The DM knows I don't like it, but there's a house rule where Spell DC is 1d20 + modifiers. If you roll a 20, it's double damage if a damage spell and something a little extra for others. If you roll a 1, the spell fizzles.
I was playing a cleric in a high level adventure. The party was being beaten terribly. We could not win. I wanted to cast Miracle to get us out of Dodge. I rolled the die. Yup, got a 1. Spell gone. No one else saw the roll. They were otherwise occuppied by something. It is common for us that only the player sees his die roll sometimes. There are no trust issues.
I could have pretended it was not a 1, and no one would know. Of course, that was wrong. I would know. I was mad. I hated the rule. I hated the roll. I knew it was game over. I couldn't get a victory out of a cheat. I yelled. I threw the die. Sure enough, TPK next round. It was the worst gaming experience of the group. I do not regret keeping honest.
I do not regret keeping honest.
Good. Honesty was not what killed your party.
I'll give you a tale from the other side of the screen in 4th Edition. I was DMing a group that I nicknamed the "pirate group", because I encouraged them via rewarding action points whenever they behaved pirately (within the confines of Player Code [don't kill allies, don't split up the party, ect.]). I do believe the problem originated when I used the traditional parcel system of treasure-dispersion for four players, when it was designed for five. As such, the group was always able to handle the battles sent at them, even if it was a couple hundred experience points above the suggested margin.
Last Christmas, I was given Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons, and reading it got my mind wandering to a wonderful idea. The players would get forced into serving Blue Dragons (well, as forced as can be when Blue Dragons threaten you in a group) and help in their little war with the Red/Blue Dragons living on their island. The PCs were told to head into the egg chamber of the Red-Blue dragon mountain, and slaughter all the children. For dragons that fight wars for hundreds of years, this would be considered a tactical attack on their supplies (infantry). The PCs would also end this quest with the ire of a fullblood Red Dragon, which would be an excellent way to further the story.
Well, the PCs got into the mountain and found the first egg chamber. There were four Red Dragon Wyrmlings waiting for the 7th-level party.
Now, I'll stop here to explain something. Red Dragon Wyrmlings were level 5 Elite Brutes or something. Elite meaning every one was worth two level 5s of the same variety. Two of these creatures would actually be a little easier than a standard encounter for a group of four level 7 adventurers. But my group wasn't traditionally hindered and could fight pretty effectively. So I decided to try the following: roll a d6 (taking no less than 2) and using that many Red Dragon Wyrmlings for the encounter. I rolled a 2. Despite that, I put in 4.
So, the PCs were given a run for their money by these four humanoid-sized dragon babies. Able to make two rather accurate attacks per standard action each dealing 2d6 + 6 damage, what was initially a painful fight ended in horrible maulings. I actually took the DM-ish liberty of bestowing a sort of soul-binding life preserver on the Warlock from his pact-owner in the Shadowfell. Didn't help for long. There ended up one last baby dragon to lick its wounds, and perhaps eat the corpses and scrounge the shiny magic items.
I could have cheated the rolls, you know. All those 10s and 15s could've been 4s and 9s. And while I loathe that I destroyed that group -- though at the time, I also felt ready to move to a new concept --, I know that cheating wasn't the way. What I tried at the end was the way. The group could've been forced into serving the great being in the Shadowfell whom from the Warlock's powers came. That was what was wrong. But not cheating wasn't the problem. But I could've done it.
And whatever the DMG tells you, it is cheating to change the outcome so directly as to lie about the results of your roll. Because most DMs who do exactly that don't tell their PCs that they do. Because it's still cheating.
So I decided to try the following: roll a d6 (taking no less than 2) and using that many Red Dragon Wyrmlings for the encounter. I rolled a 2. Despite that, I put in 4.
And whatever the DMG tells you, it is cheating to change the outcome so directly as to lie about the results of your roll. Because most DMs who do exactly that don't tell their PCs that they do. Because it's still cheating.
Beat me to it. :embarrass
Ummm, DMs can't cheat. They can certainly be unfair, but not cheat in any way or form.
Uuum I don't agree, the DM cheats. I do it from time to time myself, but I always feel dirty afterwards... But if I disregarded the XP tablet totally and kill 3 of 4 players then I don't really have a problem letting the remaining 3 monsters miss one or two times on the last remaining PC. But it is still cheating there is no doubt about it.
And sadly I don't remember a specific time that I did not cheat as a player. But I strive not to, otherwise the game would become quite dull...
Uuum I don't agree, the DM cheats.
But it's not cheating. As the DM, it's your game. Granted, if you lord this over people your game will be rather lonely, but the point is, if you decide that Ceiling Cat reduces the impact of the enemy's attack, then that's what happens.
I could have pretended it was not a 1, and no one would know. Of course, that was wrong. I would know. I was mad. I hated the rule. I hated the roll. I knew it was game over. I couldn't get a victory out of a cheat. I yelled. I threw the die. Sure enough, TPK next round. It was the worst gaming experience of the group. I do not regret keeping honest.
I'm sure it felt good to demonstrate to your DM how bad his HR was, though.
Btw, couldn't you have used the Miracle to teleport away or something, thereby avoiding the die roll. Or did you have to roll even for utility effects?
By the way, there are DM's WHO DO CHEAT!!!!!! Anyone who tells you otherwise needs to be smacked upside the head. I've already been through two DM's who nerfed their dice rolls in order to get an advantage on the players. You can always hear the clunk clunk of the dice roll, and then later on you hear another clunk after you know the friggin die had already been rolled.
Lemme tell you, it's not fun when the DM is laughing at you because he put 2, or more crits in the same encounter in order to take you out because he's got it out for you.
