A question for Veeky Forums

No. Cheating would require breaking the rules. If a gm would be breaking a rule, here's almost certainly employing rule 0; or else being a dick.
Using the word "cheating" implies an unearned victory, but the DM/should never be operating in terms of "victory" or a lack thereof.

Can you cheat if the rules allow cheating?

Are there rules if they include cheating?

If players are complicit in a system that allows the breaking of it's own rules isn't cheating a foregone conclusion?

Does any off this matter outside of semantics?

We all still play the games we play regardless of what discovery might happen here.

Paranoia. Not only are you encouraged to ignore any roll you don't think is interesting, any player that calls you out on it is treasonously possessing UV clearance knowledge, and can have their clone terminated.

>Is that cheating if it does my job and the players don't know?
I mean, the players knowing doesn't seem to have an effect on whether it's cheating, unless you think it only counts as cheating when you get caught. I'm not saying it IS cheating, just that if it isn't, it's not because the players don't know.
>SETTING
How would that affect it?
>SYSTEM
D&D, otherwise it would be a generic "game master" or a term from some other system. If it depends on which edition of D&D, then I guess answer for whichever edition you like most (but please specify which).
>PLAYERS
This, I'll agree with.

It's more of a conversation starter. I have an opinion on it and I'd like other peoples' thoughts.

My thoughts are: Cheating is anything which violates the explicit or implicit contract between players (in this sense meaning players in the broadest sense, so including the DM) as it pertains to the game itself.

Thus, if the players are fine with the DM fudging dice rolls (as discussed prior to the campaign) then it's not cheating, and if it's something they hate and they've made it clear, then it's cheating even if they don't find out.
>Can you cheat if the rules allow cheating?
Are you talking about a game that explicitly says "you may cheat?"

Sure, sure, but it is possible for the person in the GM seat to purposefully lie to and deceive their friends, for example, by changing die rolls behind their screen without informing the players, which is obviously heinous.

Depends how you look at the DM PLAYERS relationship.
Is DM playing with or against the players? I never really knew the answer to this one myself

That sounds like a shitty game.

"THE GM IS GOD AND YOU ARE MERE PLAYTHINGS, THE DICE ARE THERE TO MAKE YOU THINK YOUR SUCCESS AND FAILURE ARE PROBABILISTIC, BUT IN REALITY, IT IS HIS WHIMS THAT DECIDE EVERYTHING, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A GAME SET IN A WORLD THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT IN THE PLAYGROUND OF A DEITY! BOW BEFORE THE GM!

I'm talking about a game that says you can and should change or break any rule if you want to.

Yes

>Is the DM playing with or against the players?
If playing well, the DM is adjudicating results as impartially as possible while playing the NPCs as is reasonable. This means NPCs will be pursuing their own goals to the best of their abilities, and their success or failure is down to how well they and the players do, and the dice rolls.

Do you mean D&D? Because while I agree with "rulings, not rules," I don't agree with "do whatever the fuck you want whenever you want, who cares if the players have a rational in-universe basis on which to make decisions, according to how good or bad they know they are at things? Fudge them dice! It's not like they're playing a game where they're trying to immerse themselves, right?"

Yes, but it's very difficult for an outside observer to know.
The DM/GM can freely tweak the rules, so it's more a question of why they do it rather than what they actually do. A GM who changes things to create a specific outcome without a good reason could be called cheating. One who does it for a good reason is just performing their function as a GM. Since "a good reason" is subjective and the GM is the arbitrator regardless, nobody can really judge it but themselves.

Nope. That's one style of GMing, but that is not the only correct or good one. I much prefer a GM who is invested in enjoying a group activity with everyone present. Neither is better or worse, both are equally valid.

That's exactly my point. The rules explicitly say you can change the rules. Some people take that to extremes, some people practice moderation. It's all about preference and subjectivity, rendering the objective nature of this entire conversation moot.

>I much prefer a GM who is invested in enjoying a group activity with everyone present.
I'll agree that maybe I was a bit too one-sided (though I think other games are better than D&D for other styles of play) but do you feel that the thing I quoted from you is mutually exclusive with the style of DMing I described? Is it impossible to try to play the NPCs with their own goals and play them as striving for those goals, while impartially adjudicating AND being invested in enjoying a group activity with everyone present? Because I haven't DMed in about a year but I try to do both.

Do you agree or disagree with , then:

>Cheating is anything which violates the explicit or implicit contract between players (in this sense meaning players in the broadest sense, so including the DM) as it pertains to the game itself.

>Thus, if the players are fine with the DM fudging dice rolls (as discussed prior to the campaign) then it's not cheating, and if it's something they hate and they've made it clear, then it's cheating even if they don't find out.

