GMs can't cheat

The rules are there to fall back on when I don't have an idea for how to do it differently. They're a supportive framework, not a restriction. I treat my notes and prepwork similarly. It's something I can make use of if I run out of ideas, otherwise I much prefer GMing from the seat of my pants and making shit up as it goes along.

That's not the GM cheating, that's just being a shitty GM.

Yes.

Your post has the inherent flaw of assuming the GM is infallible, and assumes that the GM has been given free reign to act how he chooses, regardless of what the rules state.

If there's a common understanding of how the game is going to play out, be it implicit or explicit, then the GM can certainly cheat by ignoring that understanding. It doesn't matter if the GM assumes it will make the game better; it displays broken clock arrogance at best, and active contempt towards the players at worst.

I fudged a lot when I was a newer GM for the very same reason you said. It's all good if you're trying to make the game more fun right? I've found that both my players and I have a lot more fun just letting the dice fall and rolling with it. Any of those special moments you have feel a lot cooler since they're not manufactured, they're genuine. The itch is still there to go "Yeah, no. This PC/NPC/Enemy should not go out like this" or "This event should/ should not succeed", but I've been able to resist the urge and enjoy the unpredictability my games have. Really, since I've made the switch my whole take on roleplaying games changed. My story isn't important, what I want to happen isn't important, and what I think would be cool is not important. What's important is what you're all sitting down to play and that's the game itself. If you haven't tried this way of running a game, try it. You'll have a lot of fun thinking on your toes and your players will absolutely recognize that they can in fact attempt anything. Sometimes that means a PC is killed by a dire rat, but that also means sometimes your would be reoccurring villain eats shit in a single round too. There's a weight and a real sense of achievement that comes with every success. A story will result from the gameplay naturally, not artificially like if you're putting story first.

I feel like that's just a false dichotomy. Letting the dice create fantastic moments is a great part of roleplaying, but there's no reason you can't allow that to happen while also quietly fudging if the dice would bog things down or make the game explicitly worse, which is possible even in the best RPG.

the problem is that players are notorious for wrecking plans. I used to do detailed planning on everything and spend days planning backups in case my players went their own way. eventually i stopped preparing (by then i had over 15 years in as dm so i had most of my stuff memorized and my players didnt mind a piss break if i had to look something esoteric up.

>hoping to draw out people who disagree
>not bait
pick one

Seeking discourse with those of different opinions is the same as trolling now? No wonder the world is going to shit.

I've felt, I guess for lack of a better word, "dirty" any time I've ever fudged to enhance a moment. My players were none the wiser, but something in me just could never get over it. I feel it really takes away from the game if you do it. If your players built a strong character, they deserve to kick ass. They don't deserve an on the fly rules change, fudged roll against them, or buff for an enemy that isn't as strong as them just to make the fight more interesting. Same goes for things in their favor. If they go into the Dark Forest, everything they fight in there should be trying to kill them. You, as the controller as the creatures in that forest, should be going after them with all the tools those creatures have. You're not being a killer GM, you're just not pulling any punches because your players aren't either. You're running a fair game. To me, that's the GM's only job. To run a fair game. If I handwave something to make it harder, easier, succeed, or fail I'm not being fair. The game will have plenty of great moments on its own. It doesn't need my help to do it.

You can always lie in games, just like you can in life. The only problems arise when you get caught. Just like anywhere else there are consequences for being caught lying as the GM: you lose the trust of your players. If your players don't trust you to be impartial with their successes and failures they will stop caring about them as they perceive the results of their actions to be entirely out of their control.

Just as in everything else the best way to avoid getting caught lying is to tell the truth and follow the rules.

What if you're in a group where the players don't want an impartial referee, but an involved curator of their creativity who helps bring each players individual contribution to the game together into a coherent story, working together for a common goal?