This was back when I lived in San Diego. I would go to Escondido to play with a group in 3.x, and the DM "magically" took the whole group out and I was the last one standing. Keep in mind, I'm a cleric of Pelor. I've still got healing spells. I'm healing myself up while I'm moving away from the bad guys. They finally catch up, I'm kickin some major butt when they do.... and he's astounded as to how I'm doing. He then "magically" rolls 2 crits on me, and does like max damage for each hit.
Character dead, DM happy.... Player walks out of house. Remember, it's a game to have fun, not to make the players vs. the dm.
By the way, there are DM's WHO DO CHEAT!!!!!! Anyone who tells you otherwise needs to be smacked upside the head. I've already been through two DM's who nerfed their dice rolls in order to get an advantage on the players. You can always hear the clunk clunk of the dice roll, and then later on you hear another clunk after you know the friggin die had already been rolled.
The only reason DMs roll dice is for the sound it makes :D.
I've never fudged dice rolls, but i have made my PC/creatures do stupid things. When the battle was clearly going their way, i made a few kobolds run past the fighter (2 kobolds dropped), dragons stopped attacking to take a bite of a fallen ally (letting the player escape), i've had my character "waste" encounter powers on minions, ect..
None of it for role playing (some of it was fairly out of character), but just for the mechanical change.
Would you consider that cheating?
I'm sure it felt good to demonstrate to your DM how bad his HR was, though.
Btw, couldn't you have used the Miracle to teleport away or something, thereby avoiding the die roll. Or did you have to roll even for utility effects?
You have to roll for any spell, even if there's no save, just to ensure you don't get a 1. It's also used for avoiding being dispelled. Dispel Magic mechanics is based on the roll, not the spell description. We have since learned a plot point of our current campaign is why the rule got introduced the previous campaign.
The ironic thing is the first time the rule ever applied was for my character. I rolled a 20 and charmed a kraken, whom I was targeting, and a few sahuagin who were nearby and got charmed because of the extra by rolling a 20. The kraken was then kind enough to allow the party to pass through his lair so we could enter the BBEG stronghold where he least expected us to appear.
I still hate the rule, yet I can't help but smile about the time I had a pet kraken.
I was playing a muscle bound goon who had an ungodly strength and bonuses to charge and bullrush. I charged the DM's NPC wizard that was on an undead chair, where the chair had these big bony legs to run with. I rolled well (15) and with all my bonuses it came out to a 24 opposed strength check. The DM rolled, he figured I didn't see but I did (and so did my buddy next to me), he rolled a 5.
The DM announced he wins the strength check.
I was like wow. That thing has a 40 Strength.
Heh. Yup. I don't advocate what I did. I agree that it wasn't a smart thing to do, certainly not condusive to that whole moral of the post. And I bet you if I went with the 2, the party would've lived. Probably even if there were just 3.
Also, I do it because there are only two of them, a fighter and a rogue. They have good items, so I can push them a bit, but if I overshoot I know a TPK would be likely since they don't have much in the way of healing. More often battles end with surrenders or knockouts anyway, but I keep things going by saving them from a horrible situation sometimes. I compensate by occasionally making baddies overperform.
If there's a decline in fun, though, I'll roll in the open.
-Drillboss
A DM who allows their game to be ruled by the dice and literal interpretations of the rules is just as bad as a DM who pays no attention to the rules whatsoever. Either way, the game suffers, and stops being fun.
A DM who allows their game to be ruled by the dice and literal interpretations of the rules is just as bad as a DM who pays no attention to the rules whatsoever. Either way, the game suffers, and stops being fun.
I agree however,
As a DM I let the die fall as they may. I suck it up when an NPC I wanted to live is killed by my PC's even if my continued story line counted on said NPC. If I fugde to allow the NPC to escape I feel that is the same as cheating and this has happened in games a lot. It's the most common "DM cheat". While I have a predetermined idea of where I want a storyline to go I don't try to force my PC into it like a square peg in a round hole.
I've played in a game "Square peg in a round hole" DM and I lost intrest. When you cannot have any possible effect on a DM's storyline is not a game, the DM may as well hand out scripts.
"Critical fail for a third time"
*Dm flicks d20*
"Ooh, a 17"
Guys, you aren't listening. A DM flat out -can't- cheat, it's their world. If they want that goblin to crit, and rolled a 1, they can rule that the goblin critted anyways. It's called fudging a roll, and the DM can do it because they're basically God for that certain world, what they want, goes. Like someone said earlier, when the DM rolls dice, it's for the sound effect. I know it sucks, and I don't like it, but I can understand when in certain situations they'd fudge a roll (saving a storyline, or taking pity on a character with a crap load of bad rolls, for example).
How old are you? Are you living in some care bear land? The DM's do cheat. Did you even read my previous post? The DM I had in San Diego was fudging his rolls, in order to kill off the party so he could claim victory. What's so hard to comprehend?
DM's have fudged rolls, and if you don't believe it's cheating.... then you're a player I would avoid. Nothing personal. D&D is a game built on a system. If you don't abide by what the system strictly provides you with, then you take it upon yourself to bring it up to the group you're playing with to make the necessary changes.
It's like saying if I were to be an off-duty cop here in San Francisco, run a red light just for fun, and expect a fellow officer to not write me a ticket even though he knows what I did was wrong. Ya dig?
It's like saying if I were to be an off-duty cop here in San Francisco, run a red light just for fun, and expect a fellow officer to not write me a ticket even though he knows what I did was wrong. Ya dig?
I think a better analogy if god himself (theological debates aside, we'll assume he's real.) decides to pop in to your bakery and filch some pie. I don't think anybody would stop him unless he was being a jerk about it.