DM can cheat if the game he is engaging in requires a direct quantifiable challenge against his players. Not a made up "more zombies are here", but if a player rolls and forgets to add a crit bonus and the DM conviently ignores it - I feel that is cheating because even players playing against each other should be responsible for playing by the rules favorable to them or not.

Now if you are playing for money, or if you are playing in a situation where the roller is always responsible for upholding the rules - say like a game of cribbage or gin - and forgets a bonus that's his problem. Vice versa if he forgets a penalty and the opposition does not inform him then that's too bad as well.

These latter examples are slippery slopes and not ones that should be placed into your ttrpg, but when gambling etc. that's when cheating really matters.

TtRPGs are more often played in the heads of players anyway, if it's fun cheating won't really be an issue, but for a board game, games with pieces, or games where certain things give huge advantages and its player vs player cheating will always be an issue.

You can cheat in any game using dice, using cards, by making up rules that don't exist, purposely using rule loopholes and not creating house rules before hand to address those situations.

You can cheat be making and agreement before the game even starts - the fix is in.

There's also something called sandbagging which is a form of cheating by not revealing your power level -ever- and it can be hard to prove. Kind of like hustling in pool.

Shit I know a lot about cheating...

In Paranoia admitting you know the rules is considered cheating and grounds for terminating your clone. Everything runs on ironic doublethink.

What about a card hustle where you "show" a player how the odds are in their favor but really they aren't? Is this cheating?
Hahaha what?

Literally everything in that game is treason.

nope

they can do a bad job tho

That's like asking if the computer cheats in Sid Meier's Civilization. Since they don't play by your rules, they can be considered 'cheating', but on the other hand, the game itself has difficulty levels based on how much better off the computer is than you.
How much the DM 'cheats' depends on how much fun and, yes, challenge, he desires to put into the game compared to what the players expect.

see

>Hahaha what?
Paranoia is a game set in a computer controlled bunker in the aftermath of some unspecified disater. Said computer is damaged and hence insane. It thinks the damage was caused by communists because of some old propaganda archives. It doesn't know what communism is, so its ironically set up a comunist dictatorship to hunt the communists, mutants, and commie mutant traitors.
Did I mention that literally everyone in the bunker is a mutant at this point, and the actual communists only exist because they figure if Friend Computer hates it, it must be pretty swell because this place is a shithole.

It certainly represents a more fertile basis for conversation.

The tricky part then becomes clearly establishing the players' expectation of fairness. In what ways can we systemize creative control in order to enable the entire group? Perhaps some sort of veto function?

If you're going to use that definition, the DM can (and often does, if they're That DM) cheat.
When I first found out how badly Civ III hoses you for playing on higher difficulties, I was pretty fucking mad, but I've come to accept it.
Now, what constitutes cheating depends from group to group. For example, permadeath is a big hot button for RPG conversation. In settings where permadeath is a thing, I expect to have my character die for good when things go south or I fuck up. In certain scenarios (80s action movie style game) it makes sense to fudge killing rolls. If I signed up for a grindhouse, I don't want you to feel sorry about axing my Fighting-Man.

>The tricky part then becomes clearly establishing the players' expectation of fairness. In what ways can we systemize creative control in order to enable the entire group? Perhaps some sort of veto function?
Lots of radical political groups adopt consensus-based decision making processes, often inspired by or even lifted almost entirely from those used among some Native American societies and other groups of people throughout history. There are still issues at times, largely in the form of "in-groups" swaying public opinion by all rallying behind one person, but in a group the size of the average tabletop RPG group (what, 4-7?) I would say that those kinds of issues are less likely to arise, especially given that the issues being raised are a little lighter as well.

Hell, maybe I'll write up a PDF with a checklist of controversial game topics and some lines to write your own in, and some recommendations for consensus-based and democratic ways of resolving these ahead of time, as well as conflict resolution strategies to reduce the likelihood of schisms and that sort of thing, and put it up on drivethrurpg as pay what you want.

Think anyone would be interested in something like that?

>rule 0

You mean the Golden Rule.

Well, a bait and switch is different, but still a con/cheat. If you gamble, once you throw your money down on the table you've basically forfeited your claim on it unless you win.

Meaning to say if I buy a lotto ticket the reason why I don't care if I don't get my money back is because the huge odds, however if I did win there was some "guarantee" I could get my winnings.

Now back to three card Monty. It's a game where the cons take advantage of greed. You have a shill that's "winning" to encourage those around the game is on the up. So you play small win small, think you got the game and wham, they might have just as well stolen your money. Yeah it's cheating, but you took the bait. You got "worked", you got played. Every gambler needs to understand what it means to hedge your bets, because a real bet is something someone is not forced into (so know who's holding the cards -duh)

Ok diff senario. You are DM, BBEG - you are expected to be underhanded. Just like some vidya where the boss does some OP cheep shit.
Because not every game is won by the players right?