Not the guy you're talking to, but in that case you're not even playing the game. You're sitting down for storytime with some dice rolling that will only influence actions of no consequence. If you're all on board with that, by all means. It's your game. Though, for me, the story is always a result of gameplay. I may start a game a certain way, with a certain pitch, giving my players an idea of what to expect with some setting information, but I'm never going to know where it will wind up by its end and I wouldn't want to know either.

I don't really see how the two are mutually exclusive.

I don't see how you think those two schools of play are anything but mutually exclusive. You either go with what happens or what's convenient. You either fudge or you don't. If you let the die fall sometimes, but also fudge where you deem appropriate, you're still in the camp that's into storytelling over playing the game.

I never really saw a difference between storytelling and playing the game. They've always been one and the same.

I doubt anyone cares about this, but:

Yes, GMs can cheat, but only in a particular circumstance. Cheating is ignoring, bending, or breaking the rules in order to raise your chances of winning. Now, usually, GMs don't 'win' or 'lose' a game in the traditional sense-- if the PCs die and the campaign ends, that's not really seen as a victory on anyone's part, nor is it a defeat if the PCs accomplish their goals. But, some GMs approach the game from a different perspective, which we call a "GM vs Players Mentality".

When a GM runs a game with this mentality, that their purpose is to 'beat' the players by killing their characters, then yes, cheating is possible. Now, a GM has complete control over what the PCs encounter in the first place (and thus their chances of winning), so it seems like a moot point that they'd need to cheat at first since they could just introduce an encounter way beyond the PCs level and wipe them immediately. But that's no fun. Even a sadistic GM wants their players to feel like they have a chance of surviving, so they make encounters that are challenging, but possible. Every victory from the PCs is a loss by the GM, and the GM wins when the PCs all die, or otherwise lose. Some people like playing those sorts of games; different strokes for different folks.

Cheating, in this case, is entirely possible. If a GM has a "GM vs Players" mentality, fudging the dice or arbitrarily adding/subtracting numbers is no different from players doing the same thing.

I agree with all of these except for fudging dice. Dice must remain the one constant of truth in all of your lies. More importantly, if you're ever put in a situation where a bad die roll would be unfun don't roll the dice in the first place, dumb dumb.

To me, the difference is a game's story is something you can only really talk about after it has already happened. By the way, I appreciate you being civil. I'm used to this sort of discussion devolving into shittalk by this point.

I agree with that, actually, but less due to randomness of the dice and more due to the interaction between people. Then again, I basically only play games with people who are also comfortable GMing, so they're all comfortable with the idea of bringing their own ideas for plot hooks and setting elements into a game from the start. The meat of the game is the GM working out how to weave all those disparate elements together and the players bouncing off one another, with the dice adding moments of tension and conflict when appropriate.

I agree with players bringing plot elements to the table as well, it greatly enhances the game. I regularly add hooks and characters into my world that otherwise would not have been in due to my players. I'm just not in favor of toying with the dice to push towards the best or most convenient conclusions. There's no point to even facing the villain from your past if it's a given that you'll get your revenge. If you planned for the showdown to be in an abandoned chapel, then what's the point of even tracking him? I like taking the good and the bad.

Fudging dice, in my experience, is rarely used for that sort of thing. It's more like... Well, a recent example where I ignored a dice roll happened in a boss fight I was running. My PCs were squaring off against a huge brazen avatar of a fire god, and one of them had a really clever plan to neutralise one of his major advantages. It was a creative use of their abilities and the known weaknesses of their opponent... And then I rolled super well on the resistance.

If I'd have accepted the roll, all that hard work would have ended in failure and the fight would have likely dragged on far longer than it should have- They were still tending towards victory, it would have just taken hours longer. Instead, I ignored the dice and had the enemy fail. It didn't end immediately, but it rewarded the player for their planning and stopped things getting bogged down. I've also got some interesting long term consequences planned based on it (it's only an avatar, after all, the fire god themselves is still a danger) that wouldn't have made sense otherwise. It's a situation where ignoring the roll feels entirely beneficial in almost every way.

