that not all RPGs are wargames.



War game, sport game, whatever: if your character doesn't contribute it shouldn't get xp.

And what I'm saying, I suppose, is that in a way over-cautious (i.e. cowardly) gaming *is* a power-gaming tactic, only way more passive-aggressive than how the term is usually applied.  She who fights and runs away lives to fight another day...even if in her running away she's left her (now ex-)companions to take the heat for her and maybe even get killed off.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Fate is a more player/narrative-driven game. Combat is not the end-all-be-all of the game. Character advancement is not necessarily about improving your combat effectiveness nor should your success as a character be measured in combat or the accumulation of experience thereof.



Unfortunately combat was the only example I could quickly think of where it's usually pretty obvious who's contributing and who's not.



> Does that mean that characters will shy away from combat? For your groups? Maybe. In my actual experience running Fate? Hell no!



Good on your lot, then! 



> So just for an example. A minor milestone reward may include renaming one of your non-High Concept aspects. So you could rename your "Disheveled by Brother's Unsolved Murder" aspect to "Sworn Enemy of Cobra Cult" after finding out who did it during play. So now your aspect invokes/compels will work towards the latter now that the former has been made irrelevant through completing an arc wherein you discovered that Cobra Cult was responsible for your brother's death. And just as a quick refresher, when you invoke an aspect, you spend one of your fate points generally either to re-roll your results or to gain a +2 bonus to the dice results for a given action. But you can only invoke that aspect when that aspect is relevant to the narrative fiction. So you may only get that +2 bonus or re-roll when you are dealing with Cobra Cult in some way, whether that is combat or investigating a scene they are likely involved.
> 
> (1) If you are making a discovery as a group, as is the case more often then not, then you get XP as a group.



OK, what if you're making a discovery as an individual?  Using your example above, what if I  discovered the Cobra Cult knocked off my brother through research I did on my own - would only I get the xp?  If yes, we're good. 



> (2) XP in Numenera tends to be given in incredibly small gradients: 1-2 XP.
> 
> Numenera is composed of Six Tiers/Levels. So in order to level up, you need to spend 4 XP on each of the four requirements for each level-up: effort, edge, skill, 4 points to your stat pools. You don't need to know what these do for our discussion, but I thought I would list them. So 16 XP per tier for 5 tiers or 80 XP total to get from Tier 1 to Tier 6. But there is not really a need to be in a mad rush to Tier 6 as the power curve is not as pronounced as it is in D&D.



So, same general idea but a slower and softer advancement.  Sounds good!



> XP is not just meant to be hoarded, but also used. XP is also spent in other ways, such as 1 XP for a short-term benefit (e.g., re-rolls, rejecting GM Intrusions), 2 XP for a medium-term benefit (e.g., localized skill, jury-rigging a one use magical item from multiple other ones), and 3 XP for long-term benefits (e.g., contacts, familiarity [+1 to rolls for a certain task]). But players may still want to hoard their XP for leveling.



3e D&D had you use xp for magic item creation; and I'll say here as I said there: it's an awful mechanic!

Why?  Because it takes xp completely out of any type of in-game rationale (they represent the accumulated memories and experience and training a character has had at the various skills/abilities/etc. of its class) and puts them completely into the metagame as a player-spendable currency.



> One word reply: unconvinced. Why not just make the weak baboon worth 0 XP because you just defeated a weak baboon, which should probably be worthless to begin with, and then make the strong baboon worth 2 XP?



In part because nothing is ever worth 0 xp.  One weak baboon in this case might be worth 0.2 xp but when ten of them jump you they're worth ten times that.  I'd rather granularize it so the lone one is still worth something, even if very little.



> Nigel Tufnel: "...but these [baboons] go to 23 XP."



Er...I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was Derek Smalls in that scene... 

Lan-"nobody knows 'oo they were, or, wot they were doin'"-efan


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?
> 
> You have a quite different definition of cheating from me.




Yes, I do. I've given you a functional definition: "To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation", taken from a dictionary, so it's not incredibly idiosyncratic. Why go "Ok.  "?



> a) dishonest in nature because you are keeping the activity secret from the players




GMs keep a lot of activity secret from the players. Most games involve some sort of secret information, like cards concealed from other players.



> b) self-serving because you are attempting to create a specific outcome that you think is better.




There are definitions of self-serving that include basically everything, because even if you give the bum on the corner your last buck, it's because you feel better about doing so. More normal definitions, however, would exclude actions taken to benefit others, and GMs usually ignore dice rolls to make the game more fun for their players as much for themselves.



> Oh, right, it's not cheating because it's allowed by the rules which have been changed over the years to rebrand cheating as "fudging".




Again, by the definition I gave you above, if it's not violating rules, it's not cheating. 

Game design evolves by breaking the assumptions of previous games. Is it cheating to show your teammates your cards? Not in Pandemic, and not in Hanabi, where it is cheating to look at your cards, but you can see your teammate's cards. According to a poker judge I know, official rules say you say just about anything about your cards except the truth. It's a weird rule, and I don't quite understand the motivation, but the power to create that rule allows exploring that game space. There's a competitive card game I played long ago where you could pick up a card that would let the player take gems from the board if they could do it without being caught. It is an interesting rule/card, and a good thing that game makers could explore that space. I think it bad to throw around the word "cheating" to include things that game designers consider features of their games.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2018)

prosfilaes said:


> GMs usually ignore dice rolls to make the game more fun for their players as much for themselves.





Tony Vargas said:


> Hey, if we didn't like facilitating other people's fun, we wouldn't run games - and fudge results in them - so much.



I've encountered GMs whose desire to tell others the story they've come up with is no all that altruistic!


----------



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And a strong incentive to metagame, as a probably unintended side effect.



Huh? The bond mechanic in DW is based on a similar mechanic in Apocalypse World, desgined by Vincent Baker who is up there with Robin Laws as one of the most important and influential RPG designers. The incentives the system generates are _absolutely intended_.



Lanefan said:


> Until you don't, or can't, because your PC has died or otherwise been rendered unfit to continue.



At leat in my group, players whose PCs die are allowed to make new characters and keep playing.



Lanefan said:


> As soon as the game can kill your PC without your-as-player pre-approval, the basic goal is survival.



Do you have any argument for this assertion?



Lanefan said:


> A DM running those encounters in such a way as to spare the PCs is kinda letting the game down.



I'm not talking about GM-side techniques. I'm talking about player-side resources.



Lanefan said:


> over-cautious (i.e. cowardly) gaming *is* a power-gaming tactic, only way more passive-aggressive than how the term is usually applied. She who fights and runs away lives to fight another day...even if in her running away she's left her (now ex-)companions to take the heat for her and maybe even get killed off.



How do you envisage this happening in the context of 4e? What fun do you think that "over-cautious" player is having? What resolution methods are you envisaging?