I think a better analogy if god himself (theological debates aside, we'll assume he's real.) decides to pop in to your bakery and filch some pie. I don't think anybody would stop him unless he was being a jerk about it.
... but you understand what I'm saying. I've had DM's who were very good with the rules, good storytelling, and were fair in the dice rolls. These DM's are diamonds, but sometimes you don't always find the best of the treasure. The point I've been trying to make to some of the others, is that DM's are people just like anyone else.... they just happen to be the person behind the screen.
Both parties come with certain expectations and some dms bend the rules so it makes themselves feel better at the expense of the players. They are essentially saying that "dms can't cheat" is not blanket statement that holds water at all times.
And if a DM doesn't want to fudge a die roll then they should roll in the open. :P
Uuum I don't agree, the DM cheats. I do it from time to time myself, but I always feel dirty afterwards... But if I disregarded the XP tablet totally and kill 3 of 4 players then I don't really have a problem letting the remaining 3 monsters miss one or two times on the last remaining PC. But it is still cheating there is no doubt about it.
And sadly I don't remember a specific time that I did not cheat as a player. But I strive not to, otherwise the game would become quite dull...
While I hate watching one of my characters die, knowing that my character might only be alive because the DM decided to fudge a die roll is annoying. If the DM wants to save a PC from an unfair death, I think waiting until the killing blow's d20 has already been rolled is stupid. There were usually a million things the DM could've done before that to spare the character.
After years of fudged die rolls, we take survival for granted. I miss the days of 2nd edition, and world of darkness, where combat was dangerous enough that we always thought twice before doing it.
The point I've been trying to make to some of the others, is that DM's are people just like anyone else.... they just happen to be the person behind the screen.
Well yes, but while they're behind the screen they're effectively your god. Admittedly if they take advantage of this they'll soon find themselves ruling over a pretty lonely world, but nonetheless, the rules of the game bend to their whims while they DM.
It's like saying if I were to be an off-duty cop here in San Francisco, run a red light just for fun, and expect a fellow officer to not write me a ticket even though he knows what I did was wrong. Ya dig?
What an odd anology... If you really belief that RL laws are the same as D&D game rules, than you and I have a very different idea on what makes a roleplaying game fun.
Perhaps it is important to remember that the DM selects the monsters and determines the DCs for everything. Fudging the dice is merely the DM excersing this role in the middle of a fight. So by that line, fudging a dice is not cheating.
Of course, that does not mean that fudging the dice is a good thing to do for the DM. Just as it is not a good thing for the DM to pick monsters just to kill the PCs or a DM forcing the PCs down a particular path by setting the DCs for a particular action unbelievably high just with that goal in mind. After all, by fudging with the dice you are more or less railroading the players along a certain track. Just as with regular railroading, there are situations where it is not that bad, especially not if both the DM and the players are storytellers and method actors at heart and it is indeed better for the story.
In the end, the real question is if you are not willing to stand by the desicion of the dice, why even roll those dice? ;) I see the dice as a great tool to add some unpredictability to the game and I love the turn of events dice can dictate. If I didn't like the dice I would not be playing D&D, but something like Storyteller or even Amber (no dice at all).
How old are you? Are you living in some care bear land?
If you find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've already lost the argument.
The DM's do cheat. Did you even read my previous post? The DM I had in San Diego was fudging his rolls, in order to kill off the party so he could claim victory. What's so hard to comprehend?
I don't know - why are you having a hard time understanding it?
That's not DM cheating, that's just bad DMing. That's a classic "Killer DM" who thinks its him vs the party, who gets his jollies on putting the party in a can't win situation. It's unfair, but it's within the DM rights to play like that. The consequences of which should be, he never gets players to come back.
DM's have fudged rolls, and if you don't believe it's cheating.... then you're a player I would avoid. Nothing personal. D&D is a game built on a system. If you don't abide by what the system strictly provides you with, then you take it upon yourself to bring it up to the group you're playing with to make the necessary changes.
Would you like to reconcile your claim that the system is inviolate even to the DM with the published material that actually advises the DM to fudge rolls to help guide the story?
Guys, you aren't listening. A DM flat out -can't- cheat, it's their world. If they want that goblin to crit, and rolled a 1, they can rule that the goblin critted anyways. It's called fudging a roll, and the DM can do it because they're basically God for that certain world, what they want, goes. Like someone said earlier, when the DM rolls dice, it's for the sound effect. I know it sucks, and I don't like it, but I can understand when in certain situations they'd fudge a roll (saving a storyline, or taking pity on a character with a crap load of bad rolls, for example).
Not quite. The DM can cheat, but only in games with bad DMs. Some DMs, the aforementioned bad ones, think they can "win" the game by killing or defeating the players. DMs who change and/or violate rules or ignore dice results in favor of their "winning" the game are most certainly cheating, including in the broader sense of cheating everyone at the table out of a good D&D game.
If you find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've already lost the argument.
Referring to someone being from carebear land is not so much a personal attack, as it is to question their reasoning.
I don't know - why are you having a hard time understanding it?
Because it seems I will disbelieve, or disagree with what the pro-DM players have been saying.
That's not DM cheating, that's just bad DMing. That's a classic "Killer DM" who thinks its him vs the party, who gets his jollies on putting the party in a can't win situation. It's unfair, but it's within the DM rights to play like that. The consequences of which should be, he never gets players to come back.
A DM who cheats, and a bad DM are not synonymous... which I can understand, but they are closely put together. You do the math.
Would you like to reconcile your claim that the system is inviolate even to the DM with the published material that actually advises the DM to fudge rolls to help guide the story?