>If I'd have accepted the roll, all that hard work would have ended in failure and the fight would have likely dragged on far longer than it should have-
Then why did you roll at all? Why didn't you just say "Your hard work has eliminated his resistance. He doesn't get to roll."? You weren't willing to accept the outcome and in fact you had the outcome planned out before your hands touched the dice, yet you rolled them anyway. Why? Because you like hearing plastic tinkle across wood?

Doing this makes no sense unless you're just being disrespectful of your players agency and you really ought to just be writing a book.

In that situation I would have granted some sort of conditional bonus rather than just ignore the roll.

At the time? It was honestly just force of habit.

So you're really just playing freeform RP with meaningless dicerolls as a way to keep your hands busy. Got it.

Nope. Learn to nuance.

>freeform RP
I'm sure even Gaia Online would blow whatever your idea of uberleet rp is out of the water.

Here's the thing:
If you freeform too much, people won't think it's a game, which is is. If you freeform too little, people will get obsessed with power gaming.
It's like doing a magic show. The people you're performing for know that the 'magic' happens somewhere, they just don't know where, when, or how. When you do the magic (by breaking the assumed rules of the situation), you need to distract them from the fact or conceal it. If you 'cheat' too much, it becomes ovbious, and you have no show. If you cheat too little, there's no magic at all, and you have no show.
So the DM can't cheat. But the DM shouldn't 'cheat' all the time- in fact, he should only 'cheat' rarely.

Rolling dice is sometimes like flipping a coin. When you do it, you realise what answer you actually wanted.

I always try and have an idea in mind for an interesting consequence of every dice roll, whether success or failure. Sometimes I realise the idea isn't actually that good, or think up something better the moment the dice leaves my hands. Those are the times when I fudge.

This is the thing.

I don't enjoy when you fudge.

I don't enjoy when you change rules on the fly.

So don't when you're GMing for me.

Easy.

Alotta talk about fudging rolls here. It's not something that i do as a DM.

I always kinda just trust the dice and see what happens.

But i'm not a saint of RNG as i modify health of enemies if i think it's close to full party wipe. Just enough so that they can (most of the time) push through for a victory.

As for my mentality, when the players at my table win, it's my victory as well. I'm a sucker for good ends and heroic sacrifices.

Something that i've found more and more exciting and helpful for "close calls" is third party creatures and hazards. Helps with gaining party XP and has made for good comedic situations.

No, user, that's not at all what other user is saying.

Systems have mechanics, and sometimes those mechanics don't allow for creativity. In DnD, you can be smart enough to gather the required ingredients to perform a voodoo trick and keep an antagonist pinned with magic... unless they roll a 20 on their save.

Choosing to say the roll is unnecessary is playing freeform. Rolling it and then ditching it is resolving a situation despite the system's failings. Rolling it and keeping it is playing the game like you're an unthinking machine with no knowledge of dramatic stakes and proper reward schemes.

No, the people at WotC who wrote the system didn't foresee every circumstance, and are in fact a bunch of incompetent idiots building towers of trash on top of mountains of the stuff. Other systems might be better about this, I know a few that are, but at the end of the day your choice to fudge or not to fudge should rely on what you and your players think is the best thing to do, and sometimes you have to guess at what that is.

Yea user, a good tip that i learned is not to roll everything as well. Let really well laid plans go off without a hitch or give -5/+5 to rolls that you think deserve it. The most important part of this is to use it at your discretion. Godspeed.

With a skilled GM theyll never know one way or another.

Theyll sure know if that one in a million dice roll splatters their favorite character over the floor like so much bullshit though.

Its all in moderation imo their is a time to fudge a roll but you have to be somewhat impartial too.

Just because the GM isn't bound by the same rules as the players, it does not mean he isn't bound by any rules at all.