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I am asking that you respect what I wrote and what I have argued. I don't know why you feel obligated to be obtuse about showing a modicum of human decency and common courtesy here. So how about this? How about you come back with an argument that actually engages and respects what I am arguing as opposed to what you imagine I am arguing, and then I will engage that? Adopting that approach going forward does seem more in line with the board's rules and etiquette.




Perhaps I misunderstood what you have been saying.  My understanding of what you have been saying is that a rule that allows you to alter die rolls(which is another rule) is cheating.  Is that correct or incorrect?


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 26, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> If it's part of organized play, it absolutely can and should be called cheating to not use the rules.




Organized play is a different beast and should be discussed entirely separately from normal game play.  In any case, the rules of 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e include the DM altering die rolls, so...


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> No, altering a DIE ROLL AFTER THE FACT is cheating.




Then altering the INABILITY TO FLY AFTER THE FACT is also cheating.   You can't have it both ways.  Either altering something after the fact is cheating, or it isn't.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I've encountered GMs whose desire to tell others the story they've come up with is no all that altruistic!



By your definition, certainly; and by that of a detached observer, possibly.

But from the perspective of the GM in question?  Almost never.  They think they're doing a good thing...and sometimes they really are: a few (but sadly, not enough) GMs are good enough story-tellers that being along for the ride is more than entertainment enough.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Huh? The bond mechanic in DW is based on a similar mechanic in Apocalypse World, desgined by Vincent Baker who is up there with Robin Laws as one of the most important and influential RPG designers. The incentives the system generates are _absolutely intended_.



So am I right in interpreting this to mean you believe these designers intentionally want to incent the sort of metagaming I described?

If yes, I can safely ignore their designs and ideas henceforth and not feel like I'm missing anything useful.



> At leat in my group, players whose PCs die are allowed to make new characters and keep playing.



At the same level? (I assume yes for 4e but that's not the case for all systems and-or tables)  The same wealth?  The same amount of in-game character knowledge?

And if a PC dies halfway through an adventure and isn't revived until the adventure is complete, does that PC still get full xp for the adventure?  A full treasury share (and this should be up to the players to decide)?



> Do you have any argument for this assertion?



Yes: a PC's simple sense of self-preservation.

If I'm playing Jocinda* in H1 and we plow our way through to the final two big set-piece encounters (the first of which is quite good, the second of which needs a lot of fill-in-the-blanks from the DM to make work), it doesn't matter if my character goal is to slay Kalarel and free my ancestor - the trapped knight from the shield, whose name I forget - if I don't survive the pseudo-vampires above.

And both those encounters certainly have the potential to be deadly if one gets unlucky and-or dumb and-or doesn't have the right resources in the party, provided the DM doesn't pull her punches.

* - though I keep using the name, I've never played a character named Jocinda...that'll have to be my next one, after the five or so other "next ones" already waiting in line. 



> I'm not talking about GM-side techniques. I'm talking about player-side resources.



I'm talking about both, because no matter how much resources the game gives the players eventually their luck will run out and - unless the DM prevents it somehow - one or more PCs will die.



> How do you envisage this happening in the context of 4e? What fun do you think that "over-cautious" player is having? What resolution methods are you envisaging?



Not sure what you mean about "what resolution methods am I envisaging?" - the coward flees (provided she can safely detach herself from combat her escape is automatic if she knows a safe way out, maybe a skill challenge otherwise) while the rest play out the combat as per usual.

And in the extreme case: if the rest of the party get slaughtered, suddenly the coward is now the party!  She can go back to town and recruit some replacements (and probably would, once everyone else gets their new PCs rolled up); but now she's the boss.  She can hand-pick who comes into what is now her party; and she-as-player can even in meta-speak announce what she'd prefer to see as replacements before anyone does any rolling, should she so desire.  (and if she's really ambitious and-or lucky she can sneak back in and loot her fallen comrades before heading back to town, boosting her wealth considerably - wealth she's under no obligation to share with anyone)

IME, while this turnover does happen it never happens this quickly; the deaths and replacements are one or two at a time over a series of adventures, and over the long run the coward becomes both the wealthiest (it's nearly unavoidable) and the longest-serving - meaning she's made herself the star in that most of the story continuity is going to end up going through her.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Then altering the INABILITY TO FLY AFTER THE FACT is also cheating.   You can't have it both ways.  Either altering something after the fact is cheating, or it isn't.



Er...while I pretty much agree with your general stance, Max, I think you're comparing apples and oranges on this one.

An in-game event that changes something within the game is simply part of the game.  Human Lanefan casting a Fly spell on Human Maxperson who can't normally fly gets Maxie in the air, as that's how the spell works and what the spell does.

A legal game-mechanical event that changes something (e.g. a successful confirm roll turning a normal-hit 20 into a crit) is also simply a part of how the game works: after the fact it's being determined that this particular hit causes more harm to the victim than usual.

An illegal game mechanical event that changes something (e.g. a player rolling a 5 to hit but declaring the die says 15) is cheating.  Ditto a player whose character bangs off seven 3rd-level spells in a day despite only having three 3rd-level slots and none higher.

The only debate is whether a DM is bound by the same game-mechanical event rules as the players are, to which the answer - at least in D&D - seems to be a more or less unified "no" across most of the editions thus far, at least when (and in some cases only when) it comes to rolling dice.

Lanefan


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 26, 2018)

prosfilaes said:


> So you want to claim the credit for attacking people for using the dictionary definition of "cheat", but decline to explain why that was reasonable, or why you didn't use yourself as an example of people arguing over the definition of English words?



While you are at, how about asking me if I'm still beating my wife?  



Lanefan said:


> Unfortunately combat was the only example I could quickly think of where it's usually pretty obvious who's contributing and who's not.



That's fine. So maybe it is obvious for you, but this is not always clear for me. When I look at some of my past groups, whether as a player or at the helm as the GM, then I have generally seen all players attempting to contribute to the best of their abilities. The bard in one group was a wet noodle in combat, but they were contributing. 



> OK, what if you're making a discovery as an individual?  Using your example above, what if I  discovered the Cobra Cult knocked off my brother through research I did on my own - would only I get the xp?  If yes, we're good.



In the Cypher System? Probably, though the Cobra Cult example was for Fate, which uses milestones and not XP. But if your "fighters" (glaives) fought to get to that relic, the "rogue" (jack) found the relic, and then the "wizard" (nano) identified it, then who made the discovery possible? That's why Numenera favors giving XP to the group. There is a team effort to get to that point. If one player character was alone when they ventured off and then found and identified that relic, then yeah I would probably award them with an XP for that. But then I would probably then offset that by maybe throwing out GM Intrusions for other characters. But that's just a reality of players: some players are proactive while others prefer being reactive. 