Do you have proof? I've never read the 4th ed. DMG, as I'm slowly starting my gaming collection back up. Maybe even a link. I'm hesitant to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even if the DMG did advise that, it doesn't correlate with how a DM can TPK.
Now in plenty of cases the DM uses this power badly, they mess, they go on power trips, all sorts of things. But they have the power, the rules are suggestions for the DM, not binding rules.
Referring to someone being from carebear land is not so much a personal attack, as it is to question their reasoning.
No, it isn't, and neither is a question like "How old are you?" If you don't agree with someone's reasoning, then find the flaw in the reasoning. Implying that someone is juvenile, or hates confrontation (care bear) is about as valid an argumentative tactic as asking "wut r u on crak???"
Because it seems I will disbelieve, or disagree with what the pro-DM players have been saying.
Evidently.
A DM who cheats, and a bad DM are not synonymous... which I can understand, but they are closely put together. You do the math.
Do you have proof? I've never read the 4th ed. DMG, as I'm slowly starting my gaming collection back up. Maybe even a link. I'm hesitant to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even if the DMG did advise that, it doesn't correlate with how a DM can TPK.
From Page 15:
Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge if you want to.
If two critical hits in a row would kill a character,
you might want to change the second critical hit to
a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t do it too often,
though, and don’t let on that you’re doing it, or the
other players feel as though they don’t face any real
risk—or worse, that you’re playing favorites.
The tradition of the DM being unbound by the rules goes back to first edition. While the language isn't as overt as it was in 1st edition (in which the DMG outright said feel free to ignore any rules you like), it's still implied - and it's so ingrained in the game that I suspect WOTC didn't necessarily consider the need to discuss it outright (a mistake on their part, IMO).
Though, of course, the DM has more leniance. They might give a +1 or a -1 as they see fit, but most groups expect a DM not to entirely ignore rolls.
How old are you? Are you living in some care bear land? The DM's do cheat.
DM's have fudged rolls, and if you don't believe it's cheating.... then you're a player I would avoid. Nothing personal. D&D is a game built on a system. If you don't abide by what the system strictly provides you with, then you take it upon yourself to bring it up to the group you're playing with to make the necessary changes.
It's like saying if I were to be an off-duty cop here in San Francisco, run a red light just for fun, and expect a fellow officer to not write me a ticket even though he knows what I did was wrong. Ya dig?
Cheating in a game involves breaking the rules.
A DM can change the rules at will.
Therefore, a DM cannot cheat technically, because he can change the rules at will. He can "legally" make an illegal action legal.
A DM, however, can be unfair. When you use the term "cheat", you are using the wrong term (as already pointed out lots of times by the other posters).
I would be hard pressed to think that most players in a game came in thinking that the dm will apply the rules fairly until they arbitrarily decide to change them. The key would be arbitrarily or unfairly altering rules or rolls.
In the joint effort of playing d&d violating the spirirt of the game is enough akin to cheating for a good many to call it cheating.
Cheating in a game involves breaking the rules.
A DM can change the rules at will.
Therefore, a DM cannot cheat technically, because he can change the rules at will. He can "legally" make an illegal action legal.
A DM, however, can be unfair. When you use the term "cheat", you are using the wrong term (as already pointed out lots of times by the other posters).
DMs can't cheat because they aren't playing a game. The players are playing a game, they are bound by the rules. The DM has complete and total control over the rules, over the game world, over everything. The aren't playing a game they're running it.
Now in plenty of cases the DM uses this power badly, they mess, they go on power trips, all sorts of things. But they have the power, the rules are suggestions for the DM, not binding rules.
Pg. 8 from the 4th ed. player's handbook... and I quote
The Dungeon Master controls the monsters and villains in the adventure, but he isn't your adversary. The DM's job is to provide a framework for the whole group to enjoy an exciting adventure. That means challenging the player characters with interesting encounters and tests, keeping the game moving, and applying the rules fairly.
No, it isn't, and neither is a question like "How old are you?" If you don't agree with someone's reasoning, then find the flaw in the reasoning. Implying that someone is juvenile, or hates confrontation (care bear) is about as valid an argumentative tactic as asking "wut r u on crak???"
Sometimes it would benefit that person to think of what they will post, before they post something so dogmatic. This can apply to anyone, including myself.
The tradition of the DM being unbound by the rules goes back to first edition. While the language isn't as overt as it was in 1st edition (in which the DMG outright said feel free to ignore any rules you like), it's still implied - and it's so ingrained in the game that I suspect WOTC didn't necessarily consider the need to discuss it outright (a mistake on their part, IMO).
Ingrained into the game? I'm sure any reasonable DM would tell their players what their intentions/motives are behind any changes they would like to make to the game. I can understand your side of the story, by letting a party member live if they're going through a tough combat scenario, but we're talking about a killer DM, remember? The DM I currently play under has told me before hand as to what rules he interpreted differently than what other people would. I would expect the same from anyone else.
It's called fairness in the interest of the greater good.
Pg. 8 from the 4th ed. player's handbook... and I quote:
The Dungeon Master controls the monsters and villains in the adventure, but he isn't your adversary. The DM's job is to provide a framework for the whole group to enjoy an exciting adventure. That means challenging the player characters with interesting encounters and tests, keeping the game moving, and applying the rules fairly.
This doesn't change the fact that he can still change the rules at will. He can apply the rules he changed at will fairly to the other players.
Plus, what a DM can do and what's the DM's job are two different things.
What do we call a DM who does not apply the rules fairly? Um, let's see, what's the antonym of "fair"? It's "unfair", right?
I'm just saying you're using the wrong term when you say "cheat". It means a different thing, really.