That said, social contract is a lot harder to pin down than written rules, so it is also a lot harder to point out infractions.
And most examples of "GM is shitty, but doesn't break the rules" in this thread are violations of social contract.

You are a colossal fag.

The GM should not fudge dice, but he can change outcomes.

The GM can lie about IC things. He can tell the players what they would know, even if that information is faulty. But he should not lie about his knowledge of the system or anything else.

Of course the GM can change his plans if he thinks that'd be better for the game.

The GM can change a rule if he dislikes it, or discard it. But he should not do so on a whim and then go back on his word.

>A GM cannot cheat.
Depends on the game; depends on the circumstance.

Many games leave caveats that allow the GM to do as they please. Some games do not. Apocalypse World, for example, has no need for MCs to cheat, and there really isn't a situation in which they can. The MC never rolls, and you have to be an utter dick to not stick to the MC Principles or Moves. To that end, many derivatives of Apocalypse World follow a similar design structure. Cheating inherently hurts the game to no benefit.

That said, if you're cheating in favor of the players, no one will likely complain. It's no different than taking a handicap when playing against children. It's when you cheat in your own favor that it becomes dickish. You already have godlike power over the narrative, do you really need to manipulate the game further in your benefit?

Posting in obvious bait thread:

I switch between the two extremes depending on the type of game.

If it's the kind of game where building an interesting scene is more important than presenting challenges for the players to overcome, I fudge the shit out of die rolls. They don't know (and if I think they're getting wise then I stop) but I'm fudging every single hidden roll and altering NPC stats on the fly to ensure the most interesting and exciting scene for the players.

If it's the other way around and the focus of the game is solving challenges, like an old school dungeon crawl or something, no help whatsoever. We're all at the mercy of the dice.

Fudging and retroactively changing things the players haven't seen yet are a staple of good GMing, agreed. It can absolutely be abused and/or overdone.

I just get a small bit angry when my GM says something will unbalance the game or nerds a character I play because of 'unintended interactions' between skills and abilities and denies me taking them. Understandably bummed.

I get extremely mad when they proceed to tell me something no longer works because it's too strong, but I can't fix my sheet to remove it instead. I already took it. You can't say it don't work when I already took it.

I run Fate Accelerated. You don't cheat there, you bargain fate points.

>I run Fate Accelerated. I don't have standards.

i fudge too. sometimes the dice don't make for a good story.

there are many times wherein rolls happen that I don't want to happen. like the massive Barbarian who just ripped an orc warlord in half with his hands rolls an intimidation check; I would prefer to just not have a roll there, but if I just auto-succeed the player without a roll it feels cheapened.

so i have him roll and roll myself, but no matter what I roll the Barb wins

if you're fudging to punish/kill your players then ur shit. fudging for narrative purposes and such is good

Jesus christ, I can't imagine playing with such a shithead.

Holy shit. OP here, woke up to go over the thread and I'm astonished at how civil and reasonable a discussion was had. Great fucking work Veeky Forums. I love it when threads go like this.

I too know this pain. That's just shitty GMing. It's like a bait and switch game "Every option is available. Oh, you chose THAT option. Oh... uh, well that option is now terrible and doesn't do what you expected. No you can't make a different choice. You already picked it."

Fuck that noise.

>Playing a game that doesn't require fiat is shitty.
You sad, sad user.

I don't really do much fudging, lying, or the sort of changing my plans you're talking about (though this last is a bit fuzzier).

I habitually roll in the open. Like most of my habits and techniques I learned this running a game out of a backpack, running games at other peoples' houses, often running games in a living room or on a stage at a theater rather than at a table. So a screen would simply have been awkward and cumbersome. This is also why I never really liked minis or a shitload of supplements. I'd rather just work on graph paper and have multiple whole games in my kit.

But eventually I had to try it, and give it a fair shot. And it honestly isn't as fun. It actually sort of wrecked the finale of my best long campaign. Not even in a way that feels like a good story though. Just a previously exciting campaign turning to mud and everybody looking a bit miffed without really being able to articulate what was wrong.