WE DID IT! WE TURNED POINTLESS SEMANTIC CENTRIC BAIT INTO SOMETHING PROACTIVE AND HELPFUL!

By all means give it a try. Post your progress and ideas here and I, for one, would love to offer criticism and perspective.

I don't mean bait and switch, though. I mean like the seven card hustle.

"Five red cards, two black. I'll mix them all up facedown, then place them in a row. Flip three over, if they're all red, you win. First flip, odds are 5-2 in your favor. If you win that one, they're 4-2. On the last one, they're 3-2 in your favor."

There is no sleight of hand whatsoever, nor do I lie. What I don't tell you is that while everything I said was true, your OVERALL odds are 5-2 AGAINST.

And then if you win, "Double or nothing?" You'll almost certainly say no, so I say, "Tell you what, I'll add two more red cards," then I mix them all up and put them in a 3x3 grid and tell you to pick row, diagonal, or column.

Your odds are even worse here.

>WE DID IT! WE TURNED POINTLESS SEMANTIC CENTRIC BAIT INTO SOMETHING PROACTIVE AND HELPFUL!
I'm both OP and , and also the person being quoted in .

I did say we.

I didn't mean it like that. I meant that I'm the one trying to help and also the one you're accusing of baiting.

Which I wasn't, so much as trying to get a grasp of the general way that players currently see the DM/player relationship (and I suppose to some extent GM/player in general, though I mostly play D&D 5e and OSR stuff) so I can try to contribute to the hobby by coming up with ways to resolve the types of misunderstandings that often arise.

And you succeeded, I'd say. I guess I detracted from the conversation there.

More to the point, I'd like to point out a mechanic I learned recently. I started playing Cypher System, which I understand is kind of a fad game, but it handles GM rule bending in an interesting way. Basically, you get experience points any time the GM does something outside the normal rules. You use these like normal xp, but also to break the rules yourself. You can even pay xp to stop the GM from intervening. This is a system you could effortlessly drop into any game.

The way you say it is not a lie true. This is a case of misleading information about chance vs odds.

Odds factor in all possible combinations, chance just takes into account what's available at that given moment.

Not cheating, and in fact a clever way to word things.

And like I said a real bet is one you are not forced into so who can say.

A DM cannot cheat. A DM is above the rules of the game altogether.

A DM can, however, be a bad DM.

Fudging is cheating.

Yes. Basically, the DM cheating means invalidating the players' decisions. Here's a concrete example:

>the player-characters decide to err on the side of caution and leave closed a door inscribed with a cryptic warning
>DM has it swing open anyway to unleash whatever horrors lurk within

Now, you might say that the DM is free to do whatever they want, but equally the players are free to say, "I'm not enjoying this game any more, hope you guys have fun next week." So that argument doesn't get us anywhere. In the specific scenario, the cheat occurs because the players are offered a choice, and then shown that it is meaningless. (If the DM felt that unleashing horrors from the outer dark was key to the campaign, that's fine. An NPC could do the deed before the PCs come into the picture.)

No, the DM cheating means the DM is trying to facilitate a specific story.

Whether the players want to be a part of that story is another matter

Good example! The old "choice vs consequence" bit. Would it similarly be considered poor play for players to act in a way such as to eliminate options for the GM?

I was trying to answer the question myself and found this, this is a very good answer.

Sadly like basically everything on Veeky Forums this is a subjective argument, but I will put my opinion out there anyway:

YES it is possible for the GM to cheat. This shit is why I do all the rolls in the open. Why? Because half the fun of an RPG is the danger of death. Or, rather, the risk of it. Yeah collaborative storytelling is fun but if you ignore the dice, they are just serving as a self-masturbation tool. THAT is cheating. Saying "oh look at this cool thing I did in D&D" when it happened because you fudged the dice, takes all the value out of it.

I fudged a roll once, and I told the players why. It was in a Savage Worlds game and I decided that minor enemies dice could only explode once per die, because I was fucking sick of rolling a d8 and getting 8, 8, 8, 8, fuck that shit. Also Savage Worlds fucking sucks at dealing with high damage rolls because it is unclear whether there is a cap on possible wounds and thus a Soak roll against 112 damage needs to soak just one wound or a ton of them. And after a guy almost got one-shotted by minor faggots in an exciting part of the game, I houseruled that in. By the way it's still possible for a character to get oneshotted, it's just harder. 2d8 can still explode into 32 damage, which is enough to take out a literal dragon, so I am not worried about that.