This doesn't change the fact that he can still change the rules at will. He can apply the rules he changed at will fairly to the other players.
Plus, what a DM can do and what's the DM's job are two different things.
What do we call a DM who does not apply the rules fairly? Um, let's see, what's the antonym of "fair"? It's "unfair", right?
I'm just saying you're using the wrong term when you say "cheat". It means a different thing, really.
No, what you're doing is trying to take my words out of context. Doesn't matter if the DM "created" the world or not, a fudged roll in order to purposely hurt a player's character is still cheating. What don't you understand?
The simple premise here that greebo, and yourself are trying to do is futile. Any person who fudges a die roll, in order to gain advantage for themself is cheating. Their position in the game has nothing to do with it.
No, what you're doing is trying to take my words out of context. Doesn't matter if the DM "created" the world or not, a fudged roll in order to purposely hurt a player's character is still cheating. What don't you understand?
The simple premise here that greebo, and yourself are trying to do is futile. Any person who fudges a die roll, in order to gain advantage for themself is cheating. Their position in the game has nothing to do with it.
No, cheating requires breaking the rules. If the DM wants to kill you he doesn't even have to roll dice, he can just say you're dead. The DM is not required to follow the rules.
No, cheating requires breaking the rules. If the DM wants to kill you he doesn't even have to roll dice, he can just say you're dead. The DM is not required to follow the rules.
Did you even read my last post regarding what the PHB says? If you didn't, go back and reread it. If you don't believe me, then look at the 4th ed. PHB.
I don't understand how so many people can be "trained" into thinking that the DM is a "god" of some world. It's a figment of our imaginations.:P
Did you even read my last post regarding what the PHB says? If you didn't, go back and reread it. If you don't believe me, then look at the 4th ed. PHB.
Yes, and GG adressed that. "Rocks fall, every dies." May not be fair (although you're technically treating all players equally... :D) but it is not cheating.
Also, the quoted section from the DMG trumps this, what with it being in, y'know the DMG.
No, what you're doing is trying to take my words out of context. Doesn't matter if the DM "created" the world or not, a fudged roll in order to purposely hurt a player's character is still cheating. What don't you understand?
No, I'm not trying to take your words out of context. What I'm trying to do is correcting the term you have used. It is not technically cheating. You know, like pointing out that inverted and reversed are two different things entirely. You can call it "cheating" with quotation marks. But it is. not. cheating.
What you don't understand is that your definition of cheating is off the target.
The simple premise here that greebo, and yourself are trying to do is futile. Any person who fudges a die roll, in order to gain advantage for themself [sic] is cheating. Their position in the game has nothing to do with it.
Their position in the game has everything to do with it, especially if you are the person who makes/changes the rules.
I repeat: you can't cheat if you are the DM because you can change the rules just because. And cheating involves breaking the rules. The DM can change/make a rule, therefore he/she can't cheat. however, the DM can be unfair or let's just say, be a dick. It's still not cheating, but it is in the realm of douchebaggery.
Did you even read my last post regarding what the PHB says? If you didn't, go back and reread it. If you don't believe me, then look at the 4th ed. PHB.
Again, the job of the DM and what the DM can do are two different things.
For example, I was commissioned to do an art portrait of a female elf. My job is to draw that portrait. However, I CAN put three scary dicks in her head.
My Job = draw portrait
What I Can Do = put dicks in her head
I don't understand how so many people can be "trained" into thinking that the DM is a "god" of some world. It's a figment of our imaginations.
No, not trained. It's called perception.
If you're living in the DnD world, and there's this entity who can kill you when he/she wants, who can put the people, monsters, trees and magical dancing pink ponies in that world so you can get, talk, ****, kill or burn them, and can change the rules of reality itself: wouldn't you view that person as a "god", or Supreme Being or whatever. Because frankly, he/she's a LOT more superior than you in that world, since he/she can bend the world itself according to what he/she wants.
Not a figment of our imaginations, my dear.
Pg. 8 from the 4th ed. player's handbook... and I quote...
Page 15 of the DM Guide 4th Edition, and I trump your Players Handbook with a higher authority.
Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge if you want to.
If two critical hits in a row would kill a character,
you might want to change the second critical hit to
a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t do it too often,
though, and don’t let on that you’re doing it, or the
other players feel as though they don’t face any real
risk—or worse, that you’re playing favorites.
Page 31 adds:
If you see the characters obviously overwhelmed in
an encounter, you can:
✦ give the characters an escape route;
✦ make intentionally bad choices for the monsters;
✦ “forget” to roll to see if monsters recharge their
powers;
✦ come up with a story reason for the monsters to
leave the fight; or
✦ let the monsters win, but leave the characters alive
for some reason.
So it's quite clear that the intention has never been that "dice rule, no room for interpretation", but rather that "The dice say whatever the DM needs them to say to make it a good story, to keep things moving, make sure everyone has fun and generally stop the game becoming no more than a wargame with roleplaying added on between battles"
No, I'm not trying to take your words out of context. What I'm trying to do is correcting the term you have used. It is not technically cheating. You know, like pointing out that inverted and reversed are two different things entirely. You can call it "cheating" with quotation marks. But it is. not. cheating.
What you don't understand is that your definition of cheating is off the target.
Their position in the game has everything to do with it, especially if you are the person who makes/changes the rules.
I repeat: you can't cheat if you are the DM because you can change the rules just because. And cheating involves breaking the rules. The DM can change/make a rule, therefore he/she can't cheat. however, the DM can be unfair or let's just say, be a dick. It's still not cheating, but it is in the realm of douchebaggery.