Maybe I did it wrong. I'm not really sure what outcome you're leaning into or away from. I've had brand new parties pick up some pregens, get wiped out in their first encounter with ghouls or some shit, and insist on going again more enthusiastically than their first go around. I'm not sure what I gain by taking that or a similar possibility off the table, either for me or for them.

>He never found a that GM
Oh, believe me, GMs can cheat

Bad GMing is bad GMing. It isn't cheating.

>Hahaha, no, these goblins have advantage to every roll because I say so
>Hahaha, no, they can hide at will in plain sight
>Hahaha, no, they have infinite spells
>Hahaha, no, your spells don't work now
>Hahaha, no, your recless attack advantage gets cancelled by an uneven terrain
>Hahaha, no, my monsters are immune to uneven terrain
>Hahaha, no, nat20 doesn't mean you hit, it means I hit
>Hahaha, no, nat1 means your character loses an arm
>Hahaha, no, it's my GMPC the one who deals the killing blow
>long etc
Yep, I want to know how this "improves the game" because to me it sounds like plain cheating

im fairly sure nobody would disagree here.

Especaily if you are a newbie DM it can be hard to determine how strong an encounter realy is.

If our DM wouldnt fuck with the dice every once in a while our party would have died in almost every single fight in our first dungeon and that would have been fairly boring.
Weve had several character deaths later on still.

>Cheating
>to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
Check
>to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
Check
>to violate rules dishonestly
Check

It seems GMs can cheat. Case dismissed

It isn't cheating, it's bad GMing. They're not breaking any rules, they just suck at running the game.

Because pedantry is the best argument.

Your GM is shit.

I fail to see why this is bad gming, who are you to say it's bad gming? how can you know it isn't made to improve the game and the fun of the most important member of the group, the GM?

That is by definition bad GMing. Stop being a faggot.

The post itself says its bad GMing. I'm just trusting the context given.

The post is biased because it was posted by a player, he doesn't know how the game goes, he's biased by his own experiences so he can't see the big picture. GMs can't cheat neither do wrong.

>*RATTLES TITS* *RATTLES TITS* *RATTLES TITS* *RATTLES TITS* *RATTLES TITS* *RATTLES TITS* *RATTLES TITS* *RATTLES TITS*
Your fallacy gets you nothing but *RATTLES TITS* because that's all I see a whore like you doing.

DMs can cheat but it's ok if it enhances the experience

how long has your DM been Dming

It stopped being my GM after the 3rd session, I only give 3 sessions chance. He said he had been GMing for years. Btw the game was 5e and the campaign lost mine of phandelver if anyone is interested

I don't see why this needs to be stated, it literally says in the book a gm can do whatever they want, and that they decide the rules.
I think only trolls say otherwise, because I refuse to believe anyone is that poor at reading here.

Unfortunately the thread is full of people that dumb.

See, I think they are just pretending to be stupid.

shit like DM pcs geting the last hit are for idiot DMs with no idea what fun is and are playing the game for themselves

>whenever I DM I mostly do a party vs the world because players break laws, steal and rape regardless so I pretty much never have friendly pcs

>a gm can do whatever they want
Not really
>and that they decide the rules
Sure, but he should inform of pertinent changes that affect players first

Enjoyable is different for everybody. I enjoy character death. Some of my favorite characters died but the story moves along without them. Fudging is all right, but sometimes facing the consequences of a bad roll are more fun than pulling off that "foolproof" plan.

No and no, GMs are gods, and god's rules are never wrong.

It is pretty explicit in the rules that a dm can do whatever they want whenever they want, user.
It might be a good idea not to abuse this, but either way, it is impossible for a gm to cheat as the ruleset explicitky allows them to dictate what happens and what the rules are.