> So, same general idea but a slower and softer advancement.  Sounds good!



Yeah, and the Cypher System also contributed to my views regarding the hyperinflated numbers of XP. But it becomes easy if you want to adjust the required XP for each level. So it may take 4 XP per benefit to get from Tier 1 to 2, but you may decide for your games that it will now take 6 XP per benefit to get from Tier 2 to Tier 3. But determining what is appropriate for your games may require playing several longer campaigns to see how pacing as written would be for your table. 

FYI, the guiding mechanic of the Cypher System is that the GM assigns a difficulty of 0-10 and multiplies that number by 3 to determine the Target Number. The Target Number is the number that the players have to beat on a d20 roll. So for example, if the Difficulty is 5, then the players have to roll a 15 or higher to succeed. But unlike 3e+ D&D, final resolution happens _*on*_ the roll result and not after. The Cypher System is not "roll d20 + player modifiers = result". Instead the GM establishes base TN and then the player attempts to lower that difficulty with their various resources, and then they have to beat that number on a d20 roll. One of the benefits of this system is that this places greater tension on the die roll and that tension is not lost in the calculations of "I rolled a 10, plus my combined +5 strength/proficiency bonus, plus +1 bonus from my magic sword. That is a 16 total. Do I hit? [and all eyes turn to the GM]" In the Cypher System, you know your success as soon as you roll. As you can imagine, if you are facing a task/monster with a difficulty of 7+, then you are dealing with Target Numbers that are 21 to 30, which you can't reach naturally on a d20 roll. Hence the players have means to lower that Difficulty/TN. 

So players have a number of tools at their disposal to lower the required Difficulty roll for them. For starters, players have skills (e.g., climbing, knowledge). If they are trained in a skill, they can lower that Difficulty by 1. And if they are specialized in a skill, they can lower that Difficulty by 2. So through skills, they can lower the Target Number from 3-6. So if a player was specialized in climbing, they could turn a Difficulty 5 task into a Difficulty 3 task. In other words, they would go from needing to roll a 15 or higher to needing to roll a 9 or higher. But players may also have assets. An "asset" is just a thing or circumstance that helps make things easier (e.g., books for knowledge, rope for climbing, shields for defense), which also can reduce the Difficulty by 1. Players also have Effort. Players can a spend points from one of their relevant ability/HP pools (Might, Speed, Intellect) to expend Effort to lower that difficulty further. Effort has a minimum point value per level of Effort you choose to apply, but players are capped by how much effort they can apply, which is determined by tier level or whether you have advanced your character with that 4 XP for the next grade of Effort. Certain abilities and powers can also lower the difficulty. 

I realize that this may sound complicated, but I assure you that it is remarkably intuitive. But if you notice, the only real involvement that the DM has here in is in establishing the Difficulty/TN, which is as simple as 0-10, though the DM may also be required to provide discretion whether the players may have additional assets (e.g., the high ground in combat). Monsters are created by essentially just establishing a Difficulty. If players are facing a Difficulty 3 monster, the players have to roll 9 or higher to hit, 9 or higher to defend themselves from its attacks, and its attacks do 3 damage (from its difficulty). The GM does not roll. The rest is on the players. The players roll everything, including their defense rolls. The players are mustering their character resources for success. 

And this is all a long-winded way of saying that monsters are sometimes much higher than the players' pay grade so getting around the monster becomes the puzzle between you and the discovery. To a certain degree, this system weirdly operates under - what is presumably my impression of - an Old School mentality. But you are going for discovering neat stuff to bring back and not gold. You are facing creatures and oddities you can't necessarily beat, and so you have to work around that. You are playing a game that involves the managing and attrition of player resources. 



> 3e D&D had you use xp for magic item creation; and I'll say here as I said there: it's an awful mechanic!
> 
> Why?  Because it takes xp completely out of any type of in-game rationale (they represent the accumulated memories and experience and training a character has had at the various skills/abilities/etc. of its class) and puts them completely into the metagame as a player-spendable currency.



Yeah, it's somewhat counterintuitive. And I have seen people propose some alternate mechanics or different types of pools: XP for character advancement and "XP" for PC in-narrative spending. 



> Er...I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was Derek Smalls in that scene...



Derek Smalls is the bassist. Nigel Tufnel is the lead guitarist. 



Maxperson said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood what you have been saying.  My understanding of what you have been saying is that a rule that allows you to alter die rolls(which is another rule) is cheating.  Is that correct or incorrect?



I am saying that "fudging" operates as cheating _de facto_ though not cheating _de jure_. Per Law it may not be, but  per Practice it fundamentally is. Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of the phrase "institutionalized cheating." And I think that this distinction is likely causing a lot of the frustration in this discussion. 

I went to Matt Colville's subreddit the other day. There was a thread there about DMs cheating/fudging, though centered around Puffin Forest's video "Should the DM Cheat in D&D?" From my sense of his fanbase, many of the players attracted to Matt Colville's game style tend to be grognards. So sticking my head in the thread for a gander, I was naturally expecting more of the same as here. But not once was I able to find there the phrase "the DM/GM can't cheat." Instead, there was a thread-wide recognition in place that on an essential level, that fudging is a mode of cheating. Some were putting a negative spin on this (e.g., "I don't cheat/fudge!) while others were not ("I cheat as a DM."). Some were talking about how cheating is sometimes necessary by the DM, but others were speaking against the practice. Even those who think that cheating is within the powers of the DM used the language of cheating as the natural language of the discourse. "Cheat/ing" was the predominate word used for this sort of "rules engagement" by the DM. Now before dismissing everyone in that thread as being "wrong" or using "incorrect terms," it's worth considering why other people outside of this forum find "cheating" the natural word choice for this discussion.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> So am I right in interpreting this to mean you believe these designers intentionally want to incent the sort of metagaming I described?
> 
> If yes, I can safely ignore their designs and ideas henceforth and not feel like I'm missing anything useful.



Well, I mostly didn't worry about the details of what you said because it doesn't reflect the actual content and operation of the Bonds mechanic - for instance, you talk about players whose PCs don't get along with others being sunk, but that would stop you having a bond like "X has insulted my deity; I do not trust them", or "X is soft, but I will make them hard like me" - just to pick one cleric and one fighter bond.

Your seeming assumption that bonds are mutual is also wrong - given that bonds are a function of class, and by default there is only one of each class in a DW party, bonds will almost always be distinctive and one-way.

But the whole point of the mechanic is to give players an incentive to focus on interpersonal relationships within the party, and to play them hard (so as to arrive at resolutions that then yield XP).


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Er...while I pretty much agree with your general stance, Max, I think you're comparing apples and oranges on this one.
> 
> An in-game event that changes something within the game is simply part of the game.  Human Lanefan casting a Fly spell on Human Maxperson who can't normally fly gets Maxie in the air, as that's how the spell works and what the spell does.