I've fudged a few rolls to save characters when dying would've fucked with the storyline, because it was a minor encounter and them taking a shitload of damage was cooler and still got the point across (fuck scythes and their x4 critical), but in a climactic battle, there is no fucking fudging. Everythings on the table.

>Would it similarly be considered poor play for players to act in a way such as to eliminate options for the GM?
I'm not sure what you have in mind. Even if the players exercise their ultimate power over the game (by quitting) the DM is still free to carry on the campaign solo.

I wasn't sure what I meant either, but let me whip up an example.

Once I was playing a campaign where a war had broken out due to the heirs of a neighboring kingdom being mysteriously assassinated. We were led to the castle of that nations queen to find that she has become overwhelmed by demonic influence. Her grief allowed her to succumb to some kind of magic. We were clearly led there to fight her and move on. My character proposed instead that we try to resurrect the princes. It was possible within the setting, it was what the queen wanted, and it would have removed the singular motivation behind the war. Our fighter just attacked her instead, so whatever. But was that a poor play on my part?

I don't see how attempting an action that your character might reasonably consider is poor play, even if it's not what the DM anticipates. (Otherwise, it's wrong to turn left when the DM believes that you will explore the right-hand passage first.)

Is he conspiring with one of the players above the rest? Is he using literally loaded dice when rolling in the open? That'd be cheating.
that's about the extent I'd really say is cheating though

that just sounds like poor GMing -- why even offer the choice and not just have the door of monsters open anyway if that's the intent?

>that just sounds like poor GMing -- why even offer the choice and not just have the door of monsters open anyway if that's the intent?
Poor DMing and cheating overlap.

>A DM should be expected to fudge numbers and rolls to a certain extent.

No, a DM should not be expected to fudge numbers and rolls. Obviously a DM can deviate from the Handbook when creating the encounter but once the numbers are written down and are in play they, stay that way. And once they dice landed their result is to be accepted without question. If you don't like the outcome, though luck.
If you don't like that kind of game, switch to a more narrative system.

If it's discussed beforehand and everyone agrees to it, do however you please but don't expect for people to fudge roles or numbers.

No they do not.

GMs can have bad luck just the same as players.

Yes, a GM should be expected to fudge numbers and rolls.

> If you don't like the outcome, though luck.

No.

>If you don't like that kind of game, switch to a more narrative system.

No.

I won't lie, I fudge dice rolls sometimes in favor of my players.

I intentionally put them up against more powerful enemies so that they know they are always in danger and they can't just steamroll their way through an encounter. They have to play smart and use cover and flanking and funneling to win a lot of the time. And even then they always end up taking a ton of damage or losing something during the fight. They also come up against dangerous traps and puzzles, long forgotten riddles and ancient beings of immense power.

But I don't want to kill them, I want them to feel like heroes, feel like they have accomplished amazing feats that no normal person ever could. So when they have a brilliant plan or idea and they can't quite make the rolls for it to succeed, sometimes I fudge the dice because come on, great plans, especially ones I hadn't thought of deserve some recognition. This is about the only time I fudge rolls though, unless they fight a Goblin or some shit and the dice gods are being cruel that day. Then I'll make sure they hit the thing at least a few times so they don't get too frustrated.

This. My group cycles GMs enough to know that everyone fudges rolls and nobody really cares too much about it.

Tho we usually stick to the law of the roll, it needs to be really really really special for the roll to be fudged. And usually the rolls are fudged in favor of the opposition, our parties tend to curb stomp most everything they come in contact with.

>Can you cheat if the rules allow cheating?

Yes, it just means that if you are caught, it's not that big of a deal. You might face a small punishment for it but it does not call for being banned from the gaming table.

It is not a free card for "do whatever you want and ignore every other rule".

Yes and from the "do you fudge rolls" threads that happen all the time, then most of the dm's on Veeky Forums are fucking dirty cheats with no honour or understanding.

Yes, it is called "running a module"

Like how you "cheat" when you prepare a TV dinner for your husband.

Absolutely. Making or using rules without the knowledge and consent of the players. For example, using food/starvation rules and not telling them until they start taking penalties or die. Or using encumbrance rules only when they feel like it to prevent the players from carrying some things, but not other things.
Essentially, enforcing rules without notice or not enforcing them consistently. Fudging die rolls is okay so long as it's done in moderation and not to just screw the players over whenever they're winning. Basically, as long as the DM and the players are in agreement about it, it's not cheating, it's a house rule.

If you don't want something to be a possibility, don't make it a possibility.

Don't want a PC to die? Don't have someone attack him with intent to kill. Don't want a rogue to pick the lock? Bar it on the other side. Neither of those relies on luck.