If you're going to be arguing linguistics/semantics with me, then this is the point where I see that we will agree to disagree. Bottom line. I pulled up some examples from dictionary.com.... The only thing is, I'm going to stand by my interpretation of what's going on. Look at #5 in cheating. That sums it up for me, and no.... The DM doesn't make the rules. (S)He can change the rules, or put a spin on it.... but not literally make it. That job is for the game designers at WOTC.
un⋅fair /ʌnˈfɛər/
–adjective 1. not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics: an unfair law; an unfair wage policy.
2. disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting: an unfair share.
cheat /tʃit/
–verb (used with object) 1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object) 4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
and no.... The DM doesn't make the rules. (S)He can change the rules, or put a spin on it.... but not literally make it. That job is for the game designers at WOTC.
DMs everywhere beg to differ.
DMs everywhere beg to differ.
All of a sudden, you speak for other DM's? That's a foolish thing to say.
I'm done with this thread. Every avenue of thought has been exhausted. Thank you.
Look at #5 in cheating. That sums it up for me, and no.... The DM doesn't make the rules. (S)He can change the rules, or put a spin on it.... but not literally make it.
Except technically the DM doesn't even need the sourcebooks. They could literally be like "grab a pound of d12s, we're gonna see where this goes".
Granted you're not really playing D&D anymore, but the point is, the DM is the one who has the final say in everything.
Also, this was brought up before, but it never got adressed and I'm curious.
So say you want to diplomacize a guard. If the DM says "You fail" it's not cheating, but if he rolls an opposed check and then says "You fail" then it is?
The DM can create their own monsters with an AC of 50 and a +75 to hit AC.
The DM can freely modify published content for their own use or make up their own.
Even in RPGA games where the content material is provided and the DM is *bound* by it, the DM does not have to meticulously follow every die roll he or she makes.
I'm sorry, but this thread *is* finished. Mainly because every argument you've provided has been countered, with references.
Note again though that we are *not* saying that the DM flagrantly ignoring and restructuring the rules is a good idea. But the DM has the power to change the nature of reality itself within the game. HOW the DM uses that power is what matters - if the DM does it to make the game better, he's a good DM. IF the DM does it to make the players miserable, he's a bad one.
Its best said simply: I'm the DM. I don't make the rules. I am the rules.
If you're going to be arguing linguistics/semantics with me, then this is the point where I see that we will agree to disagree. Bottom line. I pulled up some examples from dictionary.com.... The only thing is, I'm going to stand by my interpretation of what's going on. Look at #5 in cheating. That sums it up for me, and no.... The DM doesn't make the rules. (S)He can change the rules, or put a spin on it.... but not literally make it. That job is for the game designers at WOTC.
No, no, no. I think you really got it wrong again.
I am a DM. I house-ruled that you can't play Humans. I just made a rule. That goes against what you said:
(S)He can change the rules, or put a spin on it.... but not literally make it.
There's a whole forum dedicated to house-rules in here. Do you think we need to define "made" and "rule" too? It is pretty obvious, right?
And please: I would always check the dictionary for the definition of the word BEFORE using it. English is my second language, and even if I'm fluent at it, it's an old habit.
Your definition (the one in number 5) doesn't go against my definition because the DM cannot break or violate the rules, as pointed again and again and again (and redundancy is such a crime, I know).
Unless you have another definition of the word that would apply, I don't think you're heading to something.
All of a sudden, you speak for other DM's? That's a foolish thing to say.
Unless you've been living in a shell for 3 decades, DMs DO make rules for their own games. That's not a foolish thing to say. Playing everything RAW is fine and dandy, but most of the people I know don't play everything RAW. From what I've understood, RAW are more of guidelines for a more balanced game, but you are not required to follow JUST those rules and you sure are not allowed to BREAK or CHANGE them or MAKE RULES OF YOUR OWN.
Capslock for emphasis.
I might be a little idealistic, and maybe also a little green as a DM, but I see D&D, or any rpg, as communal storytelling where a number of participants can each engage in a common, enjoyable experience. The players each have the role of a main character whose life and times are being played out, the DM is the narrator. I really abhor the idea that it’s the DM vs. the players, the DM should be tailor making obstacles which the players may or may not surpass (and reward or punish them appropriately), not try to murder them at every corner.
I think a lot of this thread was spent with miscommunication between the “bad dm fudging rolls to screw players” and “good dm’s fudging rolls to improve the gaming experience” camps. Yes, there is a system of rules, but they are there to determine the outcome of situations which could potentially go either way, promoting a sense of accomplishment when it goes the player’s way. I mean the DM can always raise the bar to make it impossible, but when he does it in advance as part of the quest it’s fair, but on the spot it’s not. I mean, the DM can ALWAYS go out of their way to dues ex machina a situation; the castle explodes, the cavalry arrives, w/e. He can always just tack an extra monster on the combat roster if he really wants the PC’s to go down. But unless these events further the communal goals of players and DM, there is no reason to have them occur.
I follow the rules as best I can, but if an event is particularly bad for the story, or the experience, I will unabashedly change it and try to be on the sly. I will NEVER attempt to take away from the player's sense of accomplishment when in a fair but tough fight by dumbing it down, but I will look for further story arcs and side quests which may result as a consequence of success or failure. Maybe I misjudged an encounter; perhaps the regenerator is too much to handle or the average AC is too high, or they are so spent that the wyverns behind the next door will just vanish to close out the encounter… I’ll just lower it to the point where the PC’s are back in the fight for their lives, instead of a spanking by a handful of monsters that shouldn’t have been there in the first place (DM’s make mistakes). I will rarely force-feed a storyline to the PC’s. I can’t determine their character actions but I can make suggestions. But again as much as they may evade the main hook, the consequences of not engaging in it will be real, and will influence future events.