It's not about being in game or out.  It's about using a rule to alter other rules.  But just for the sake of argument, there were magic items and feats in 3e that allowed the player to re-roll or alter rolls when used, and 5e has feats and abilities that characters can activate to give advantage or disadvantage.  Advantage/disadvantage allows you to ignore one roll in favor of a second roll. That would be cheating according to @Husssar and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], even though it's an in-game event changing something within the game.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I am saying that "fudging" operates as cheating _de facto_ though not cheating _de jure_. Per Law it may not be, but  per Practice it fundamentally is. Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of the phrase "institutionalized cheating." And I think that this distinction is likely causing a lot of the frustration in this discussion.




I get what you are saying, but it still boils down to the DM using one rule to alter another.   You are calling it cheating for the DM to do that.  There's no difference between a DM using a rule to alter die rolls(another rule) and the DM using any other rule to alter rules other than rolling.  You are just arbitrarily declaring one to be cheating(de facto or otherwise) and the other not.



> I went to Matt Colville's subreddit the other day. There was a thread there about DMs cheating/fudging, though centered around Puffin Forest's video "Should the DM Cheat in D&D?" From my sense of his fanbase, many of the players attracted to Matt Colville's game style tend to be grognards. So sticking my head in the thread for a gander, I was naturally expecting more of the same as here. But not once was I able to find there the phrase "the DM/GM can't cheat." Instead, there was a thread-wide recognition in place that on an essential level, that fudging is a mode of cheating. Some were putting a negative spin on this (e.g., "I don't cheat/fudge!) while others were not ("I cheat as a DM."). Some were talking about how cheating is sometimes necessary by the DM, but others were speaking against the practice. Even those who think that cheating is within the powers of the DM used the language of cheating as the natural language of the discourse. "Cheat/ing" was the predominate word used for this sort of "rules engagement" by the DM. Now before dismissing everyone in that thread as being "wrong" or using "incorrect terms," it's worth considering why other people outside of this forum find "cheating" the natural word choice for this discussion.




I just popped over and it took me about a minute to find someone saying that DMs alter dice for the benefit of the players, and players do it to cheat.  That clearly indicates, even if they didn't use the phrase "the DM can't cheat," that the person only views it as cheating on the part of the player.

I found this in another thread, "It doesn't make sense to say that a DM is "cheating". Players cheat in a game, referees adjudicate."

And this thread has all kinds of people saying cheat is the wrong word.  https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolvil...ould_the_gm_cheat_in_dd_questions_for_fellow/


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Advantage/disadvantage allows you to ignore one roll in favor of a second roll. That would be cheating according to @Husssar and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], even though it's an in-game event changing something within the game.



Hussar can speak for himself, but if you think that this is cheating according to me, then I'm skeptical that you have been reading closely. IMHO, it would be cheating if you fudged the dice results of a check that used Advantage/Disadvantage as you are misreporting or being dishonest about the given results.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Hussar can speak for himself, but if you think that this is cheating according to me, then I'm skeptical that you have been reading closely. IMHO, it would be cheating if you fudged the dice results of a check that used Advantage/Disadvantage as you are misreporting or being dishonest about the given results.




It's the same logical form.  Your argument can be applied to every other rule that alters anything after the fact.  You've arbitrarily declared one example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" as cheating, but another example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" is not cheating.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I get what you are saying, but it still boils down to the DM using one rule to alter another.   You are calling it cheating for the DM to do that.  There's no difference between a DM using a rule to alter die rolls(another rule) and the DM using any other rule to alter rules other than rolling.  You are just arbitrarily declaring one to be cheating(de facto or otherwise) and the other not.



I disagree, but these differences are likely irreconcilable. 



> I just popped over and it took me about a minute to find someone saying that DMs alter dice for the benefit of the players, and players do it to cheat.  That clearly indicates, even if they didn't use the phrase "the DM can't cheat," that the person only views it as cheating on the part of the player.
> 
> I found this in another thread, "It doesn't make sense to say that a DM is "cheating". Players cheat in a game, referees adjudicate."
> 
> And this thread has all kinds of people saying cheat is the wrong word.  https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolvil...ould_the_gm_cheat_in_dd_questions_for_fellow/



It seems you're missing the forest for the trees here or using the presence of shrubbery to attempt disproving the presence of the forest. 



Maxperson said:


> It's the same logical form.  Your argument can be applied to every other rule that alters anything after the fact.  You've arbitrarily declared one example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" as cheating, but another example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" is not cheating.



Apples are round. Oranges are round. Therefore, apples are oranges? One should not mistake a similarity of form with a sameness of form or essence.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jul 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> In fairness, it's the other way around: "It's not a critical, wait, yes it is!"




Mechanically, yes. Psychologically no. It would be like making a T-shirt with a d20 on a 20 that says “Crit Happens*” 

“*when confirmed.”

In all prior (and later) editions, a 20 is a critical. So the new rule altered the result of the roll. Generally when somebody throws a 20, that’s the big deal. I even have one of those dice that flash when you roll a 20. 

Altering the result of a die after it is thrown seems to be (one of) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s threshold for what he calls cheating. I obviously disagree.

I think it was definitely a change in the rules, and one that makes a certain amount of sense, especially when increasing the critical threat range. I like our solution better, since they usually know after a round or two what is needed to hit, they know before they roll if a 20 will be a crit. But it still takes away a bit of the fun of the natural 20.

To be fair, once you’re used to the rule, you know that the confirmation roll is the one that it exciting.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> At the same level?  The same wealth?  The same amount of in-game character knowledge?



 Replacement characters seem like an issue if there's going to be this conceit that survival is a key objective.  In 1e (and, I assume the other classic versions of that period), your replacement character was freshly-rolled, new stats, 1st level.  But, the 'skilled play' paradigm of the day /did/ expect you to use the knowledge you'd gained in playing that character when playing your next one (if he walked into a gelatinous cube, you'd be right for your next character to be wary of oddly dust-free corridors and floating skeletons).  So in 1e, the answer would be no-no-Yes.  3e introduced the idea of starting at level, with 'level appropriate' (and, since you got to choose how you spent that wealth, it could be a bit of an advantage to build a new character), but, the idea of using accumulated 'player knowledge' had long since gone out of style as 'metagaming, so yes-yes-no (ditto 4e).  5e discarded the idea of wealth/level, entirely, in theory, a character is fine with starting gear at any point in his career, AFAIK, the attitude towards player knowledge hasn't changed, in spite of 5e harkening back to the classic game in so many other ways so successfully, so the answer there is yes-no-no.    