>but he should inform of pertinent changes that affect players first
This is something pretty important and a lot of people in here are ignoring it

Also people assume dms are never wrong and that's false, they can make mistakes and get things wrong and that's why they should inform players first of worldchanging changes in the rules or lore so:
1. Players don't get things wrong or make characters that don't fit
2. Players can give their oppinions in such changes, because they might b unfun to them or actually biased/wrong, so they, in a consensus, can reach a better approachment

There is a difference between making a major, consistent rules change at the start of the game- Which players should be aware of- And tweaking things during play. I think the latter is completely acceptable and doesn't need to be declared unless it's directly affecting some aspect of a player characters sheet or capabilities.

It is useful to inform players of rule changes, but not specifically required or dictated by the book, and doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not the gm can cheat.

Why? is so much fun to make changes in the fly that lead to character's deaths.

>I cast a spell
Your character can't do that, user. He doesn't know how anymore because the kobold has scared him too much by yipping loudly.
>That's bullshit
Oh no! Your character literally shat himself because the kobold locked eyes with you for too long. It happened with enough force that you literally shat out your own heart. You died a terrible death and everyone at the table will go up a level if they point at you, laugh, and call you a faggot.

Now leave this table, don't act like you know how to play Erotic D&D games, and never talk to me or my wife's son ever again.

Because, while allowed by the rules, it is also considered a dick move.
Enough dick moves and your friends will abandon you.

I agree, but I'd take it a step further and say that generally GMs shouldn't even bother with dice. They should know what they want to happen and have it happen. The game is rarely about the odds of an event happening it's mostly about how players react to said events.

We have two rules that piss people off.

1. A critical attack does maximum damage not double whatever is rolled. This is actually an official option in the DMG.

2. The roll to accomplish a task can be made by one character and one character only and then it is 'one and done' and we have to deal with the consequences. For example, checking a door for traps, the rouge should check because it makes sense. He rolls shitty, we are just all convinced there isn't a trap there and step through and hope one wasn't there. However, let's say we encounter a locked chest, the rouge may attempt to pick it once and the fighter may attempt to smash it once (although if he rolls 5 over the damage necessary he will destroy what is inside the chest and if he doesn't break it by doing enough damage he will be convinced it is too sturdy to break)

The only rule I wish we still used because it made the RP'ing aspect so great was that the DM made all the skill rolls in secret for the characters. It absolutely destroyed the meta-game aspect.

>I check for traps
(DM rolls) you don't find any
>I step through the door
The trap is sprung.

I feel like the one and done thing only really makes sense if you also combine it with take 10/take 20.

If you're pressed for time, you get one roll. If you aren't, take the average/best possible result depending on how much time you're willing to spend on it.

>DM shouldn't use dice

I disagree. The amount of times a DM rolling shitty on attack rolls that has saved our ass is great. Our DM is one wildly swinging bastard with his d20's. It is either 1,2,3,18,19,or 20. It might as well be a fucking d6 at this point.

GMs can definitely cheat:
If the players signed up to play a certain RPG, and the GM is deceiving them by not playing that RPG, it is betraying the spirit of the game.
If you want to play freefrom, you agree before hand.
Otherwise it is the duty of the GM to make the results of the dice fun, not to change the dice to fit his plan.
That's just uncreative GMing.

The GM should know how the world works of course, but can definitely use dice to add variance, or provide inspiration.

>I ignored the rules and my players found out and got pissed so now I'm making an angry blog post on Veeky Forums

The rpg rules explicitly say the gm can do what they want, and the players agreed to that.
If you don't likegms having the ability to de whatever they want within the rules, play one of the many narrative games that give some gming power to the players.
By definition, a gm cannot cheat in something like d&d, because the rules say he can do anything.

>Being this bad at reading rules
Rules say the gm is allowed to do what he likes.

Rule 0 always supersedes.

If the players knew about him fudging rolls, would they be mad at him?

If yes, he's violating Rule 0 and cheating.

That isn't how rule 0 works, user.
Not even close.
I am baffled how you got that impression.