As a DM, what I want out of the game is to see my friends happy and engaged in the story that I’m narrating. I suppose a lot of this stems from the DM’s and player’s philosophies: is this a storytelling game with random dice encounters, or a game of dice-based encounters punctuated by a plotline.
Players without a DM is still a party. A DM without players…
Players without a DM is still a party. A DM without players…
...can play DnD solitaire.
Actually, the argument is not about “bad dm fudging rolls to screw players” and “good dm’s fudging rolls to improve the gaming experience”
but more of "we kind agree with you, but you have used the wrong term and we suggest that you change it so that there are no miscommunications." We're nitpicky, I know.
...can play DnD solitaire.
Actually, the argument is not about “bad dm fudging rolls to screw players” and “good dm’s fudging rolls to improve the gaming experience”
but more of "we kind agree with you, but you have used the wrong term and we suggest that you change it so that there are no miscommunications." We're nitpicky, I know.
Exactly. Cheating not only has extremely negative connotations (unless you're playing a Steve Jackson game), but it also has a definition that says that rules were broken. The DM is *always* within his or her rights to change the rules. The DM isn't just Judge, Jury and Executioner, the DM is also the House, Senate, and Oval Office (or insert your own entire governmental system here).
DM rule changing/ignoring/rewriting is in the context of D&D a NEUTRAL thing. Its a gun. Maybe the gun shoots a child (bad) maybe the gun shoots an intruder intent on killing your grandmother (good). (No, I'm not trying to start a gun debate). The gun isn't good or bad, it's a tool.
In D&D, rules are the DM's TOOLS. The rules are bound by the DM, not the DM by the rules.
Ergo, the DM cannot cheat!
But he can use the rules badly.
Exactly. Cheating not only has extremely negative connotations (unless you're playing a Steve Jackson game), but it also has a definition that says that rules were broken. The DM is *always* within his or her rights to change the rules. The DM isn't just Judge, Jury and Executioner, the DM is also the House, Senate, and Oval Office (or insert your own entire governmental system here).
DM rule changing/ignoring/rewriting is in the context of D&D a NEUTRAL thing. Its a gun. Maybe the gun shoots a child (bad) maybe the gun shoots an intruder intent on killing your grandmother (good). (No, I'm not trying to start a gun debate). The gun isn't good or bad, it's a tool.
In D&D, rules are the DM's TOOLS. The rules are bound by the DM, not the DM by the rules.
Ergo, the DM cannot cheat!
But he can use the rules badly.
I was going to quote your other posts as well, but it seems I had a glitch somewhere down the line. I'm already contradicting myself by posting again, even when I had said I didn't want to earlier. The DM you have envisioned here, is not the same DM I can picture. The DM is a part of the game, and they are in the game just as much as the players. Therefore the DM can cheat. If you place too much power in one seat, then it doesn't become the D&D that WOTC has put before us. WOTC has explicitly said that the DM is a rules referee, not a rules god.
Basically, we're arguing about what language is correct for what happens within the game, and what the DM can and cannot control. Like I said with Green_Girl, I'll have to agree that we'll just disagree.
No, no, no. I think you really got it wrong again.
I am a DM. I house-ruled that you can't play Humans. I just made a rule. That goes against what you said
Given the example that you just explained, you proved me wrong... except that doesn't normally happen. Majority of the time, the DM will tell the group what change they find fitting to better serve their game, and the group can agree or disagree with it as they like.
Given the example that you just explained, you proved me wrong... except that doesn't normally happen. Majority of the time, the DM will tell the group what change they find fitting to better serve their game, and the group can agree or disagree with it as they like.
Now who's speaking for the majority?
Now who's speaking for the majority?
Ok, let me rephrase it to make you happy. The majority of DM's that I have gamed with, have brought up changes to the game before they did anything. Got it, mmkay????
I want to roll a bluff check, and the group uses nat 20s as great successes and nat 1s as great failures. The DM allows me to roll a bluff check, and rolls insight for his character.
Situation: I roll a 20. DM rolls a 1.
Problem: the DM tells me I fail anyway.
By allowing me a roll, and by rolling the opposing check (given the crit success and crit failure houserules being applied), the DM has indicated and agreed that such an action is not impossible, though they may expect it to fail. By doing this and then changing the outcome, the DM has broken an agreement with players (sort of a social contract) and has cheated.
There are lots of times a DM can tweak dice and rules without strictly cheating, but going too far can be cheating. Though the DM has been given extreme privelages, if it goes beyond accepted and understood boundaries that are shared by the entire group, the DM is cheating.
If you must tweak an important roll, and the players are aware of it, tell them the monster had used its single healing surge earlier to drink a potion of clarity :P
As a side-note, I wouldn't surprise me if my DM in one campaign put us up against a group of NPCs that make excessive use of such potions, as the group has become particularly fond of them recently (although we're toning it down a bit). :D
Ok, let me rephrase it to make you happy. The majority of DM's that I have gamed with, have brought up changes to the game before they did anything. Got it, mmkay????
I think you're trying to say exactly what I do as a DM
Before a game/campaign, I state any houserules that I have planned, the terms of the game, etc. But, the more I Change, the less and less the game is Dungeons and Dragons, regardless of edition. They come to play with my Dming skills and world, and EVERYONE'S rules. I certainly expect my NPCs to work the same way as their PCs do, and likewise in reverse. If my Epic villain casts an amazing spell, or has some secret power, artifact, you had better believe someone I Wrote it down, its not story plot exclusive-jargon, and that if they wanted to they could learn it or pry it from my dead villain's soul and essence one day, perhaps.