> And in the extreme case: if the rest of the party get slaughtered, suddenly the coward is now the party!  She can go back to town and recruit some replacements (and probably would, once everyone else gets their new PCs rolled up); but now she's the boss.  She can hand-pick who comes into what is now her party; and she-as-player can even in meta-speak announce what she'd prefer to see as replacements before anyone does any rolling, should she so desire.  (and if she's really ambitious and-or lucky she can sneak back in and loot her fallen comrades before heading back to town, boosting her wealth considerably - wealth she's under no obligation to share with anyone) IME, while this turnover does happen it never happens this quickly; the deaths and replacements are one or two at a time over a series of adventures, and over the long run the coward becomes both the wealthiest (it's nearly unavoidable) and the longest-serving - meaning she's made herself the star in that most of the story continuity is going to end up going through her.



 So, one of my old gaming buddies, before he went off D&D entirely (he became a GURPS fanatic), ended up 'stuck playing the cleric' one time and managed really well.  First of all, he played an evil cleric, then he'd heal the party /very/ selectively, engineering things so that they'd all end up dead at convenient points in the adventure, and he could collect all the treasure, all the exp, and head out to recruit a bunch of new 1st level dupes to do it all over again...

...what you describe, and what he experienced, were, IMHO, degenerate cases of D&D play, they illustrate how badly wrong the game can go with the wrong DM, an embittered player, or even with the table just acquiring some bad habits.



Aldarc said:


> it's worth considering why other people outside of this forum find "cheating" the natural word choice for this discussion.



 I tend to consider this forum some pretty jaded folks (being pretty jaded, myself, and prone to projecting that), but you are talking reddit. That's prettymuch the Mos Eisley of internet discussion.  Self-identifying as 'a cheater' was probably the least-edgy thing they did that morning.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?
> 
> You have a quite different definition of cheating from me.  It's:
> 
> ...




The rules have never been changed over the years.  Go back a few pages and you'll find my quotation from 1st edition.  There was a brief omission of what was to become rule 0 in 3.0 that was re added and clarified with 3.5.

No matter how many times you try to continue an argument that supports your point of view, your premise is factually incorrect from a rules perspective.  You're mistaking changes in language and slang for reality.

Thank you, 
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 26, 2018)

@_*Aldarc*_ - In response to "it's worth considering why others outside of this forum community think that cheating is the appropriate word choice... 

Answer: Others are misappropriating the term cheating to mean what they think it means and not what it does mean.  /consideration.

Is there another place where people are stupid enough to go 58 pages into conversation over semantics yet still have enough of an education on average to have a deep understanding of language and rules?

Last post from me in this thread so if you and @_*Hussar*_ keep screaming loudly enough you'll eventually win over the tumbleweeds. 

KB

(edit for administration - I'm using the term "stupid" generally to include myself.  Writing this because I've a permanent infraction on file for calling someone a "jerk" of all things and I've learned not to assume anything about what could set someone with mod capability off if they've had a bad day to begin with. - Thanks.)


----------



## prosfilaes (Jul 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> While you are at, how about asking me if I'm still beating my wife?




Seriously? You don't understand that you're making a definitional argument about what the definition of cheating is?



> I am saying that "fudging" operates as cheating _de facto_ though not cheating _de jure_. Per Law it may not be, but  per Practice it fundamentally is. Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of the phrase "institutionalized cheating." And I think that this distinction is likely causing a lot of the frustration in this discussion.




The definition of cheating says "violating the rules". Therefore there is no such thing as "cheating de factor". If you disagree, then you're making a definitional argument.



> Now before dismissing everyone in that thread as being "wrong" or using "incorrect terms,"




I, for one, do not have a need to accuse people with a different definition than me of being "wrong" or "incorrect". They're using a different definition than me. That's why it's important to get definitions straight from the start, and not get all hostile to people just because they have different definitions.

I do not cheat. Cheating, unless you're James Bond against Le Chiffre with the fate of the world on the line, is wrong. Which is why it's important to me to keep the word "cheat" limited to stuff that's clearly wrong; and as I said above, games must have the option of making any behavior okay within the rules of the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Well, I mostly didn't worry about the details of what you said because it doesn't reflect the actual content and operation of the Bonds mechanic - for instance, you talk about players whose PCs don't get along with others being sunk, but that would stop you having a bond like "X has insulted my deity; I do not trust them", or "X is soft, but I will make them hard like me" - just to pick one cleric and one fighter bond.



Ah - I was reading the word "bond" as something one would only do with friends.  Not trusting someone hardly seems like a bond, as the word is usually used. 



> Your seeming assumption that bonds are mutual is also wrong - given that bonds are a function of class, and by default there is only one of each class in a DW party, bonds will almost always be distinctive and one-way.



I wasn't assuming the bonds were mutual as intended, merely that they would inevitably become mostly mutual in practice if applied at the table I was referring to.

As an aside: that 'only one of each class' bit seems like an oddly arbitrary restriction, unless there's lots of similar classes such that if everyone wants to play a warrior, say, there's enough to go round.



> But the whole point of the mechanic is to give players an incentive to focus on interpersonal relationships within the party, and to play them hard (so as to arrive at resolutions that then yield XP).



The premise is fine; particularly if those interpersonal relationships don't always have to be positive ones.  (again, the word 'bond' in general non-game usage implies a bond of friendship)

Now, how does this work if someone doesn't want their bond to be known by its target?  For example, "X has insulted my deity; I do not trust her" - as Y's player I maybe don't want X (and by extension X's player) to know I don't trust her and am thus quietly keeping an eye on her, as that knowledge will affect* how X is played.  So does someone else - the GM, maybe, then have to determine whether I've fulfilled that Bond?

* - it will, no matter how much X's player may protest to the contrary.  The effects may be more or less subtle but the likelihood of their being present is 100%.

Lan-"what's odd here is that one of my own currently active characters is named X"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Mechanically, yes. Psychologically no. It would be like making a T-shirt with a d20 on a 20 that says “Crit Happens*”
> 
> “*when confirmed.”
> 
> In all prior (and later) editions, a 20 is a critical.



Not all.  1e as written didn't have criticals (or fumbles, for that matter), though I'm 99% sure they were proposed in one or three Dragon articles of the era, because we got 'em from somewhere by about 1983 and I don't think we independently came up with the concept.



> I think it was definitely a change in the rules, and one that makes a certain amount of sense, especially when increasing the critical threat range. I like our solution better, since they usually know after a round or two what is needed to hit, they know before they roll if a 20 will be a crit. But it still takes away a bit of the fun of the natural 20.
> 
> To be fair, once you’re used to the rule, you know that the confirmation roll is the one that it exciting.



We've had criticals (and fumbles) forever but they've always needed some sort of confirm roll; so I know well of what you speak here. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Replacement characters seem like an issue if there's going to be this conceit that survival is a key objective.  In 1e (and, I assume the other classic versions of that period), your replacement character was freshly-rolled, new stats, 1st level.



Or at least of lower level than the party average or otherwise-party-lowest. 


> But, the 'skilled play' paradigm of the day /did/ expect you to use the knowledge you'd gained in playing that character when playing your next one (if he walked into a gelatinous cube, you'd be right for your next character to be wary of oddly dust-free corridors and floating skeletons).



I never hit this, though that was a table-level change to what's pretty clear in Gygax's writings.  We saw it as metagaming.



> So in 1e, the answer would be no-no-Yes.  3e introduced the idea of starting at level, with 'level appropriate' (and, since you got to choose how you spent that wealth, it could be a bit of an advantage to build a new character), but, the idea of using accumulated 'player knowledge' had long since gone out of style as 'metagaming, so yes-yes-no (ditto 4e).  5e discarded the idea of wealth/level, entirely, in theory, a character is fine with starting gear at any point in his career, AFAIK, the attitude towards player knowledge hasn't changed, in spite of 5e harkening back to the classic game in so many other ways so successfully, so the answer there is yes-no-no.



Wealth-by-level as a very vague guideline was fine, but the tighter it got the more doomed to failure it was - there's just too many variables that can affect a character's wealth (up or down), particularly one that's had a long career.



> So, one of my old gaming buddies, before he went off D&D entirely (he became a GURPS fanatic), ended up 'stuck playing the cleric' one time and managed really well.  First of all, he played an evil cleric, then he'd heal the party /very/ selectively, engineering things so that they'd all end up dead at convenient points in the adventure, and he could collect all the treasure, all the exp, and head out to recruit a bunch of new 1st level dupes to do it all over again...
> 
> ...what you describe, and what he experienced, were, IMHO, degenerate cases of D&D play, they illustrate how badly wrong the game can go with the wrong DM, an embittered player, or even with the table just acquiring some bad habits.



That's an extreme (but well pulled off!) example of exactly what I'm talking about.

But "the wrong DM"?  What can a DM reasonably do to prevent this other than start banning stuff (and even that might not help) or focus-firing on the Cleric all the time?  And it wouldn't even take an evil Cleric, just a particularly zealous one who, say, won't cure anyone who is not of her faith.

Lan-"I once played an over-zealous 'convert or die' type Cleric just to see how it'd go; I found out later the rest of the PCs were lining up to kill her, only the monsters got her first"-efan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Wealth-by-level as a very vague guideline was fine, but the tighter it got the more doomed to failure it was - there's just too many variables that can affect a character's wealth (up or down), particularly one that's had a long career.



 It was pretty straightforward & 'tight' from 3.0 on, if you brought in a new character at a given level, he got so much wealth he could use to by gear, mostly magic items.  Sure, sometimes you'd get away with playing a caster with crafting feats and burn exp to get even more items, that could be problematic.



> That's an extreme (but well pulled off!) example of exactly what I'm talking about.
> But "the wrong DM"?  What can a DM reasonably do to prevent this other than start banning stuff (and even that might not help) or focus-firing on the Cleric all the time?



Start replacement characters at level.  Divide exp by the characters who started the adventure, not the number that survived.  Not give out exp for treasure.  Not give out exp, at all, for 'failed' missions.  
Simply require everyone to roll new characters.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It was pretty straightforward & 'tight' from 3.0 on, if you brought in a new character at a given level, he got so much wealth he could use to by gear, mostly magic items.  Sure, sometimes you'd get away with playing a caster with crafting feats and burn exp to get even more items, that could be problematic.



For a new character - but did the veteran characters have more wealth?  Less wealth? A mix?



> Start replacement characters at level.  Divide exp by the characters who started the adventure, not the number that survived.  Not give out exp for treasure.  Not give out exp, at all, for 'failed' missions.



Xp are divided among those present and contributing at the time they are earned.  I don't give xp for treasure but do give xp for things defeated/done even on a failed mission e.g. if the party kills off two groups of giants but then gets nearly wiped out by the third group (and the one guy runs away) they'd still get xp for the first two lots but none for the third lot, and no dungeon bonus.


> Simply require everyone to roll new characters.



Fine in this instance - provided you're willing to be consistent later in a more legitimate lone-survivor scenario should such arise; that the lone survivor's player also has to restart.  Otherwise it's just favouritism, something a DM must at all costs avoid.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You've arbitrarily declared one example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" as cheating, but another example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" is not cheating.



I happen not to entirely agree with [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] about this cheating issue - my view is that if there is a table consensus that the GM is allowed to make up whatever s/he wants about the shared fiction, so that the real function of dice rolls (both player and GM side) is to make "suggestions" that the GM might take on board if s/he hasn't got anything else in mind, then the GM playing in that manner is not cheating.

But the opinions that Aldarc and Hussar are presenting are not in the least _arbitrary_. They are honing in on the use of dice as randomisation devices, and identifying as _cheating_ any change of the outcome that is not pursuant to some class of reasonably well-defined mechanics. There's nothing arbitrary about that - it seems to follow from a fairly common-sense way of thinking about the purpose of dice rolls, card draws and the like in games.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> . There's nothing arbitrary about that - it seems to follow from a fairly common-sense way of thinking about the purpose of dice rolls, card draws and the like in games.



Well then, Hussar, at least, shouldn't get to use it - since he feels that_ RPGs aren't games!_


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> if the rest of the party get slaughtered, suddenly the coward is now the party!  She can go back to town and recruit some replacements (and probably would, once everyone else gets their new PCs rolled up); but now she's the boss.  She can hand-pick who comes into what is now her party; and she-as-player can even in meta-speak announce what she'd prefer to see as replacements before anyone does any rolling, should she so desire.  (and if she's really ambitious and-or lucky she can sneak back in and loot her fallen comrades before heading back to town, boosting her wealth considerably - wealth she's under no obligation to share with anyone)
> 
> IME, while this turnover does happen it never happens this quickly; the deaths and replacements are one or two at a time over a series of adventures, and over the long run the coward becomes both the wealthiest (it's nearly unavoidable) and the longest-serving - meaning she's made herself the star in that most of the story continuity is going to end up going through her.





Tony Vargas said:


> So, one of my old gaming buddies, before he went off D&D entirely (he became a GURPS fanatic), ended up 'stuck playing the cleric' one time and managed really well.  First of all, he played an evil cleric, then he'd heal the party /very/ selectively, engineering things so that they'd all end up dead at convenient points in the adventure, and he could collect all the treasure, all the exp, and head out to recruit a bunch of new 1st level dupes to do it all over again...
> 
> ...what you describe, and what he experienced, were, IMHO, degenerate cases of D&D play, they illustrate how badly wrong the game can go with the wrong DM, an embittered player, or even with the table just acquiring some bad habits.