As far as dice rolling goes, you CAN cheat. The second you go to roll while showing the intent that it is for some purpose, and then simply ignore it means just that. it doesn't matter if you can change the rules. (Likewise, a Dm can be both wrong and a bad DM at once.)
I think the idea behind that a Dm can cheat is this - we decide upon something. While we don't like the outcome, and can change it, that does not mean that what has just happened, (and that smart players are more than well aware what just happened.) Right there is when one cheats. That is at least how I see it. You're not god, but you do run the game. We agreed to play Dungeons and Dragons when we sat down together as a group, with whatever changed you wanted probably outlined.
And no, you can't say "My character dies" out of nowhere and that's it. can everyone in this thread stop saying that? Seriously.
I've posted the story of my first PC, Borg the Bold, elsewhere, so I'll spare the details of this poor SOB who never even made it to the dungeon. Suffice to say that each and every die roll the DM threw in a desperate attempt to save Borg could have easily been fudged as he was using a DM screen. Instead he let the dice fall where they may and Borg perished with 0XP. Such unpredictable realism hooked me on this game for life!
I don't know if I would have enjoyed it as much if he had let me slide. I might have gotten the feeling that he was giving me a break since I was the only girl in town who'd play, or because I was a beginner. Instead he offered me an NPC retainer to take over and Carl the Cautious retired a wealthy man! :D
I want to roll a bluff check, and the group uses nat 20s as great successes and nat 1s as great failures. The DM allows me to roll a bluff check, and rolls insight for his character.
Situation: I roll a 20. DM rolls a 1.
Problem: the DM tells me I fail anyway.
By allowing me a roll, and by rolling the opposing check (given the crit success and crit failure houserules being applied), the DM has indicated and agreed that such an action is not impossible, though they may expect it to fail. By doing this and then changing the outcome, the DM has broken an agreement with players (sort of a social contract) and has cheated.
Nope, the person in question just has a +9999 modifier to that skill :D.
And no, you can't say "My character dies" out of nowhere and that's it. can everyone in this thread stop saying that? Seriously.
Do you mean "my character dies" (spoken by the player) or "your character dies" (spoken by the DM), because the latter is very much possible. It's stupid, immature and destroys the fun, but the DM can say it. Seriously.
It's not the matter if he can say. It's more of if he should say it.
And no, you can't say "My character dies" out of nowhere and that's it. can everyone in this thread stop saying that? Seriously.
"You see a small child wearing a purple mask. He appears to start convulsing and stops just as abruptly. The moon begins to descend toward the earth. How's your fortitude save?"
The issue I have though, is that the DM is a referee and a narrator/storyteller for the game. They're not the god of a game, they're in the game just as much as the players. Don't forget guys, we're playing a game.... this isn't Death Race.
"You see a small child wearing a purple mask. He appears to start convulsing and stops just as abruptly. The moon begins to descend toward the earth. How's your fortitude save?"
I'd be thankful for either having a scroll to take me to another plane post haste (always should have this if you're 11th level and in 3.x version) or hope my possibly 2 rolls will get me a 20. or some way to go ethereal. Or, just hide inside a rope trick spell :P
No but seriously, what I was getting at is that no, a Dm does not have the right to decide if your character dies really. that would be incredibly lame. if a creature or ability, whatever within the confines of the game world, within consistency happens to get me, sure, I'm fine with that.
Also, about that bluff check problem - to be perfectly honest, You can't expect bluff and diplomacy to work RAW in 3.x really, I know 4.0s version is not much better. One of the big reasons is that to be honest, some NPCs need to be able to not get fooled by the very obvious. I mean, PCs have the benefit of not ever being able to be bluffed or have diplomacy/intimidate used on them in any shape or form.
a Dm does not have the right to decide if your character dies really.
In what sense.
Because nothing stops the DM from saying "You suffer a fatal brain aneurysm, you die."
Certainly, any sane player would leave such a game because all the DM abuses of power that have been mentioned here in thread are things that are likely to leave the DM suddenly without a game.
But the point is that they're abuses of power, the DM has the power. If the DM says you just died in the game world, then you died in the game world because the DM has full and total control over the game world.
"You see a small child wearing a purple mask. He appears to start convulsing and stops just as abruptly. The moon begins to descend toward the earth. How's your fortitude save?"
Sorry, what?
And it was more funny because this was 3.5, and my character had a pump to poison resistance equal to something like +40... at level 4. So yeah, immune to poison.
Anyhow, as a DM I have the most problems with annoying players who demand I cheat in favor of them - "boo hoo my character which is the greatest threat to the big bad and who charged at him and unloaded all of my dailies on him is now getting pwned because everybody else stood back".
No but seriously, what I was getting at is that no, a Dm does not have the right to decide if your character dies really. that would be incredibly lame. if a creature or ability, whatever within the confines of the game world, within consistency happens to get me, sure, I'm fine with that.
So "A wizard telepeports in behind you and casts maximized disintegrate for 240 damage. Is your AC or fortitude save greater than 2700?"
Sorry, what?
Moon falls, everyone dies. :D
So "A wizard telepeports in behind you and casts maximized disintegrate for 240 damage. Is your AC or fortitude save greater than 2700?"
Moon falls, everyone dies. :D
Sure, if the group of players thinks its fine for the DM to do this. If there's a general understanding that the DM will be reasonable, then it isn't right for the DM to do this.
If there's a general understanding that the DM will be reasonable, then it isn't right for the DM to do this.
Oh, certainly. No one's arguing that it's not a ***** move. The key point is that it's not cheating.