I was going to post that what Lanefan describes seems rather pathological to me, and then saw Tony Vargas's post doing the work for me!

Even if one pulls back from words like "pathological" and "degenerate case", there are _so many_ assumptions built into what Lanefan describes - about how the GM handles scene framing, about how players decide what PCs to roll up, about how the group handles party formation, about how treasure works in the game, about how "story continuity" works - that it's not worth trying to unpack them all. I'll just say that I think none of the assumptions being made there holds at my table, _except_ for the assumption about treasure, which did hold in one of our old RM campaigns set in GH.



Tony Vargas said:


> Replacement characters seem like an issue if there's going to be this conceit that survival is a key objective.  In 1e (and, I assume the other classic versions of that period), your replacement character was freshly-rolled, new stats, 1st level.  But, the 'skilled play' paradigm of the day /did/ expect you to use the knowledge you'd gained in playing that character when playing your next one (if he walked into a gelatinous cube, you'd be right for your next character to be wary of oddly dust-free corridors and floating skeletons).  So in 1e, the answer would be no-no-Yes.  3e introduced the idea of starting at level, with 'level appropriate' (and, since you got to choose how you spent that wealth, it could be a bit of an advantage to build a new character), but, the idea of using accumulated 'player knowledge' had long since gone out of style as 'metagaming, so yes-yes-no (ditto 4e).



In 4e a player who starts a new character is expected to keep improving his/her technical play, however. (At least I think that is the default.) That is to say, s/he wouldn't be expected to emulate the lack of familiarity with the power suite, the way pacing works (especially in combat), etc that is typical of a new 4e player.

Whereas I can easily imagine some 2nd ed AD&D tables complaining that an experienced player who uses that knowledge to play a 1st level PC effectively (eg in terms of thinking through spell load out, or combat tactics, or dungeoneering methods) is cheating or metagaming.

EDIT: Saw the follow-ups:



Lanefan said:


> What can a DM reasonably do to prevent this other than start banning stuff (and even that might not help) or focus-firing on the Cleric all the time?  And it wouldn't even take an evil Cleric, just a particularly zealous one who, say, won't cure anyone who is not of her faith.





Tony Vargas said:


> Start replacement characters at level.  Divide exp by the characters who started the adventure, not the number that survived.  Not give out exp for treasure.  Not give out exp, at all, for 'failed' missions.
> Simply require everyone to roll new characters.



Tony Vargas identifies some ways of departing from the play assumptions that underpin the example. Of course there are many ways that are not GM-side but player-side or group side.

But the most obvious one is - why would a table of RPGers continue to play with an unpleasant person who wrecks the game? Or, if we want to put it in less social terms - what makes the player of the surviving PC think that the ongoing story is going to be about _his_ PC? As opposed to the (new) party that the other players roll up, who may or may not wish to welcome a stranger into their midst, but probably not the evil cleric whose reputation precedes him.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In 4e a player who starts a new character is expected to keep improving his/her technical play, however. (At least I think that is the default.) That is to say, s/he wouldn't be expected to emulate the lack of familiarity with the power suite, the way pacing works (especially in combat), etc that is typical of a new 4e player.



 Sure.  There's a lot if abstraction, though, between 4e gameplay tactics, like focus fire or flanking, and in-fiction tactical acumen, like Bait & Switch, Wolf Pack Tactics, or Tactical Presence.  So you're not really breaking character or anything at that level.  Focus fire isn't metagaming, for instance, just gaming. 

In 4e it'd also probably be fine to act on your 'player knowledge' of a monster, too, since most of that can be out in the open, anyway.  It's not like the classic game when player knowledge could be life or death.


> Whereas I can easily imagine some 2nd ed AD&D tables complaining that an experienced player who uses that knowledge to play a 1st level PC effectively (eg in terms of thinking through spell load out, or combat tactics, or dungeoneering methods) is cheating or metagaming.



 I've known it to happen in AD&D, 1e too, but don't think it was in the spirit that Gygax intended, rather the 'player knowledge' objection was part of the rapid shift from wargames to RPG, that had little to do with the mechanics or presentation.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I've known it to happen in AD&D, 1e too, but don't think it was in the spirit that Gygax intended, rather the 'player knowledge' objection was part of the rapid shift from wargames to RPG, that had little to do with the mechanics or presentation.



I agree absolutely that it wasn't intended by Gygax, which is why I used 2nd ed AD&D - which formalises the shift from wargaming to "storyteller" RPGing - as my touchstone.

(The idea that it's a shift from wargaming to RPG I reject: playing D&D as a wargame is one very traditional mode of RPGing, not something that contrasts with it.)


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Apples are round. Oranges are round. Therefore, apples are oranges? One should not mistake a similarity of form with a sameness of form or essence.




I'm not really sure what kind of apples you eat, but I've never seen a round one.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not really sure what kind of apples you eat, but I've never seen a round one.



I've seen plenty. Now, a perfectly spherical one? Of course not. A perfect sphere only exists in theory.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 27, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> I've seen plenty. Now, a perfectly spherical one? Of course not. A perfect sphere only exists in theory.




It was a joke, dude.  

The discussion is over.  He failed to prove that I am cheating, which I can't be since the rules allow me to alter die rolls.  All that's left now is to joke around for a bit.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I happen not to entirely agree with [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] about this cheating issue - my view is that if there is a table consensus that the GM is allowed to make up whatever s/he wants about the shared fiction, so that *the real function of dice rolls (both player and GM side) is to make "suggestions" that the GM might take on board if s/he hasn't got anything else in mind,* then the GM playing in that manner is not cheating.
> 
> But the opinions that Aldarc and Hussar are presenting are not in the least _arbitrary_. They are honing in on the use of dice as randomisation devices, and identifying as _cheating_ any change of the outcome that is not pursuant to some class of reasonably well-defined mechanics. There's nothing arbitrary about that - it seems to follow from a fairly common-sense way of thinking about the purpose of dice rolls, card draws and the like in games.



That seems reasonable, but this would need to be understood by all participants.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> That seems reasonable, but this would need to be understood by all participants.



Your post made me smile, because when we step out of the debate about what is _cheating_ and into the actual dynamics of RPG then I find that sort of "dice rolls as suggestions" play pretty unreasonable! But my impression is that that puts me in a minority of RPGers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Your post made me smile, because when we step out of the debate about what is _cheating_ and into the actual dynamics of RPG then I find that sort of "dice rolls as suggestions" play pretty unreasonable! But my impression is that that puts me in a minority of RPGers.




I guess it comes down to faith in the rules governing what the dice mean, vs faith in the GM.  If you grok the rules and find them worthy, abiding by the dice even when a result seems, in the moment, to be off somehow is reasonable.  If you find the rules impenetrable or inadequate, such trust would be misplaced.

Of course all that's a little overblown (as is much concern for the topic), unless you are pretty deeply invested in the RPG expeeience.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I guess it comes down to faith in the rules governing what the dice mean, vs faith in the GM.  If you grok the rules and find them worthy, abiding by the dice even when a result seems, in the moment, to be off somehow is reasonable.  If you find the rules impenetrable or inadequate, such trust would be misplaced.
> 
> Of course all that's a little overblown (as is much concern for the topic), unless you are pretty deeply invested in the RPG expeeience.



It's not about being deeply invested, or otherwise. It's that if I wanted someone to tell me a story, I'd go about it some other way than rolling dice to make suggestions as to what they should tell me.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> if I wanted someone to tell me a story, I'd go about it some other way than rolling dice to make suggestions as to what they should tell me.



 Like buy a movie ticket?


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Your post made me smile, because when we step out of the debate about what is _cheating_ and into the actual dynamics of RPG then I find that sort of "dice rolls as suggestions" play pretty unreasonable! But my impression is that that puts me in a minority of RPGers.



Maybe...but maybe not, in one sense:

I know that both as player and DM I sometimes roll dice if I'm stuck for something, just to give me a nudge (even if that nudge is saying "that's a really stupid idea, don't do it!").  Completely outside the rules, and as the results of such rolls are not relevant to anyone except me I'm free to ignore 'em anyway.   They're just "suggestion rolls".


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I know that both as player and DM I sometimes roll dice if I'm stuck for something, just to give me a nudge (even if that nudge is saying "that's a really stupid idea, don't do it!").  Completely outside the rules, and as the results of such rolls are not relevant to anyone except me I'm free to ignore 'em anyway.



OK, but that's not what I'm talkking about (and I think obviously not what I'm talking about). I'm talking about a game in which - in virtue of the GM being free to narrate anything at any time regardless of rolls - _no dice roll_ is anything more than a "suggestion" to the GM.



Tony Vargas said:


> Like buy a movie ticket?



That's certainly one possibility!


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Your post made me smile, because when we step out of the debate about what is _cheating_ and into the actual dynamics of RPG then I find that sort of "dice rolls as suggestions" play pretty unreasonable! But my impression is that that puts me in a minority of RPGers.



Unless I mistake your meaning, dice rolls as suggestion already forms part of the presumed framework for how dice associate with the fiction. "Success" on a dice roll provides a suggestion for how the fiction plays out, while "failure" may provide the GM or player with its own suggestion for how the fiction moves forward. But in some systems, the player can refuse the simple failure of the dice in order to "succeed with a cost." Or if the GM mandates a dice roll for a saving throw, can the player refuse succeeding at it? (The player may prefer failure if it more closely aligns with their sense of character.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Unless I mistake your meaning, dice rolls as suggestion already forms part of the presumed framework for how dice associate with the fiction. "Success" on a dice roll provides a suggestion for how the fiction plays out, while "failure" may provide the GM or player with its own suggestion for how the fiction moves forward.



But under constraints, that may be more or less strict.

The constraints on narration resulting from a successsful attack in RQ, or a crit result in RM, are fairly narrow.

The constraints on narration resulting from a failure in BW are broader, but must include a failure of intent, and perhaps also task.

In what I've called "dice as suggestion", which I'm associating with WW "golden rule" and 2nd ed AD&D, the dice impose no _constraints _at all!


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In what I've called "dice as suggestion", which I'm associating with WW "golden rule" and 2nd ed AD&D, the dice impose no _constraints _at all!



...except if you are a player.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> ...except if you are a player.



Yes, I was looking at it from the GM side!

Your correction isn't making me more enthusiastic for the style!


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 29, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Unless I mistake your meaning, dice rolls as suggestion already forms part of the presumed framework for how dice associate with the fiction. "Success" on a dice roll provides a suggestion for how the fiction plays out, while "failure" may provide the GM or player with its own suggestion for how the fiction moves forward. But in some systems, the player can refuse the simple failure of the dice in order to "succeed with a cost." Or if the GM mandates a dice roll for a saving throw, can the player refuse succeeding at it? (The player may prefer failure if it more closely aligns with their sense of character.)




I thought I remembered something about players being able to voluntarily fail saves.  I found it in 2e, but it's the ability to fail the save before the roll, not after.  While looking, though, I also found the example below in the 1e DMG.  It's another example of Gygax giving DMs the ability to ignore the results of a roll, including complete negation.

"Certain Failure: As shown on the table, a 1 is ALWAYS a failure, regardless of magical modifiers to the contrary. However, as DM you may adjust such failures according to prevailing circumstances, although any adjudication which negates failure on a roll of 1 is not recommended at all. Another rule you may wish to consider is allowing a save (where applicable) on a natural 20 regardless of penalties."


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 29, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I thought I remembered something about players being able to voluntarily fail saves.  I found it in 2e, but it's the ability to fail the save before the roll, not after.



Yeah, I've always thought that was somewhere buried in 1e.  It's certainly how we've always done it.



> While looking, though, I also found the example below in the 1e DMG.  It's another example of Gygax giving DMs the ability to ignore the results of a roll, including complete negation.
> 
> "Certain Failure: As shown on the table, a 1 is ALWAYS a failure, regardless of magical modifiers to the contrary. However, as DM you may adjust such failures according to prevailing circumstances, although any adjudication which negates failure on a roll of 1 is not recommended at all. Another rule you may wish to consider is allowing a save (where applicable) on a natural 20 regardless of penalties."



Not just DMs - he's suggesting this as a blanket rule for all and then giving some DM advice on how to possibly mitigate non-'1' failures.

We've also always had this - a 1 is auto-fail (or auto-miss), a 20 is auto-success (or auto-hit, with rare exceptions).

Lanefan


----------



## howserman (Jul 30, 2018)

I cheat as the game master, but it's always to try and make the game more interesting.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 8, 2018)

I thought the point of D&D WAS to cheat as much as possible...


----------



## Les Moore (Aug 9, 2018)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good point. 
Remember the old joke where the guy walked up to a beautiful blonde, and said "Would you go to bed with me for a million dollars?"
The blonde thought about it for a minute, and said "I suppose so." Then the guy said "How about 50$?"  The blonde got all indignant, and said
"No way! Just what do you think I am?" And the guy said "Well we've already determined that, now we're just haggling over price."

The point is not so much "cheating" per se, but at what point are we crossing the line, and where is the line drawn.


----------



## Nada (Aug 15, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Only read the title, eh?




No. Actually read every post up to my comment. But feel free to continue your own sanctimony and assumptions.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 16, 2018)

So now I know why at the table, when I'm a player, my rolls always seem to stink compared to everyone else's.  Everyone else is hitting all the time and I miss half the time or more!!


----------

